Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board

Australian Wikipedians' notice board

Portal | Project | Board | Alerts | Deletions | To-Do | Category | Related | Help

WikiProjects edit | watch	In the news edit | watch
WikiProject Australia Australian Wikipedians' Notice Board Australian Wikipedians Wikipedians in Australia Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight New Australian articles WikiProject Australian places New South Wales Riverina Northern Territory Queensland South Australia Tasmania Victoria Western Australia Australian Antarctic Territory Australian WikiProject Cities Adelaide Canberra Melbourne Perth Geelong Sydney Other Australia-related WikiProjects The 5000 Challenge Biota Cinema Crime Demographics Education History Exploration Maritime Military Indigenous peoples Noongar Law Literature Music Crowded House Kylie Minogue Powderfinger Politics Sports Association football Australian rules football Baseball Basketball Motorsport Television Transport Roads WikiTowns Freopedia Toodyaypedia	7 July 2025 – 2023 Leongatha mushroom murders Erin Patterson is found guilty on all charges regarding deaths from Amanita poisoning from a lunch at her home in Leongatha, Australia. (ABC News Australia) 2 July 2025 – Quadrilateral Security Dialogue Australia, India, Japan, and the United States announce a joint initiative to work towards securing minerals necessary for new technologies and reduce reliance on Chinese sources. (DW) (The Guardian) 2 July 2025 – Australian airline Qantas is hit by a cyberattack affecting a third-party platform used by its call centre, compromising the personal data of up to 6 million customers. (ABC News Australia) 1 July 2025 – An Australian east coast low rapidly intensifies as it makes landfall on the east coast of Australia, affecting millions of people in Sydney and the Central Coast. (The Sydney Morning Herald) 16 June 2025 – Thai police raid a house in Samut Prakan province, Thailand, and arrest 13 foreigners, mostly Australians and British people, for running a fraudulent electronic trading platform that has stolen over AU$1.9 million (US$1.2 million). (AP) 11 June 2025 – Australian flag carrier Qantas announces the closure of its Singapore-based, partly owned low-cost airline Jetstar Asia due to rising costs and regional competition. (BBC News)
Categories edit | watch	On this day in Australia edit | watch
Australia · Arts · Architecture · Cities · Communications · Culture · Economy · Education · Environment · Geography · Government · Healthcare · History · Law · Language · Lists · Media · Military · Music · Organisations · People · Politics · Religion · Science · Society · Sport · Subdivisions · Transport · Tourism Australian states and territories · Australian Capital Territory · New South Wales · Northern Territory · Queensland · South Australia · Tasmania · Victoria · Western Australia Capital cities · Adelaide · Brisbane · Canberra · Darwin · Hobart · Melbourne · Perth · Sydney Australia stubs · AFL stubs · Geography stubs · Government stubs · Law stubs · People stubs · Paralympic medalists stubs · Television stubs	21 July: George Gawler 1795 – George Gawler, second Governor of South Australia, is born in Southsea. 1961 – Morris Iemma, Premier of New South Wales, is born. 1991 – Greek tanker Kirki spills 17,280 tons of crude oil off the coast of Western Australia, the biggest oil spill in Australian waters. More Australian anniversaries...
To-Do edit | watch	Announcements edit | watch
Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Australia: Requests · Ariadne Australia · Awakenings Festival · Drought Force · Electoral reform in Australia · Fossils of Australia · Landforms of Australia · Oral health in Australia · Pop music in Australia · Sculpture of Australia Articles needing attention · Australian contemporary dance · Balance of payments of Australia · Crime in Australia · Environment of Australia · Gender inequality in Australia · Privacy in Australian law · Secession in Australia · Tourism in Australia Images requested · Bali Nine · Cheryl Kernot · Fire of Australia opal · Poppy King · James Moore · MV Pacific Adventurer · Neil the Seal · OneAustralia · Australian major cricket venues Verification needed · 2003 Canberra bushfires · Architecture of Australia · Australian performance poetry · FreeTV Australia · Hindmarsh Island Royal Commission · List of political controversies in Australia · Norfolk Air · Punk rock in Australia Quality watch: 64 FL-Class Australia lists 407 FA-Class Australia articles 711 GA-Class Australia articles 155 FP-Class Australian pictures	Featured article candidates Operation Mosaic – Discussion Featured article review Kylie Minogue – Review Good article candidates Moira Deeming — Discussion Ellenbrook line — Discussion Canning Bridge railway station — Discussion Bruce Lehrmann — Discussion Bell railway station, Melbourne — Discussion Preston railway station, Melbourne — Discussion Sleepwalker (EP) — Discussion Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme — Discussion Neil Robertson — Discussion Timebomb (Kylie Minogue song) — Discussion New York City (Kylie Minogue song) — Discussion Right Here, Right Now (Giorgio Moroder song) — Discussion John Lynch (linguist) — Discussion Joint Geological and Geophysical Research Station — Discussion Nick McKenzie — Discussion The Hand That Signed the Paper — Discussion Good article reassessment Lord Howe Island — Discussion Requests for adminship none currently General announcements Grants: Project Announcement - Women's Art Register Art+Feminism Event Planned meetups Perth – 13 April 2025 Brisbane – To be decided Peer review James Cook — Review Deletion discussions

RfC: The convention for naming Australian place articles

There is a proposal to change the statements of the convention for naming (and renaming) articles about Australian places. Innesw (talk) 08:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC) - relisted TarnishedPath^talk 08:05, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Proposal:
A. There should be a single place for the statement of the convention for naming articles on Australian places. Proposed new page: Wikipedia:Naming Conventions (Australian Places)

• The statements at Project Australian Places and geographic naming conventions, Australia should be replaced with 'see:' links to the new page
• The WP:NCAUST shortcut should be changed to link to the new page

B. The new page to read as follows:
[Reference numbers in [] have been added to the lines, for the purposes of the RfC discussion. They will be removed once a final text is agreed.]

Below are the conventions for articles on Australian places.

== Naming of Articles ==
Australian Settled Places (towns, cities, suburbs, localities etc.)

• [1] Articles about Australian settled places may have names in one of two forms: "placename, state" or "placename"
• [2] Where the place name has or is likely to have other uses, a link from the appropriate disambiguation page should be made (eg. Darwin contains a link to Darwin, Northern Territory, and Kingston contains links to several Australian towns).
• [3] Where "placename, state" is used, a redirect from "placename" should be made whenever the name by itself does not presently require disambiguation (eg: Nowra redirects to Nowra, New South Wales), and from a nickname if it's extremely common (eg. Wagga).
• [4] Where the "placename, state" format still has conflicts (such as Springfield, Victoria and Springfield, Victoria (Macedon Ranges)) add a regional term to the secondary location. Often this can be the local government area, but a more general term may be necessary when the less notable one spans multiple LGAs.
• [5] State or territory names should not be abbreviated in article titles.
• New Articles

[6] For new articles, either form of article name is acceptable, unless disambiguation or other reasons require the use of "placename, state"

• Moving / Renaming Existing Articles

[7] For existing articles, renaming from one name form to the other should not be done unless there is some other good reason to do it

• [7.1] existing articles using "placename, state" should not be renamed just because the state-name disambiguation is reckoned unnecessary, nor because WP:PRIMARYTOPIC allows it, nor based on an argument for 'consistency' with practice outside Australia
• [7.2] existing articles using "placename" should not be renamed based on an argument for 'consistency' with previous practice or to achieve the same form across Australian place articles. It may however become necessary for disambiguation.

[8] Note: For a long period the convention for Australian settled places was that all articles (with only a few stated exceptions) should be named using the "placename, state" form. Various statements of the convention have allowed the number of articles using the "placename" form to grow in number. Both forms are now accepted.

Other Places

• [9] Local government areas should be at their official name.
• [10] Cadastral divisions should be at their name (eg: Hunter County or County of Bourke), with the state name appended if required for disambiguation
  • [10.1] The form of name ('County of ...' or '... County') should be consistent within a single state.

== Infobox ==

• [11] All Australian place articles should use {{Infobox Australian place}}. The infobox requires both |type= and |state= to be set. All articles should also set |name=placename.

See also: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Australian roads)

---

[Templates & Categories on the page]

{{Wikipedia subcat guideline|naming convention|Australian places|WP:NCAUST}}
[[Category:Australia Wikipedia administration|naming, places]]
[[Category:Wikipedia naming conventions (geographic names)|A]]

• Support as Proposer:
  • Part (A) ensures there is a single statement of the Australian conventions, to which editors can refer without ambiguity or finding conflicts between different texts
  • Part (B) is largely derived from the two existing statements (at Project Australian Places and geographic naming conventions, Australia (= current WP:NCAUST)), in that it allows both name forms for articles. But it now also prevents unnecessary moves / renames between the two. (Moves are not banned outright, but using an argument for 'consistency', or an argument based on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, is no longer sufficient to allow a move.)
  • The number of articles with the "placename" form, for Australian settled places, seems now to be about 15% of the total. The fact that form has grown so much means the number of articles using it is now too large to be reversible.
    • Of the approximately 12,000 articles for towns and suburbs, that makes about 1,800 use "placename"
    • (For those interested, the percentage figure was derived from template parameters data for Template:Infobox Australian place with type=town, then counting the number of articles on pages 1, 11, 21, 31, and 41 of the articles listing. The same was done for type=suburb. For the 500 articles listed in each case, the figure was 15.6% for type=town, and 14.0% for type=suburb. The data is as of 1 Apr 2025.)

We now have so many articles using "placename, state", and so many using "placename", it is no longer sensible to enforce one over the other. The egg is now scrambled, we can't un-scramble it, we just need to get used to the use of either form of article name.

• I am somewhat in two minds about [8]. On the one hand it detracts from a clean statement of Australian practice. On the other it explains why we now accept either of the two forms of article name. On balance I'd rather keep it.
• The statement about allowing disambiguation using a city name instead of <state> (as found at Project Australian Places) has been dropped, because the only existing case I could find was The Block (Sydney). All other examples now seem to be redirects to "placename, state".
• Frankly, we are wasting a lot of time on move / rename requests that will not improve the ordinary reader's ability to find an article. If they don't know about the previous convention, "placename" will be the article directly, a redirect to "placename, state", or a disambiguation page. And if searching in the WP search bar, the short descriptions should provide all the further detail they might need. If they do know about the previous convention, and the article is at "placename", in most cases there will be a redirect from "placename, state" after a requested move. There may be a case for ensuring redirects exist in both directions, though I haven't added it to the proposed text of the convention - maybe getting those redirects in place is a task for a bot?

Innesw (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• support as it documents accepted practice but still prefer placename, state and geographic(state) as default Gnangarra 06:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Proposal to close:

There having been no responses to this RfC in the 7 days it has been open, I propose to close it within a few more days unless a discussion actually begins. Innesw (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this, and will leave a reply some time soon, there is a lot to address here however. Viatori (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this was the best fora for this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 05:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

no rush to close, school holidays, long weekends theres been lots of interuptions. Give people time to think it through even though its documenting the current practice. Gnangarra 06:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Innesw, please do not close. I am also intending on making a detailed reply, however there is much to consider here and life off wiki has been busy! Remember, there is no deadline. I would like to reply by giving this matter the attention it deserves to match the work you put into crafting it! Dfadden (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok, no close, and thanks for showing interest. I was perhaps a bit early with that, but the apparent lack of interest was getting to me. Re: the correct forum, I've found other more specialist forums in the Australian space (including Australian Places) have so few participants that meaningful discussions just don't happen. We could move the discussion if people wish. Innesw (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

No! Do not close! Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. First of all, thank you innesw for pulling the proposal together. I think it is a great first step towards resolving the issues and stopping us wasting time on considering so many RMs, but I do have some reservations that prevent me from fully supporting it as written. I have summarised my main concerns below and provided some amendments to the proposal for consideration:

• [1] - As I have stated in the previous discussion, WP:NCAUST is not specific enough by saying that articles may use just "placename". This does not provide sufficient clarity around when it is appropriate to omit or include the state/territory. This has resulted in a number of grouped RMs being opened on the grounds of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, however these discussions had limited participation, particular outside of Australian editors or those with a local interest. This proposal goes some way to address this by preventing RMs being opened on the basis of PRIMARYTOPIC alone. However, it does still not provide specific guidance around when state/territory should or should not be included.
• [2] - see my proposed amendments below
• [3], [4], [5] - Support as proposed.
• [6] - Disagree. For new articles, the convention should continue to be "placename, state", except in cases where it is unambiguous (such as indigenous placenames). I refer to the many previous RMs at Talk:Mosman. While it was successfully argued in the most recent RM that the name is unique, several previous RMs also concluded that disambiguation was necessary to differentiate from Mossman, Queensland due to a very similar spelling (in fact, some historic sources use the same spelling for both places). Another example would be Castlecrag, New South Wales, which does appear to be unique and was listed in an RM, but was not moved as editors pointed out that there are numerous other places and landmarks with their own articles called Castle Crag/Castle Crags/Castlecrag Mountain/Castlecraig. A convention that requires disambiguation as the default would issues like the above, without requiring places like Ulladulla be unnecessarily disambiguated.
• [7] - I have some reservations with regards to not restoring any of the recent changes that resulted from the RMs of large groups of articles. When I raised with closers that these RMs should be considered with caution in light of these ongoing discussions. Several closers were of the view that any changes could easily be reverted if a clear consensus emerged here. However, 7.1 and 7.2 appears to close the door on this entirely and locks in inconsistency, especially if the premise that PRIMARYTOPIC alone is not justification for a name change going forward.
• [8] - I think we should drop 8, as I strongly believe that consistency should be something we strive for. As already stated at [7], we should only deviate from an agreed standard where there is a clear reason to do so. Most people reading an encyclopedia expect it to be formatted in a consistent way as that makes information easier to find. Codifying it this way allows deviation from style conventions because it is easier in some cases (or because an editor may not be aware of places outside of their home state/country with similar names) and harms the project overall.
• [9], [10], [11] - Support as proposed.

SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO PROPOSAL

Australian Settled Places (towns, cities, suburbs, localities etc.)

Inserts the following text in place of [2], while the existing text becomes [2.1};

• Where a place name is clearly unambiguous, "placename" may be used alone. This includes when the name is clearly unique, such as most indigenous place names; where the place is a capital or major regional city and also satisfies WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; or where there is otherwise no potential for confusion with another place (including outside of Australia), landmark or subject. In all other cases, "placename, state" should be used as the default. This includes where there are similarly named places that vary only in spelling or spaces (eg. Castlecrag, New South Wales and Castle Crag, or Broadmeadow, New South Wales and Broadmeadows, Victoria

• [2.1] Where the place name has or is likely to have other uses, a link from the appropriate disambiguation page should be made (eg. Darwin contains a link to Darwin, Northern Territory, and Kingston contains links to several Australian towns).

Moving / Renaming Existing Articles

[7] For existing articles, renaming from one name form to the other should not be done unless there is some other good reason to do it

• [7.1] existing articles using "placename, state" should not be renamed just because the state-name disambiguation is reckoned unnecessary, nor because WP:PRIMARYTOPIC allows it. nor based on an argument for 'consistency' with practice outside Australia
• [7.2] existing articles using "placename" should only be renamed where it is clearly necessary for disambiguation.

Dfadden (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Dfadden for the detailed and considered response.

My commentary on your comments (on my ... aagh! ;-) ):

• [1] - My draft was just an introductory statement, and I don't think you are suggesting any re-wording.
• [2] - in preference to my initial 'either form ... is acceptable' for new articles (my [6]), I'm happy to use your new [2] lines, though they possibly need a little further tightening up (remove 'may'?) to be more definite statements of when to use which form.

• The 'reasons for just placename' and 'reasons for placename, state' can be separate points
• I take your point about similar names (spelling and spaces) justifiying disambiguation. It's worth separating as a sub-point, with my initial [2] (your [2.1]), and [3], [4] and [5] as further sub-points.

• [6] - dropped, see above
• [7] - re: your re-wordings of [7.1] and [7.2], I agree with both of them.
• Re your comments on reverting recent moves, I don't want to start another battle over how far we go back and do this. The wiki-lawyer in me says 'what was done was done under the old rules, let it stand', though for the very recent ones (those that acknowledge this discussion) if they want to apply the new rules instead of the old ones, that would be valid too.
• [8] - Was intended just as a historical note explaining why we have the inconsistency we do. If you read it as justifying inconsistency, that was not my intention. Would 'Historical Note' help as a heading?
• Re consistency generally, yes it would be great (I presume everybody supports it as a principle), but for existing Australian-place articles I think we have now missed that boat.

---

• I've realised that, with the restrictions we are putting on renaming existing articles, most of the detailed guidelines on how to name an article only apply to new articles - so in the following draft I've moved the 'New Articles' heading to above [2]. Hopefully this will prevent statements about how to name articles being regarded as 'general', and used in RM arguments.

So, DRAFT 3 (just the 'naming of settled places articles' section) in short form (all full texts are above):

[1] Articles about Australian settled places may have names in one of two forms: "placename, state" or "placename".

New Articles

• [2] Where a place name is clearly ... landmark or subject.
• [2.0] In all other cases ... default.

• [2.1] Where the place name has or is likely to have other uses ... Australian towns).
• [2.2] This includes where there are similarly named places ... Broadmeadows, Victoria.
• [3] Where "placename, state" is used, a redirect from "placename" ... Wagga).
• [4] Where the "placename, state" form still has conflicts ... multiple LGAs.
• [5] State or territory names should not be abbreviated in article titles.

Existing Articles

• [7.1] Existing articles using "placename, state" should not be renamed just because the state-name disambiguation is reckoned unnecessary, nor because WP:PRIMARYTOPIC allows it.
• [7.2] Existing articles using "placename" should only be renamed where it is clearly necessary for disambiguation.

[8] Historical Note: ... forms are accepted.

Innesw (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:NCAUST is fine as it is, Additionaly, we should not be having seperate rules for new and exisiting articles. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Support (3rd draft) text and creating the new page Wikipedia:Naming Conventions (Australian Places)

– MrAussieGuy (Talk) 01:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Broad support. I was deeply involved in the original establishment of the standard naming of settlement articles in the form "<placename>, <state>" many years ago. It created then and continues to provide confidence for editors that they are not creating duplicate articles, and reduces the chance of inadvertently linking to wrong or disambiguation pages due to a word being clearly a placename for that editor, but clearly something else or somewhere else for other people. The convention also provides a reliable single title for future articles that have not been written yet, without risk of future events creating a new "primary topic" for a name. I have always regarded ", <state>" as a qualifying term, not just a disambiguator. It's a necessary part of an address. The undermining and chipping away at the standard naming convention contributed to me taking my first long wikibreak for mental health reasons. Centralising the guidelines to one unambiguous source of guidance (Proposal part A) should prevent multiple slightly different versions being used to create doubt and foment uncertainty. While I'm disappointed there are so many pages already moved, I support a clear statement that the status quo should remain and new articles continue to be created as "<placename>, <state>" with redirects if necessary. --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support though my preference is for location, state as default I can accept this wording in Draft 3. Gnangarra 04:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose section [7.1] Probably would be better if it was written like "You may, but are not required to" or something like that Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Happy to consider alternative wording, but I oppose the use of the word "may". After all, this whole dispute arises because WP:NCAUST is too vague in saying ...the name of a city or town may be used alone if the place is the primary or only topic for that name. We really need something definitive or we are going to end up with more of the same. How about something like:

[7.1] Existing articles using "placename, state" should not be renamed unless there is a compelling reason to do so (eg. not just because WP:PRIMARYTOPIC allows it)? Dfadden (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Dfadden, "may" lacks definiteness and is part of the cause of the rename arguments. Innesw (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

• Claim of overriding policy The claim has been made at one of the current move discussions that "[This] RFC is not going to change anything about WP:PTOPIC which is a controlling guideline sitting above any local consensus." I presume this is not in fact the case, as it would invalidate not only any Australian convention but presumably also the convention in the US. Innesw (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: WP:NCAUST is fine as is and as stated by GMH Melbourne we shouldn't have inconsistent rules about new and existing pages. TarnishedPath^talk 09:45, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
• Suppport I agree that it is too late to unscramble the egg and I am sick and tired of the PRIMARY discussions (very much in the eye of the beholder). So I would like to see no further unnecessary article names being changed. Nobody seems to have picked up on Gnangarra's point about natural (rivers, mountains) and non-natural (towns, suburb plcess), e.g. between Dutton River (Queensland) for a river (a natural place) and Dutton River, Queensland for a locality (as a non-natural place). I would like to see that convention retained. Obviously there can be some argument over some specifics, e.g. whether a lake created by a dam is natural or not (I'd argue the dam is non-natural but the lake is natural, mainly because someone is bound to have named a nearby town/suburb/locality Lake Whatever, whereas it is unlikely there would a completely natural lake of the same name nearby to be confused with the impoundment). But broadly we do know the difference between natural and non-natural feature types and commons sense probably resolves the rare curly cases. Kerry (talk) 04:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• Without wading through all of this, with its competing proposals, I would say that, per WP:CONCISE and WP:DAB, this needs to default to "<Placename>", and only advise using "<Placename>, <State>" when necessary for disambiguation, same as is applied to most of the rest of the world. The US has become an exception because of its size, the number of settled places in it, and the extreme frequency of duplicate <Placename> elements just in different states. The US case is the exception, not a model to follow elsewhere. And even for the US, a <Placename> with high world-wide recognition (akin to Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra in .au) lacks the ", <State>" appendage (e.g. Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, New Orleans, Atlanta). That is, even in the situation where the community has accepted not going with the shortest form by default, we still go with the shortest form anyway when there isn't a compelling reason to use the longer form. PS: Like Kerry_Raymond I agree with "Gnangarra's point about natural (rivers, mountains) and non-natural (towns, suburb plcess), e.g. between Dutton River (Queensland) for a river (a natural place) and Dutton River, Queensland for a locality (as a non-natural place)". This, too, is commonly done elsewhere, and there's not an Australia-specific reason to do differently.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

+1 TarnishedPath^talk 13:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Hi all, I had made a request for closure of this RFC at WP:CR and was informed that per WP:PROPOSAL, notifications should be made to WT:AT, WT:NCGN, WP:VPP or WP:VPPR and that this RFC should go for at least another 30 days after those notifications are made. TarnishedPath^talk 03:23, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I half-support your proposal to close. Bringing the discussion to a conclusion would be good (as it is now over 9 weeks since draft 3), but - even if at a very slow pace - the discussion does continue to run, and hopefully the slow pace indicates thoughtful rather than knee-jerk responses. (I have learnt the lesson of my earlier proposal to close, which was rightly shouted down.) So I would ask for a fairly long period before a close, and perhaps even a draft decision before a formal close. Innesw (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Well it needs to run for at least another 30 days. TarnishedPath^talk 07:10, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose this makes the current guideline more confusing and just seems to suggest its fine to use either the state or not to use it, which goes against WP:CONSISTENCY. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I very much agree with @SMcCandlish on this one. It follows the mostly unproblematic choice made for Canadian place names and avoids the pre-disambiguating morass of the US naming convention.

I have not read through all of the back and forth, but regarding the OP's comments about using city name for disambiguation, (e.g., The Block (Sydney)), there are in fact several articles that use city name rather than state with commas rather than parentheses (e.g., Broadway, Sydney, Crestwood, Sydney, Tulliallan, Melbourne). I would suggest that places within a city/town are better disambiguated by the city/town name rather than the state. I'd also suggest picking one format (parenthetical or comma) for such localities. It is not a universal convention, but some areas have chosen to use comma convention for populated places and parentheses for geographical features (such as lakes, rivers, islands). older ≠ wiser 10:50, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• Re: consistency: The proposal was drafted in the belief consistency in this space is a lost cause. About 15% of existing articles use placename, the rest use placename, state, and if consistency is desired a large (c.1,800) or very large (10,000+) number of articles would have to be renamed. I don't really like it, but it is the reality we are in. Given this reality for existing articles, it didn't feel necessary for the proposal to enforce one name form or the other on new articles. However the proposal does give more definite rules about when to use which name form for new articles, rather than WP:NCAUST's permissive 'may do x'. It is the current WP:NCAUST that has got us into this mess. It needs to be replaced with something more definite, and which stops the continuing renaming proposals.
  

Re: city for disambiguation: Broadway, Sydney is a road, and subject to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Australian roads) not the convention under discussion here (though I don't know what the roads community's disambiguation practices are). Tulliallan, Melbourne is subject to a notability query. The number of exisiting articles using ', cityname' seems to be very small, but if in fact it's not, I'd be happy to re-include the option in the convention - but for disambiguation purposes only (eg: Ascot, Bendigo and Ascot, Ballarat). BTW, if the Infobox in the article has |type=suburb and |city=cityname, the city name will appear in the short desciption in WP searches anyway.

Re: commas or parentheses: I agree we should continue to use commas for settled places and parentheses for natural features, whatever the second part content is.
Innesw (talk) 01:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Merge proposal UTC+08:45 -> Time in Australia

There is a discussion at Talk:Time_in_Australia#Merge_proposal, proposing that UTC+08:45 be merged into Time in Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 09:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Icehouse (band)

Icehouse (band) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

York Park

• Talk:York_Park#Update_for_relevancy?

Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Anthony Pratt (businessman) #Requested move 16 July 2025

There is a erequested move at Talk:Anthony Pratt (businessman) #Requested move 16 July 2025 that may be to interest of members of this project. Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Misleading title

Charles Todd was a British astronomer who was brought out to South Australia in 1854 as the Government's Astronomical and Meteorological Observer, and Head of Electric Telegraph Department. Our article was once titled Charles Todd (astronomer), having been allocated an accurate if insufficient dab term. "Pioneer", is however a misnomer. He arrived long after Sturt, Flinders, and Eyre and the rest. He was appropriately well-paid, well equipped and highly esteemed. He was not even a pioneer in the field of electric telegraphy in South Australia: that honor belongs to James Macgeorge, who ran a single wire to Port Adelaide via backstreets as he was denied access to railway property and main roads. Todd ran his balanced pairs along a more favorable route using the best available technology, no expense spared, then demolished Macgeorge's still-profitable line.

I propose that Charles Todd be made the primary topic for this name, there being no other claimant, but invite criticism. Doug butler (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

As for being notable, building the Overland Telegraph Line is a fair argument. Doug butler (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

If you think that the astronomer is the primary topic, then start a WP:RM. TarnishedPath^talk 02:42, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks TP. I was thinking of DIY, as it looks clear-cut and not difficult to implement, but hoping for a little feedback. Doug butler (talk) 03:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Doug butler; I agree with your suggestion that he become the primary topic, astronomer didn't fit and pioneer is hardly better. He is an important man in Australian history so it would be fantastic if you could make this change! Aliceinthealice (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Australian road

Template:Infobox Australian road has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page.– MrAussieGuy (Talk) 12:10, 20 July 2025 (UTC)