Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board
Australian Wikipedians' notice board
Portal | Project | Board | Alerts | Deletions | To-Do | Category | Related | Help
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. | |
local maps in infobox Australian place not working
[edit]I am seeing lots of Queensland place articles which use local maps displaying a sea of blue, which, when you zoom in, turn out to be Null Island. Today it's every map not working. Yesterday about half seemed to work and the other half didn't. On some place articles, it never seems to work. Does anyone know anything about local maps who can hazard a guess why it isn't working, why it sometimes randomly doesn't work, and why it never works at all for some articles? It feels like something that was a good idea at the time, but maybe nobody is maintaining it any more? Kerry (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Kerry, {{Infobox Australian place}} just calls {{Infobox mapframe}} to produce the local map, and something seems to have gone drastically wrong with something the latter depends on (as the template itself hasn't changed in years). It's not just us. On it's own page: it's not showing a map at the top; in its 'Basic usage examples' it's showing a map if the OpenStreetMap feature is a point (the example is Melbourne), but not if it's a line or an area; its geomask examples are just showing a map of the world; none of its 'Zoom from length/area examples' are showing a map. I'll put a note on the talk page, but at this stage I think we'll have to wait until the mapping experts get it fixed or reverted. Innesw (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- This is also being discussed at WP:VPT#Maplink wikidata broken?. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Having seen that, I won't bother the Infobox mapframe talk page with it, it seems to be a more global issue. We'll just have to wait. Innesw (talk) 04:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's now (mostly) fixed. Somebody did something technical with a backend service (which had this effect on maps they didn't expect), but they've reversed it and in general tha maps now work. There do seem to be some outstanding issues if {{Infobox mapframe}} is called directly with some parameters, but {{Infobox Australian place}} local maps seem to be back to normal. Innesw (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- I agree a lot are working agin, but I am still seeing Null Island at Columbia, Queensland and Richmond Hill, Queensland (articles I was visiting for other reasons). I tried purging them to force a refresh but still no local maps. Having said that, I don't know if those maps ever worked previously. But they both have normal coords in the infobox. Is some greater magic required? Kerry (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
- I've looked into {{Infobox mapframe}}, and in its FAQs it states that, for a map to display the OSM object referred to in the Wikidata, that object needs to contain a 'wikidata' tag back to the WD item. Neither Columbia nor Richmond Hill have that tag, while nearby Charters_Towers_City,_Queensland does, and the local_map shows its boundary. I've now added the tag to Columbia, but it could take a couple of days for WP to recognise it. If that works we have a complicated task of adding tags to OSM objects. Innesw (talk) 04:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- Large tasks can often be semi-automated. "Complicated" ones perhaps less so. So tell me, by way of an example (say Richmond Hill) what it is that has to be changed and where you get the value it has to be given as a starting point to seeing how do-able the task is. Kerry (talk) 08:07, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- At the very least, a video tutorial showing how the task is done would be helpful. Oronsay (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- Large tasks can often be semi-automated. "Complicated" ones perhaps less so. So tell me, by way of an example (say Richmond Hill) what it is that has to be changed and where you get the value it has to be given as a starting point to seeing how do-able the task is. Kerry (talk) 08:07, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- Having added both 'wikidata' and 'wikipedia' tags to the OSM relation for Columbia, and waited over three days for WP servers to catch up, nothing has changed - the local_map still shows Null Island. I've looked at the relevant Wikidata and OSM items, and I can see no reason why Charters Towers City works but Columbia does not. I'll take it up at WP:VPT#Infobox_map_not_rendering_properly in the hope of a better answer. Innesw (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- It now seems that we just had to wait for servers to catch up with our adding the 'wikidata' tag to the OSM object. Columbia, Queensland is now showing the correct map, and the same issue with Richmond Hill, Queensland has been solved the same way (Canley added the tag to that OSM item 8 days ago).
- The solution to our issue now seems to have been found. Now when we find the problem, we just have to ensure the OSM object pointed to in the wikidata has a 'wikidata' tag back to the WD item. But it seems we may have to wait as long as a week to see the fix actually have an effect and show the requested map.
- I wonder if at least identifying {{Infobox Australian place}} pages with the problem can be automated, even if the fix itself can't be. Innesw (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- Using AutoWikiBrowser, we can easily identify articles with that infobox which have a local_map field. But I don't think there is any way to tell if that map is rendering except by looking at the rendered article. If it isn't, then the next step is to go to the Wikidata item and check the tags you mention to see if they are correctly set up. And if not, set them up. Then wait very patiently.
- I guess we have an opposite side to the problem, which is Australian place articles which aren't using local_map currently but have a type for which local maps might be available. Again, easy enough to identify the articles with the infobox, the correct type, but without the local_map field. But I am a little unclear what the next step is on WikiData, do we have the outline maps for all localities just waiting to be used or do they need to be set up somehow or a bit of both? Kerry (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- I note that saying something can be "easily done" is written without having actually tried it. Sometimes things are not as easy as you think! Kerry (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- I've spent a couple of days trying to find a mechanism for WP to access the tag data for an OSM object - without success. It seems the only OSM things WP can show are an actual map, or a link that shows a map - and if the resulting map is of Null Island, there is no way for WP to detect that. I think all we can do is advise editors that if they get a map that is just plain blue, the likely problem is with the OSM data, and point to instructions (Module_talk:Mapframe/FAQ question 4, and mw:Help:Extension:Kartographer/OSM) on how to fix it.
- I'll add a note with this advice to the {{Infobox Australian place}} documentation. Innesw (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry Kerry, I think we had an edit overlap there! We both came to the same conclusion - we can't tell in advance if a local_map is going to fail because of lack of the OSM tag back to wikidata, all we can do is look at the result. For ensuring that we have other data to support local_map, we can check that (a) the page has a link to wikidata and (b) that that wikidata has a link to an OSM object. I would think virtually all the formal localities have had these done, so the problem won't be with the wikidata itself (though the Infobox template itself could check, and add pages to tracking categories for 'local map not supported by wikidata' and 'local map not requested, but wikidata support is present for it'). As far as the outlines of the localities on OSM go, it seems a general update of boundaries (and import of new ones - Columbia was new then) was done in September 2020, so another check/update is probably due. But it needs to ensure the wikidata tags are there too! Innesw (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
- I can't speak for other states, but the Queensland locality boundaries do change a certain amount all the time. There are amalgamations and deamalgamations of localities, shifting boundaries in response to major instructure (e.g. a freeway), etc. These probably are of a scale that will show as wrong with a local map. There are all the many "minor" or "technical changes" which are generally involving the amalgamating or splitting of a piece of land that sits adjacent to a locality boundary that may cause the boundary of the locality is slightly change to reflect that, but this would generally not be visible at the scale of a local map, so keeping up to date with these would not matter IMHO. For Queensland, the proposal/announcement of changes is here. Kerry (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- The current locality boundaries for Queensland are released about once a week (I think) here. Kerry (talk) 02:00, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- I agree, the move of a single lot from one locality to another isn't relevant to us for local maps, but more significant changes could be happening that OSM - and therefore us - aren't picking up. You've looked at Queensland; I went looking for the equivalent data in Victoria, and it seems the technical process would be different for getting the up-to-date data from them. The national suburbs & localities data (see data.gov.au) is updated continually from the states (at least it says it is), and released quarterly. That should be sufficient, if we could get a regular update process running. I'll start a conversation at the Australian OSM community, and link to it here if it gets going. Innesw (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- The current locality boundaries for Queensland are released about once a week (I think) here. Kerry (talk) 02:00, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- I can't speak for other states, but the Queensland locality boundaries do change a certain amount all the time. There are amalgamations and deamalgamations of localities, shifting boundaries in response to major instructure (e.g. a freeway), etc. These probably are of a scale that will show as wrong with a local map. There are all the many "minor" or "technical changes" which are generally involving the amalgamating or splitting of a piece of land that sits adjacent to a locality boundary that may cause the boundary of the locality is slightly change to reflect that, but this would generally not be visible at the scale of a local map, so keeping up to date with these would not matter IMHO. For Queensland, the proposal/announcement of changes is here. Kerry (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry Kerry, I think we had an edit overlap there! We both came to the same conclusion - we can't tell in advance if a local_map is going to fail because of lack of the OSM tag back to wikidata, all we can do is look at the result. For ensuring that we have other data to support local_map, we can check that (a) the page has a link to wikidata and (b) that that wikidata has a link to an OSM object. I would think virtually all the formal localities have had these done, so the problem won't be with the wikidata itself (though the Infobox template itself could check, and add pages to tracking categories for 'local map not supported by wikidata' and 'local map not requested, but wikidata support is present for it'). As far as the outlines of the localities on OSM go, it seems a general update of boundaries (and import of new ones - Columbia was new then) was done in September 2020, so another check/update is probably due. But it needs to ensure the wikidata tags are there too! Innesw (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
- I note that saying something can be "easily done" is written without having actually tried it. Sometimes things are not as easy as you think! Kerry (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- I've looked into {{Infobox mapframe}}, and in its FAQs it states that, for a map to display the OSM object referred to in the Wikidata, that object needs to contain a 'wikidata' tag back to the WD item. Neither Columbia nor Richmond Hill have that tag, while nearby Charters_Towers_City,_Queensland does, and the local_map shows its boundary. I've now added the tag to Columbia, but it could take a couple of days for WP to recognise it. If that works we have a complicated task of adding tags to OSM objects. Innesw (talk) 04:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- I agree a lot are working agin, but I am still seeing Null Island at Columbia, Queensland and Richmond Hill, Queensland (articles I was visiting for other reasons). I tried purging them to force a refresh but still no local maps. Having said that, I don't know if those maps ever worked previously. But they both have normal coords in the infobox. Is some greater magic required? Kerry (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
- This is also being discussed at WP:VPT#Maplink wikidata broken?. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Well, I tried, but have given up. Nobody in the OSM discussion seems to agree that the locality boundaries and numbers are out-of-date, and I don't have the skills or time to fix them. There was a big import done in 2020, and the expectation seems to be that keeping boundaries up-to-date subsequently is a manual process. If we find a map that doesn't work properly, we have to work through the WP-Wikidata-OSM chain to fix what we can, and hope the boundaries match our expectations.Innesw (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your efforts to try to resolve this. It's a pity the OSM community aren't in a position to help. Kerry (talk) 04:48, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Dropping state/territory from Australian place names by default
[edit]Pre-RFC discussion
[edit]I have been asked to draft language for the proposed second RFC on Australian place names that sets "Placename" as the default and uses "Placename, State name" only for disambiguation. Before starting the RFC, I'd like to confirm with the advocates of that position that this language represents them correctly. I also invite suggestions for tweaks that enhance clarity, etc. from anyone.
While drafting this language, I found the proscribed way to disambiguate railway stations is not what is done in practice, so I changed the language to document current practice based on the few examples I could find. If this is not desirable, let me know what the desired rule should be, or if that needs to be discussed.
I also note shortening of LGA names used for disambiguation is inconsistent, e.g. Springfield, Victoria (Shire of Buloke) vs. Springfield, Victoria (Macedon Ranges) instead of Springfield, Victoria (Shire of Macedon Ranges). Should text be added like 'The LGA name may be shortened (e.g. drop "Shire of").'? Or perhaps mandate shortening to reduce ambiguity? Or should names not be shortened?
Here's my draft text for a replacement WP:NCAUST:
In general, follow WP:PLACEDAB for Australian places, using the simple name as the article title if it is the primary or only topic for that name (e.g., Sydney). Local government areas are titled with their official names, otherwise follow WP:COMMON NAME. (For example, Berri Barmera Council, not "Berri Barmera".)
Only if necessary for disambiguation:
- For suburbs (neighborhoods) in metropolitan areas, train stations, and parks, add a comma and the local government area name (e.g. The Rocks, Sydney; Central railway station, Brisbane).
- For local government areas, add a comma and the unabbreviated state or territory name (e.g. Newcastle, New South Wales).
- For other non-LGA localities, add a comma and the state or territory name (e.g. Port Wakefield, South Australia which is part of the Wakefield Regional Council LGA; Tharwa, Australian Capital Territory, where there are no LGAs). If the state or territory name is insufficient, add the LGA name in parentheses (e.g. Springfield, Victoria (Shire of Buloke)).
Is it clear to Australians how to distinguish between a suburb in a metro area that gets an LGA name vs. a town in a shire that gets a state or territory name? If not, either the language could be clarified or the naming pattern changed.
-- Beland (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- I strongly oppose this proposal. It overstates the importance of LGAs. Why should the LGA get precedence over the state for disambiguation? Not to mention the numerous suburbs and localities that cross LGA boundaries. How is one meant to title West Perth, Western Australia under this scheme? It belongs to the City of Perth and City of Vincent. Even for suburbs that are within one LGA, you get nonsensical titles that appear nowhere other than Wikipedia, such as Osborne Park, Stirling, which is a phrase that nobody uses, compared to Osborne Park, Western Australia, which appears on addresses. And then when you consider that LGA boundaries change all the time, we will get constantly changing article titles, whereas state boundaries almost never change.
- Also, Newcastle, New South Wales is not a local government area. Look at the hatnote at the top of that article. Steelkamp (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- Aha, I see "The Rocks, Sydney" has been moved to The Rocks, New South Wales, so it seems state name should take precedence for suburbs as well. That solves the overlapping-LGA problem you point out.
- Well spotted about Newcastle. Perhaps that line should be "current and former local government and metropolitan areas"? I see Victoria County, Western Australia which is an example of a former local government area. Does anyone know of an ambiguous LGA? I can't find a list of common city/town names in Australia.
- -- Beland (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
The below is edited based on the above discussion. -- Beland (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
In general, follow WP:PLACEDAB for Australian places, using the simple name as the article title if it is the primary or only topic for that name (e.g., Sydney). Local government areas are titled with their official names, otherwise follow WP:COMMON NAME. (For example, Berri Barmera Council, not "Berri Barmera".)
Only if necessary for disambiguation:
- For places like train stations and parks, add a comma and the local government area name (e.g. Central railway station, Brisbane).
- For localities (suburbs in the Australian sense, local government areas, metropolitan areas, former administrative divisions), add a comma and the unabbreviated state or territory name (e.g. The Rocks, New South Wales, a suburb/neighborhood of Sydney; Newcastle, New South Wales, a metro area; Victoria County, Western Australia, a former county, Port Wakefield, South Australia which is part of the Wakefield Regional Council LGA; Tharwa, Australian Capital Territory, where there are no LGAs).
- If the state or territory name is insufficient, add the LGA name in parentheses (e.g. Springfield, Victoria (Shire of Buloke)).
- "neighborhood" should be spelled as "neighbourhood" in Australian English, but honestly, it should just be removed entirely as it's an imprecise term that has no widely accepted definition in an Australian context. I haven't read the rest of the proposal yet to make any further comments. Fork99 (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- "Neighborhood" is there for Americans to know "suburb" doesn't mean "town outside the city". -- Beland (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- I changed that clarification to avoid the n-word and rely more on linking. -- Beland (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- "Neighbourhood" in Queensland geography means a place that is or was populated and has a well-established local name but it's not a gazetted town nor a bounded suburb/locality. In my experience of writing about Queensland places, neighbourhoods in larger cities/towns are often early small suburbs (or real estate subdivision names) which have now been amalgamated into larger suburbs, but local usage of the name persists. In rural areas, neighbourhoods often arise from the name of a local railway station (which may or may not still exist) which caused some shops, businesses, and homes to grow around it as a "mini town". Fords or other river crossing points often cause the same "mini town" effects. So, whether or not the meaning is the same across all states, we do have neighbourhoods in Australia and some do have Wikipedia articles (mostly the inner-city historic suburbs). There used to be a very useful webpage on Geosciences Australia which had a lot of these feature definitions but sadly it seems to have disappeared and I didn't save the webpage. Kerry (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
- I changed that clarification to avoid the n-word and rely more on linking. -- Beland (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
In general, follow WP:PLACEDAB for Australian places, using the simple name as the article title if it is the primary or only topic for that name (e.g. Sydney).
Where articles for Australian settlements/suburbs (in the Australian sense) require disambiguation, comma-separated disambiguation by state/territory should be used, for example Norseman, Western Australia. The state or territory name should not be abbreviated. In the rare instances where disambiguation by state/territory is insufficient, additional parenthetical disambiguation by local government area may be used, for example, Springfield, Victoria (Shire of Buloke).
The full name of local government areas should be used to title their articles, for example, Municipality of Kiama.
For Australian roads, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Australian roads). For other Australian transport infrastructure, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Transport/Naming convention and guidelines.- Thanks for this Beland; see above my suggested adjusted drafting. My general comment is that I think we should focus primarily on disambiguation of settlements/suburbs. For train stations, the guidance is already established elsewhere and we can simply point to that. For parks, the need to disambiguate is uncommon, and in actual practice does not use local government area to do so. Furthermore, there is not a well established preference for comma-separated disambiguation over parenthetical disambiguation for LGAs and lands administrative divisions in actual usage. I've also adjusted some of the examples in an attempt to pick particularly unequivocal ones. Tomiĉo (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- This seems like good wording. I support this. Steelkamp (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- I'll try and have a read of this after work. TarnishedPathtalk 00:44, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- I like that this is shorter and better harmonized with other guidelines. -- Beland (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- I think that is what we should aim for. TarnishedPathtalk 01:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- I like that this is shorter and better harmonized with other guidelines. -- Beland (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- I'll try and have a read of this after work. TarnishedPathtalk 00:44, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
RFC: Dropping state/territory from place names by default
[edit] |
|
Should WP:NCAUST be changed to say the state or territory name "may" be in an article title for a place name, to say that these should only be used if needed for disambiguation? (Other changes are also included in the proposed text.) -- Beland (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Full proposed text, as amended per the suggestion at 00:56, 15 September 2025:
In general, follow WP:PLACEDAB for Australian places, using the simple name as the article title if it is the primary or only topic for that name (e.g. Sydney).
Where articles for Australian suburbs and localities (and other named settlements) require disambiguation, comma-separated disambiguation by state/territory should be used, for example Norseman, Western Australia. The state or territory name should not be abbreviated. In the rare instances where disambiguation by state/territory is insufficient, additional parenthetical disambiguation by local government area may be used, for example, Springfield, Victoria (Shire of Buloke).
The full name of local government areas should be used to title their articles, for example, Municipality of Kiama.
For Australian roads, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Australian roads). For other Australian transport infrastructure, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Transport/Naming convention and guidelines.Polling (RFC: Dropping state/territory from place names by default)
[edit]- Neutral. I proposed this, but I'm just here as the closer of the previous RFC and am not involved enough to have a well-informed opinion. -- Beland (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
- Support A clear improvement which addresses the main ambiguity in the existing guideline. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- Support as an improvement which reduces ambiguity that some editors find with the existing guideline. TarnishedPathtalk 00:05, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. Are we seriously proposing renaming thousands of articles that are currently of the form "Placename, Statename"? Frankly I don't see how this serves the editing community or the reader very well. If I see a mention of Smallville in an article, I find seeing it called/linked Smallville, South Australia (or whatever) very useful. Often it is sufficient for me just to know "ah, a place in South Australia". I don't see why I need to click through just to find out that it's in South Australia. And while a name might not be duplicated now, it may be in the future as more articles are written. My preference is to retain ", Statename" except for when a place is so well-known (primary!) that it's really not needed, e.g. "Bondi Beach". Also, while some place names may be unique Australia-wide, they may be very similar to a place name in another state (e.g. Woolmar QLD vs Woolmer SA) or another country, where the state name would in many cases make it obvious it was not the place you had in mind. We do have a lot of place names with complicated spelling (particulary Indigenous names) that can be very hard to distinguish from similar names and, if I find it hard as an N-th generation Australian, it must be even more difficult for people in other countries. Kerry (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I prefer the inclusion of the State name for immediate and consistent identification of a place's location and status. Except those large places that are widely known, it is better to include the State identifier so that the place is clearly designated in the title as a populated place in a particular location, and so that a consistent format is used regardless of whether a name is ambiguous with another one. Reywas92Talk 20:06, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- Support, addresses vagueness in the current guideline. Breleidy (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose While the proposed guideline is more definitive, I share the preference of Reywas92 and Kerry to retain placename, state as the default - I find that the inclusion of the state name often aids the immediate identification of a location as a place in a particular state (without having to navigate via hatnotes and disambiguation pages). But more importantly, I am not sure the proposal will resolve the issue of having a large number of RM debates over whether a place is considered the primary topic. Primary topic is often not definitive and needs to be determined on a case by case basis - in some cases we have had multiple RMs for the same place resulting in different outcomes depending the level of participation. It also limits the scope to provide disambiguation that is very useful where names are spelled differently but are very close creating the potential for confusion - eg. Eastlakes NSW vs the five articles about places called Eastlake in the USA, Mossman QLD vs Mosman NSW. Dfadden (talk) 04:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
- Support While I do agree that not included state names by default presents problems, I also am of the opinion that having state names as the default, but also allowing some articles to not include state names because it is "more well known" in the titles is more problematic. Viatori (talk) 03:49, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- Support The original decision to add the state name after every single Australian place was a bad decision that sucked. It was an awkward and aesthetically godawful Americanism introduced by editors in the early 00s for reasons unfathomable, that does not reflect [WP:COMMONNAME], nor has it ever. Get rid of every unnecessary state name. ҉ Randwicked ҉ 10:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Discussion (RFC: Dropping state/territory from place names by default)
[edit]- @Beland, in the current WP:NCAUST, part of it guides that:
- "Localities (other than suburbs) and places such as train stations, parks, etc., may be disambiguated, where necessary, by reference to city rather than state (e.g., The Rocks, Sydney, rather than [[The Rocks, New South Wales]])."
- Would the proposal be dropping addressing localties alltogether? TarnishedPathtalk 00:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- @TarnishedPath and Beland: Could this be addressed with a simple wording tweak from settlements/suburbs (in the Australian sense) to
suburbs and localities (and other named settlements)
? Triptothecottage (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2025 (UTC)- Ah, that would be very helpful link to add; I didn't know "localities" had a specific sense. I assume "settlements" is meant to include localities? I leave it to the Australian experts to decide on the best phrasing. -- Beland (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Triptothecottage and @Beland, I think the problem with that specific tweak is that we would still leave other places like train stations, parks etc unaddressed. TarnishedPathtalk 01:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Triptothecottage I think that that would be a good edit.
- @TarnishedPath The guidance for train stations is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Transport/Naming convention and guidelines#Disambiguation - stations, which is linked to at the bottom of the proposed drafting above. It would be preferable not to duplicate it here, I think?
- Parks may be a bit of a can of worms—I had a quick peruse through the relevant categories, and it seems that the existing WP:NCAUST guidance for parks is not much followed. I see other formats frequently being used, such as comma-separated disambiguation by suburb, or parenthetical disambiguation by state/territory. Is there value in continuing to state a specific form of guidance for disambiguating Australian parks if we aren’t much using that format? Tomiĉo (talk) 05:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Tomiĉo, I just had a look at the NSW and Vic subcategories in and in seemed like it was almost universally the case that they were named without disambiguation. TarnishedPathtalk 06:54, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Beland, perhaps a good idea to implement @Triptothecottage's change now before anyone makes any !votes. TarnishedPathtalk 06:56, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- Since there seems to be unanimous support, I have made that proposed change. -- Beland (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- @TarnishedPath and Beland: Could this be addressed with a simple wording tweak from settlements/suburbs (in the Australian sense) to
- Comment: I have left notifications of this RFC at WT:AT, WT:NCGN, WP:VPP and WP:VPPR. Refer to Special:Diff/1311378375, Special:Diff/1311378433, Special:Diff/1311378469 and Special:Diff/1311378525 respectively. TarnishedPathtalk 00:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- I was summoned from the VPPR notification - I do have question: As an American, we do use the AP style when it comes to excluding state names from cities with one or two exceptions - cities like Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Las Vegas, everyone knows that, and only in cases where there is reasonable confusion do we add reasonable disambiguators - which of the AP's 30 cities we add the word city to New York, DC to Washington (both because of the states of the same name), and Phoenix, Arizona, since Phoenix means a lot of things. Does Australia have a similar style guide which we could potentially base policy or convention in? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- The Australian Government's own Style Manual has a page on Australian place names, but it doesn't say anything about disambiguation, it only prescribes a style on the matters of spelling, capitalisation and punctuation. Just from personal experience, Australians don't typically automatically add the state name after a place name in the same way that I notice Americans do, especially when disambiguation is completely unnecessary. E.g. I imagine that Lubbock, Texas can be referred to like that (or is usually referred to like that?), even though there are no other Lubbocks in the US according to Lubbock (disambiguation).
- Whereas say I would imagine that it would just sound odd to an Australian ear to refer to Dubbo as "Dubbo, New South Wales" in everyday conversation or when written. If you need to introduce Dubbo in a context where the audience has no idea where it is, you'd probably describe it using a full sentence, e.g. "Dubbo is a regional city in the Orana region of the Australian state of New South Wales" or "Dubbo is a regional city 492 km west of Sydney in New South Wales" or something like that. Again, just personal experience as someone who lives in Sydney. It'd be interesting if anyone can find any written material on the matter. Fork99 (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
We're not in Kansas any more, Toto! (photo from Aappilattoq, Greenland, 2017) - We write for a worldwide audience. Sure, if I read "Dubbo", I would know where it was. But I am Australian, I have lived in Brisbane and Melbourne and driven between them a lot and Dubbo is on that route so I've stayed overnight there, been to the zoo there etc. But there are probably other places in NSW whose names I would not immediately recognise as being in NSW. Do you know where Aappilattoq is? When I do Wikipedia edit training, I often say thiings along the lines of "remember you are writing for the person who lives in Greenland, their world is very different to yours, don't assume they know things that you think are "normal" because their "normal" is very different to yours. Normal is pretty different in Aappilattoq. Kerry (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Kerry Raymond: I respect your opinion, but I believe the lead section and short description are also more than capable of placing a geographic place in context. I do agree that having it mentioned in a wikilink is useful, however, links can sometimes still be piped to not display the state name, forcing a reader to visit the wikilink anyways, e.g. see Bourke, New South Wales where a link to Charleville, Queensland is piped to not display "Queensland".
- I also wonder if this is also a MOS:ENGVAR issue, in terms of how a place name is written/said in the US compared to the rest of the world?
- I also find your oppose argument confusing where you state
except for when a place is so well-known (primary!) that it's really not needed, e.g. "Bondi Beach"
. Doesn't this just state what the proposal does using different words? Fork99 (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2025 (UTC)- Personally I would prefer the article title to be Bondi Beach, New South Wales with Bondi Beach as a a redirect. And there's no problem in having a redirect for unique or reasonably well-known names like Dubbo. But I probably would not extend that to Sydney, Brisbane, and the other state capitals (except where there isn't uniqueness, e.g. Perth is in WA and Scotland), but if someone argued strongly for including their state name, I probably would not put up strong opposition. As Australians, we are obviously familiar with some (but not all) placenames in Australia, which skews our perspective on the issue. Kerry (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- I might also comment that this is a proposal that does directly impact my editing as I predominantly write about Queensland places, so I think I have a pretty good understanding of this class of article and that all place articles mention a lot of other places articles if for no other reason than the infobox's 8 near-* fields, and the 5 locationN fields. We have masses of Australian topics not written about or stubs at best. Massive change for no compelling benefit just seems to me to burn goodwill rather than the more useful task of getting more content written. We are seeing declines in the active editor community across Wikipedia (and statistically the group that writes the bulk of the content). According to a research study, there were about 3000 active Australian editors in 2022 but this has fallen to about 2000 as at 2004 (see the graph here). This is why in a previous proposal about place naming I supported the "let's not unscramble the existing eggs" because of the workload (and the inevitable errors) that would occur if we attempted to do so. Kerry (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- Why would anyone be offended at this change enough to quit editing? The intent is to reduce local disputes by making a clear rule. It doesn't seem like anyone who is against it would have to take part in the changeover; much of it could be done by bot, and many articles would stay put. -- Beland (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- I might also comment that this is a proposal that does directly impact my editing as I predominantly write about Queensland places, so I think I have a pretty good understanding of this class of article and that all place articles mention a lot of other places articles if for no other reason than the infobox's 8 near-* fields, and the 5 locationN fields. We have masses of Australian topics not written about or stubs at best. Massive change for no compelling benefit just seems to me to burn goodwill rather than the more useful task of getting more content written. We are seeing declines in the active editor community across Wikipedia (and statistically the group that writes the bulk of the content). According to a research study, there were about 3000 active Australian editors in 2022 but this has fallen to about 2000 as at 2004 (see the graph here). This is why in a previous proposal about place naming I supported the "let's not unscramble the existing eggs" because of the workload (and the inevitable errors) that would occur if we attempted to do so. Kerry (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- Personally I would prefer the article title to be Bondi Beach, New South Wales with Bondi Beach as a a redirect. And there's no problem in having a redirect for unique or reasonably well-known names like Dubbo. But I probably would not extend that to Sydney, Brisbane, and the other state capitals (except where there isn't uniqueness, e.g. Perth is in WA and Scotland), but if someone argued strongly for including their state name, I probably would not put up strong opposition. As Australians, we are obviously familiar with some (but not all) placenames in Australia, which skews our perspective on the issue. Kerry (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- Whereas say I would imagine that it would just sound odd to an Australian ear to refer to Dubbo as "Dubbo, New South Wales" in everyday conversation or when written. If you need to introduce Dubbo in a context where the audience has no idea where it is, you'd probably describe it using a full sentence, e.g. "Dubbo is a regional city in the Orana region of the Australian state of New South Wales" or "Dubbo is a regional city 492 km west of Sydney in New South Wales" or something like that. Again, just personal experience as someone who lives in Sydney. It'd be interesting if anyone can find any written material on the matter. Fork99 (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia's decline in editor numbers really down to any change in policy or convention? I get that some of our longer serving members are probably a bit resistant to change, but that alone isn't a solid reason to not explore the possibilities to evolve. The argument that it would be too much work is not a strong one. Firstly it wouldn't need to be done in any rush, and could easily be handled by bulk nominations, e.g. [1]. Breleidy (talk) 05:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- "I get it that some of our longer serving members are probably a bit resistant to change". Was that an insult directed at me? Having spent a career managing projects and serving on boards, I do know about projects and how you have to weigh up their perceived benefits (which aren't always achieved even if implemented), costs and risks. I've been involved in projects on-wiki on my own and with others with ambitious scopes (1000+ new articles) and achieved them. I know how to run an on-wiki project to a reasonably successful completion and I know quite a bit about what works and what doesn't. If you look at my contribution profile, you can see when I choose to take something on, I see it through. The worst outcome is a project that leaves things in a half-baked state. The big picture is this. Wikipedia survives because lots of ordinary folk donate the funds to support it because they like the content we provide. So that's the main KPI, keeping the content growing, both in terms of range of topics and the depth of coverage in individual topics and the usual things of being readable, well-cited, and not broken etc. This means we need to retain and increase our number of active editors (5 edits in a month) and very active editors (100 edits in a month) as they write the bulk of the content. So, things we do towards the goal of serving the reader is more and better content, not denying the reader some clue as to "where in the world" is this place?
- To answer the other question about editor decline. We do not know generally what causes Wikipedia contributors to disappear, because once they do, they generally don't respond if you try to contact them to ask them (assuming you have a means of contacting them if they are no longer looking at their User Talk page). However, the research reported here (page 4) looks at the recent history of on-wiki contributions from editors who become inactive. For newish editors, it shows being reverted seems to be associated with becoming inactive. With experienced editors, it is conflict which usually plays out on Talk (or other non-main space) pages. Being aware of this research, when I notice I have not seen edits by a regular contributor for a while, I look at their recent contributions and, when they have become inactive, the conflict theory seems to be supported by what I see, e.g. an article was deleted at AfD (which they had started or made substantial contributions) and other disputes on various non-mainspace pages involving articles to which they made a significant contribution. So, yes, these things do seem to drive people away. The research shows that contributing to controversial articles is associated with becoming inactive (but contributing to controversial articles usually does involves reverted edits and/or conflicts on Talk pages, so it seems to me to be probably the same factors). The other reason for inactivity is failure to obtain or loss of privileges (e.g. adminship, etc), which generally involves direct personal criticism or perceived disrespect. Now many of us put up with a lot of stuff in the workplace, because we get paid a salary. Here on Wikipedia, we don't get paid a dollar, so what is the currency of payment here? Well, for volunteering, the "currency" of payment is generally receiving appreciation and respect. I encourage people to be aware of research about Wikipedia as it is helpful in thinking about a situation as it enables one to step back and see the bigger picture. Kerry (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- If your theory of editor departure is correct, shouldn't clarifying a rule in a way that reduces disputes improve editor retention? -- Beland (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- It's not my theory. I provided the source. Kerry (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- OK, if the cited source's theory of editor departure is correct, shouldn't clarifying a rule in a way that reduces disputes improve editor retention? -- Beland (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Beland I don't believe the current proposal will reduce disputes, as it relies on Primary Topic to determine where disambiguation is required. Even more so if you are suggesting the wholesale renaming of thousands of articles to align with the new convention. I don't think this should be done by bots... One of the reasons I became so involved in the debate and the original RfC is because we were seeing RMs nominating bulk articles on the basis of Primary Topic. These were being blanketly supported by some of those who favoured removing the state as a default, providing little by way of amplifying comments. However, when taking the time to actually work through those same nominations, many had to be withdrawn as primary topic was either contested, or did not apply. The nominations were based on the rationale that currently NCAUST states
the name of a city or town may be used alone if the place is the primary or only topic
, however it also states thatMost Australian settlement articles are at Town, State/Territory
, which was until recently broadly (though not unanimously) understood by those of us who have been editing in this area for many years to be the default. I do accept consensus can evolve, but I have observed a frustrating lack of diligence done to actually provide evidence of the primary topic rationale in some of these cases. So I have two questions: are we really going to go through every single Australian place article to ascertain Primary Topic if this proposal is successful? And if that task is to be performed by a bot, does that not undermine the idea that primary topic is to be determined through consensus (WP:DPT statesdecisions are made by discussion among editors, often as a result of a requested move
)? If the answer to either of those questions is a yes, I can absolutely see that having a negative impact on editor retention, or at least participation in this subject area. Dfadden (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2025 (UTC)- If I were writing a script to handle this, if "LocationName, StateName" is the current title I'd have it check "LocationName". If there is a redirect there pointing at "LocationName, StateName", then I would assume that location is the primary topic and do the move. I suppose someone would need to eyeball a bunch of histories to make sure none of the ones that would need to be deleted are substantial, or a bot could move them to a holding area. I checked through the major cities, and it seems the ones that are primary topics are already at "LocationName". So if the script finds there's an article or disambiguation page at "LocationName", I think it's very likely the location is not the primary topic, and it can just stay where it is. That assumption isn't 100% true, but we can leave it up to editors to nominate any articles that need to displace an existing article at LocationName.
- It sounds like there are a lot of disputes right now over an arbitrary question - whether to adopt name pattern 1 or name pattern 2 when both are allowed, and this needs to be decided separately for thousands of articles. The two ways I can see to resolve that are to choose one of the name patterns (which this proposal does) or take an approach like MOS:RETAIN which forces retention of the status quo for each. The latter solution is rather unsatisfying and confusing. A small number of MOS:PRIMARYTOPIC debates may be preferable to a large number of arbitrary move debates. I have just closed some PRIMARYTOPIC discussions where people behaved badly, but really it should be a simple matter of gathering statistics from Google Ngrams or similar and moving or not. If there are a large number of PRIMARYTOPIC debates triggered by this, then that would be one argument for picking "LocationName, StateName" or "retain the status quo". Though I would hope such debates would be one-time affairs because they're going in a single direction, rather than picking between arbitrary name patterns of which neither is universally recognized as better. -- Beland (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
- TarnishedPath is continuing to make bulk move requests (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_places, though they are well aware that this discussion could directly effect the validity of this practice. There is no rush for these moves to be done before this discussion reaches a conclusion. Innesw (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Innesw, this discussion doesn't affect the "validity of the practice". If the proposal is supported LocationNane must happen when WP:PTOPIC and if the proposal isn't supported LocationName may still happen in line with the current WP:NCAUS and WP:CONCISE. TarnishedPathtalk 23:47, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Beland and how would your script handle situations where names are very similar (such as Mosman, NSW and Mossman, QLD? The current consensus (and I say current based on the historic RMs at Talk:Mosman which arrived at a different outcome) is that hatnotes are sufficient here, but that is something that has been a concession via the RM process. If I understand your explanation, the automated script would simply checks if two articles exist with a name spelled the same way exists? Another example of where this type of nuance is important is at Talk:Villawood, where it was argued that a hatnote sufficient because it is the only suburb by that name (thus determined Primary). However, the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre actually gets far more page views, and arguably, detention centre, often referred to as just "Villawood", has much more significance and recognition outside of Sydney and New South Wales, thus some way of directing readers to this alternative target is necessary. 08:03, 24 September 2025 (UTC) Dfadden (talk) 08:03, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- Those cases should already have hatnotes, because the redirects already send readers looking for A to article B. If you want to check and see if they actually do, you could eyeball the list of articles to be moved, or even the list of articles on Australian locations as they currently are. -- Beland (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- I gave those as examples of why it is not as straightforward as the solution you suggested. I am sure there will be others that dont currently have hatnotes that will require them after a move since the new titles will be far less specific. Frankly, I dont have time to "eyeball" every one of the thousands of Australian place articles this would impact to check which ones would need hatnotes. That would be onerous and unnecessary. I agree with @Gnangarra that the proposal disrupts thousands of articles that have had long term, stable titles without any reason other than "because policy permits it". Arguments have been made that dropping the state is a better fit per WP:CONCISE thus disambiguation is not required. However, even if not strictly required, the existing placename, state does no harm and in many cases actually makes the encyclopedia easier to navigate. It makes the article subjects immediately more recognisable - especially for audiences outside of Australia who may not be familiar with our geography. Rather than flipping the status quo on its head and creating a bunch of extra work, the time and effort would be better spent on providing some clearer guidance on when it is appropriate to move existing articles (noting Primary topic alone isnt always the best method to determine nuance). Dfadden (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- Wouldn't any article that requires a hatnote after being moved require one now? -- Beland (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- Yep, as suggested at WP:SMALLDETAILS and WP:ONEOTHER. TarnishedPathtalk 00:58, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Beland Not in the case of Villawood that I mentioned above - in that case, prior to the RM, the term "Villawood" targeted a disambiguation page - Villawood (disambiguation), so the hatnote was only necessary after the move occurred. That's not to suggest a hatnote couldn't have been added to the previous target "Villawood, New South Wales", although it was obvious enough that it was referring to the suburb that nobody had thought it necessary previously. Dfadden (talk) 07:09, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- Articles should not be automatically moved if the redirect they are moving over doesn't point to them. -- Beland (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- Wouldn't any article that requires a hatnote after being moved require one now? -- Beland (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- I gave those as examples of why it is not as straightforward as the solution you suggested. I am sure there will be others that dont currently have hatnotes that will require them after a move since the new titles will be far less specific. Frankly, I dont have time to "eyeball" every one of the thousands of Australian place articles this would impact to check which ones would need hatnotes. That would be onerous and unnecessary. I agree with @Gnangarra that the proposal disrupts thousands of articles that have had long term, stable titles without any reason other than "because policy permits it". Arguments have been made that dropping the state is a better fit per WP:CONCISE thus disambiguation is not required. However, even if not strictly required, the existing placename, state does no harm and in many cases actually makes the encyclopedia easier to navigate. It makes the article subjects immediately more recognisable - especially for audiences outside of Australia who may not be familiar with our geography. Rather than flipping the status quo on its head and creating a bunch of extra work, the time and effort would be better spent on providing some clearer guidance on when it is appropriate to move existing articles (noting Primary topic alone isnt always the best method to determine nuance). Dfadden (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- Those cases should already have hatnotes, because the redirects already send readers looking for A to article B. If you want to check and see if they actually do, you could eyeball the list of articles to be moved, or even the list of articles on Australian locations as they currently are. -- Beland (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- TarnishedPath is continuing to make bulk move requests (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_places, though they are well aware that this discussion could directly effect the validity of this practice. There is no rush for these moves to be done before this discussion reaches a conclusion. Innesw (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Beland I don't believe the current proposal will reduce disputes, as it relies on Primary Topic to determine where disambiguation is required. Even more so if you are suggesting the wholesale renaming of thousands of articles to align with the new convention. I don't think this should be done by bots... One of the reasons I became so involved in the debate and the original RfC is because we were seeing RMs nominating bulk articles on the basis of Primary Topic. These were being blanketly supported by some of those who favoured removing the state as a default, providing little by way of amplifying comments. However, when taking the time to actually work through those same nominations, many had to be withdrawn as primary topic was either contested, or did not apply. The nominations were based on the rationale that currently NCAUST states
- OK, if the cited source's theory of editor departure is correct, shouldn't clarifying a rule in a way that reduces disputes improve editor retention? -- Beland (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- It's not my theory. I provided the source. Kerry (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- If your theory of editor departure is correct, shouldn't clarifying a rule in a way that reduces disputes improve editor retention? -- Beland (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging @Ahri Boy, @Bkonrad, @Dfadden, @GMH Melbourne, @Gnangarra, @Graham11, @Innesw, @MrAussieGuy, @ScottDavis, @Servite et contribuere, @SMcCandlish and @Traumnovelle as editors involved in the previous RFC, who haven't already participated in this one. Appologies if I've pinged anyone who has already participated or if I've missed anyone. TarnishedPathtalk 04:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- replying to the ping, I am yet to see an argument put forward that makes this a necessary change(ie improves Wikipedia, or clears a conflict) to what has been a stable set of many thousands of articles. Changing these articles is not just changing a title the change comes with an order of magnitude above this by impacting every article that has existing links. What I have experienced is that people like changing titles but then never take on the work load of fixing redirects and the mess that these moves leave behind. Nothing has been shown that such a big disruption of what will be hunreds of thousands of articles across every topic on Wikipedia is adding value. Convince me of the value beyond oh this policy says I can then I'll agree to this change. Gnangarra 06:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- What redirects are you envisioning would need to be fixed en masse? Any links to "LocationName, StateName" will continue to work if an article has been moved to "LocationName", whether piped or unpiped. WP:NOTBROKEN discourages editors from changing these in e.g. article prose. Any double redirects that are created will be fixed by bot. -- Beland (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- I support Gnangarra in the workload created by dropping the state from the article name. The moves may be simple, but page movers rarely comply with the request that they updated all the linked articles direct to the new page name. I do not see the value in such a change. Oronsay (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- Is this because WP:NOTBROKEN is telling them not to change links, or are there links that don't fall under this you see not getting changed? I ask not to challenge your assertion, but because I have some semi-automated tools which might be used to help update links that need it and I'm curious what patterns to look for. (And I have been pondering doing this for unrelated reasons anyway.) -- Beland (talk) 23:29, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- replying to the ping, I am yet to see an argument put forward that makes this a necessary change(ie improves Wikipedia, or clears a conflict) to what has been a stable set of many thousands of articles. Changing these articles is not just changing a title the change comes with an order of magnitude above this by impacting every article that has existing links. What I have experienced is that people like changing titles but then never take on the work load of fixing redirects and the mess that these moves leave behind. Nothing has been shown that such a big disruption of what will be hunreds of thousands of articles across every topic on Wikipedia is adding value. Convince me of the value beyond oh this policy says I can then I'll agree to this change. Gnangarra 06:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. I strongly oppose this proposal. To answer a question above
Why would anyone be offended at this change enough to quit editing?
- that is exactly why I took my first extended break from Wikipedia. Conflict and continually refighting the same arguments makes it a less-nice place. To focus on this question again this month. It's not "predisambiguation", it's providing enough precision in an article title that it can be easily found and not need to be moved later. Most of the templates of towns/suburbs in a local government area use the qualified names for all their places because it's easier to be consistent. If the articles have the same title, the name is bolded in its own article. If it's a redirect, it's not. I noticed that Swanport, South Australia was moved to Swanport about three years ago with the edit comment "no other Swanport" which appears to be false as the only inbound link not through a redirect is about somewhere in Alaska. There are still quite a few places in Australia for which articles have not been written yet. Kerry and Gnangarra have already stated good reasons not to change away from generally using state names, but a few determined people keep coming back to trying to destroy any consistency or predictability. --Scott Davis Talk 01:25, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Traditional Owners on Template:Infobox Australian place
[edit]I believe Template:Infobox Australian place should be modified to have a field for who the Traditional Owners of the land are. IE the sydney CBD would list the eora people. Many pages list them and its common practice to list them. Thoughts? Pencilceaser123 (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see an issue with having such a field, so long as we have policy around it. Because traditional ownership of a place is often disputed by a number of Indigenous groups, I would suggest we only put a value in that field when the article already has well-cited content to support one group of traditional owners. If the article has any indication that this is the subject of a dispute, then I suggest we follow the Neutral Point of View policy and mention both (or however many) claims in the article body (appropriately cited) but NOT put any of them into the field in the infoxbox. We could make an exception if there has been a successful application for Native Title (appropriately cited to the court determination), but I would still include the article that other claims exist. Kerry (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- Good point, sounds like a fair policy. Perhaps a good standard that could be used would be seeing which groups are acknowledged on acknowledgements or welcomes to country made by local government organisations. But obviously many places do not make acknowledgements of country or do not mention specific groups, and they might not be specific enough for more specific areas, such as suburbs. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- I started formulating a response then saw that Kerry said what I was going to say here ... so, +1, as the young people say. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:00, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- Agree with Kerry. The proposal raises a few issues:
- 1) My understanding is that the preferred terminology nowadays is "traditional custodians" rather than "traditional owners".
- 2) The problem is that info boxes are supposed to summarise key information and are not the place to try to present complex or contested information. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE.
- 3) Welcome to country speeches, websites run by different indigenous groups, and published information by sporting groups, local councils etc are often contradictory and sometimes designed to support particular claims relating to ongoing legal disputes. They are not as good as academic sources in determining the boundaries of traditional Aboriginal groups.
- 4) Unfortunately, most of the articles on Australian places and Aboriginal groups are terrible. Few are anywhere near GA or FA status. Everything in them needs to checked against reliable academic sources, preferably by distinguished anthropologists, linguists and historians.
- 5) That said, the proposal might encourage editors put some effort into finding reliable sources for traditional owners (the reasons for decision in Native Title claims, academic studies, etc).
- Of course, there are some cases where the traditional custodians of a particular area is well established. For example, the infobox for an article on the Sydney CBD could state with authority that the Gadigal (or Cadigal) were the traditional custodians.
- Please see the article on Sydney#First inhabitants of the region for one approach to the problem which was arrived at after a great deal of discussion and consensus building. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:18, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- Generally agree with this, all good points. Although I slightly disagree with point 2. I would argue the tradtional custodians is key information. But I understand its nuanced, but in most places, you could definitively state one or two groups as traditional owners. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Notified: Template talk:Infobox Australian place. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:39, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- Part of the problem is that the traditional owners did not occupy land based on the boundaries of towns, suburbs, etc as they exist today, which are the basis of most of our Wikipedia articles. Might it be better to create articles that directly represent the lands of Indigenous groups? E.g. Land of the Eora people using resources along the lines of maps like this. NB the map I linked to does have problems, as there have been successful native title claims subsequent to its publication, hence my "along the lines of", hoping for a more recent update. Kerry (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- I was thinking in many places multiple groups could be mentioned. In the Blue Mountains the land is usually refered to as the Tradtional land of the Dharug and Gundungara people, although sometimes in the lower mountains only the Dharug people are mentioned. Many articles already say "the area is the traditional land of the X people" or "the X and Y people" so for many pages the change would be just transferring that to the wikibox. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- Where there aren't disputes, adding two to the infobox probably isn't a problem. It's the disputed areas that will be the problem. Kerry (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- Prehaps in disputed areas you could put a "see indigenous history" in the field or something. Kinda like how in battles without a clear result usually "see aftermath" is put. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 07:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- Help:Infobox says they are for facts and statistics, but I guess we could put "disputed"
- linked to the section (or anchor) within the article that discusses it more fully (or even to another article if the dispute has its own article. That way there is a "fact at a glance" as per the Help, which a "see ..." isn't. My bigger concern is disputes becoming an edit war simply involving changing the infobox value back and forwards rather than making a case with cited content in the article. This is why I suggested having articles for what each group perceives as their land, which enables overlap in their claims without it creating a head-to-head argument in an article for a post-colonial place whose boundaries are usually unrelated to Indigenous history. Maybe that is the best way to achieve a "neutral point of view" in this situation and minimise on-wiki disputes given that there is a lack of written sources for pre-colonial times. Kerry (talk) 06:26, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
- I probably should say that parts of Brisbane (where I live) are disputed between the Jagera and Turrbal and this creates on-going edit wars on Wikipedia because the Jagera people made a native title claim which was refused because of the Turrbal counter-claim (so it is undetermined legally). So this may make me more sensitive to the issue of disputed claims than those who write about places which are not subject to such disputes. Kerry (talk) 06:35, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
- I have been involved in some of the Brisbane pages too, and to be fair the edit wars have settled down recently. The Brisbane page itself is a prime example of poorly sourced and misleading information on Aboriginal issues. For example, "Meanjin" (however spelled) was never a traditional name for Brisbane because there was no "Brisbane" in traditional Aboriginal culture. "Meanjin" is an English transliteration of an Aboriginal word that (probably) referred to a small piece of land within what is now Brisbane. We can say that many people (Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal) now use the word "Meanjin" to refer to Brisbane but are they really using it to refer to Brisbane as defined by the article? There are many Aboriginal groups who were the traditional custodians of land that is now a part of Brisbane and they had many different names for the land they had rights over: the Yerongpan, Chepara and Coorpooroo are a few. The tragedy is that the traditional custodian groups are gone for ever and glibly stating in an info box that "Meanjin" is the Aboriginal name for Brisbane is one more erasure of the diversity of pre-colonial Australia. If we want to list traditional custodians and traditional names in an info box I would be inclined to just put: "many" and explain the detail in the articles. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
- Putting "many" in the wikibox is deffinitly a good idea for larger areas or areas with multiple peoples. Prehaps you could put "many" if 4 or more groups could be considered custodians of the area. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- This seems very unusual to me, although I understand how this can happen. In areas where I have lived its common to mention 2 (or even 3!) peoples as the tradtional Custodians. So I dont see why we couldnt just put both on the wikibox. Your idea for having an article for the lands of each group is great. Its just theres hundreds of countries, many of whom have wikipedia pages that are little more than stubs, so it seems along way to be able to do that. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- Also I think its worth noting: When I was making this proposal I was thinking to be considered a custodian/owner of the land they would only need to lay claim to part of the area, not all of it. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- I would suggest that, normally, only one traditional custodian should appear in the infobox. For large-area places (cities, large state or national parks) that have different custodians in different parts, a second custodian can be added. For pretty-much point places (towns), one only. If there are more than 2, or any dispute, or lack of good references, put nothing in the infobox and discuss the topic in the body of the article. So I would argue for
|traditional_custodian1=and|traditional_custodian2=. - I would also suggest
|traditional_custodian1_footnotes=and|traditional_custodian2_footnotes=, partly as a reminder to editors that the statement(s) need to be referenced, especially if there is little or nothing in the article body. - Question: where in the infobox should this appear? My suggestion would be with the 'larger areas this place is in' items (LGA, region, electorates), but I'm not wedded to it. Innesw (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
- Having only one custodian for single points is problematic. Aboriginal people didnt have set borders, and nations could share land. For example the dharug and gundungurra people Pencilceaser123 (talk) 04:47, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
- As for where it should be in the wikibox, thats a great idea. As is the reminder for references Pencilceaser123 (talk) 04:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
- OK, happy to widen the criteria for 2 custodians to (a) large places and (b) where custodionship is shared or overlaps. But I think 2 is a reasonable limit for the infobox - anything more complicated or disputed needs a longer explanation elsewhere. There is a precedent for linking to a section of the body of the article from this infobox, if
|near=is defined but all of the near-* are blank. So for any custodianship more complex that 2 verified (& undisputed) names, we could advise|traditional_custodian1=see {{slink||Traditional Custodians}}(or whatever the section name is), which will appear as 'see § Traditional Custodians'. Innesw (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
- Having only one custodian for single points is problematic. Aboriginal people didnt have set borders, and nations could share land. For example the dharug and gundungurra people Pencilceaser123 (talk) 04:47, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
- I would suggest that, normally, only one traditional custodian should appear in the infobox. For large-area places (cities, large state or national parks) that have different custodians in different parts, a second custodian can be added. For pretty-much point places (towns), one only. If there are more than 2, or any dispute, or lack of good references, put nothing in the infobox and discuss the topic in the body of the article. So I would argue for
- Also I think its worth noting: When I was making this proposal I was thinking to be considered a custodian/owner of the land they would only need to lay claim to part of the area, not all of it. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- I have been involved in some of the Brisbane pages too, and to be fair the edit wars have settled down recently. The Brisbane page itself is a prime example of poorly sourced and misleading information on Aboriginal issues. For example, "Meanjin" (however spelled) was never a traditional name for Brisbane because there was no "Brisbane" in traditional Aboriginal culture. "Meanjin" is an English transliteration of an Aboriginal word that (probably) referred to a small piece of land within what is now Brisbane. We can say that many people (Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal) now use the word "Meanjin" to refer to Brisbane but are they really using it to refer to Brisbane as defined by the article? There are many Aboriginal groups who were the traditional custodians of land that is now a part of Brisbane and they had many different names for the land they had rights over: the Yerongpan, Chepara and Coorpooroo are a few. The tragedy is that the traditional custodian groups are gone for ever and glibly stating in an info box that "Meanjin" is the Aboriginal name for Brisbane is one more erasure of the diversity of pre-colonial Australia. If we want to list traditional custodians and traditional names in an info box I would be inclined to just put: "many" and explain the detail in the articles. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
- I probably should say that parts of Brisbane (where I live) are disputed between the Jagera and Turrbal and this creates on-going edit wars on Wikipedia because the Jagera people made a native title claim which was refused because of the Turrbal counter-claim (so it is undetermined legally). So this may make me more sensitive to the issue of disputed claims than those who write about places which are not subject to such disputes. Kerry (talk) 06:35, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
- Prehaps in disputed areas you could put a "see indigenous history" in the field or something. Kinda like how in battles without a clear result usually "see aftermath" is put. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 07:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- Where there aren't disputes, adding two to the infobox probably isn't a problem. It's the disputed areas that will be the problem. Kerry (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- I was thinking in many places multiple groups could be mentioned. In the Blue Mountains the land is usually refered to as the Tradtional land of the Dharug and Gundungara people, although sometimes in the lower mountains only the Dharug people are mentioned. Many articles already say "the area is the traditional land of the X people" or "the X and Y people" so for many pages the change would be just transferring that to the wikibox. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- I'd support the concept, and support adding a field to the infobox, but only use it when it's clear and unambiguous, with only one group. If it needs a list, then it needs an explanation too. There are lots of modern towns which are clearly in the territory of only one traditional custodial group. There are also lots of more complex areas where different groups used the same territory at different times of year, or shared border regions. There have also been shifts over time - should "traditional" refer to the timestamp of white colonisation of the state, or of initial white exploration (before they left Smallpox and measles)? Sometimes it's not even clear if the named group exists/ed or is/was part of a larger grouping. There are also more modern competing claims for recognition of Native Title. --Scott Davis Talk 01:50, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Bart vs. Australia
[edit]Bart vs. Australia 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) 15:40, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Scott Mayman
[edit]I apologise for crashing this discussion, but I'm in need of assistance. I'm not literate enough and it seems I upset someone. I can explain if there is someone in Australia who may be in a better position than myself to fix?? I'm way out of my league on this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Mayman Scott Mayman (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2025 (UTC)