Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian places/Archive 2

• (after two edit conflicts, may not reflect latest state of conversation) The existing documented comma convention only applies to towns and cities. Therefore, in theory, any other types of places are covered by the general
  Mount Gambier, South Australia about the town) or a subject or context, so we could use either (Australia) or a state name as required on a case-by-case basis. There is likely no need for preemptive disambiguation of most cases of non-town places in Australia. I support AYArktos that we should use parentheses not comma for non-town places, but only when required. --Scott Davis ^Talk
  01:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• (and another edit conflict) The Canadians and Americans seem to have a deliberate inconsistency between towns and other geographic features. For example Wainwright, Alberta is disambiguated by a comma but the lake in the above example is disambiguated with brackets. They also seem not to automatically disambiguate place names for lakes, mountains, etc. Wholesale changes to Australian geographical features could be made by a bot ie Xyz, New South Wales moved to Xyz (New South Wales) similar to when categories are renamed. The pipe trick is very very nifty so it would be my preference. However, Cooma, New South Wales looks better in an article than Cooma (New South Wales), so I can certainly see that side of the argument. I have not much difficulty with inconsistency between features and towns as per the Canadians, it would be better if all features souch as lakes, mountains etc were disambiguated one way or the other and I think many are already disambiguated with brackets as that is the normal disambiguation method, as for people also - eg William Buckley (convict)--A Y Arktos\^talk 02:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  In my experience one tends to write "

  Cooma, New South Wales, so the comma gives me nothing. Snottygobble

  02:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Back in the old days when I used to trawl lagre numbers of random arts, I would come across so many us geographical/place/county/etc entries with nothing in the title of the art, or the first three lines of the intro that would clarify the country (the brits are as good at this as well, or were...) I think if we Australian editors can show the way with this one, maybe some bright spark in the us can be convinced to create a bot to sort their gigantic place name heirarchy with something that qualifies all their millions of entries with nothing identifying their country - which is my way of saying whatever qualification to a place name in australia is amenable to a consensus among us - lets do it. As I have created entries with parenthesis and comma, I do hope there is a way to creating a stable and consistent criteria - and if there is a need to say so - long live the bot creators! SatuSuro 02:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather not disambiguate geographical features unless there is actually an ambiguity. However, I'd support a standard format for disambiguating these articles when it is necessary; as above, I prefer the parentheses method.--

Margaret river is an interesting example Margaret River, Western Australia is the town then there is the river Margaret (Western Australia) but how do we identify the region Margaret River. This is a consisteant standard, I think the current town/city name should remain unchanged. Then the question is do we want to have pages titled Margaret River, Western Australia (river) Margaret River, Western Australia (tourist/agricultural region) and Margaret River, Western Australia, do we need to created a dab page Margaret River or does creating an alternative naming convention do that for us Gnangarra 04:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict), I do think that its better to be concise as early as possible in the name, it saves a lot of effort when conflicting subject matter arises. Gnangarra 04:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Gnangarra's point is important. Whatever system we introduce must be flexible enough to handle this. The worst example I've come across is Mount Eliza. According to the Gazetteer, Mount Eliza refers to:

1. One mount in NT
2. One mount in QLD
3. One mount in Tas
4. One hill in ACT
5. Four different mounts in Vic (one no longer official)
6. One town in Vic
7. Three mounts in WA
8. One mount in NSW

The single state occurrences are easily handled, but how do we handle the Victorian case? The town can be disambiguated by Mount Eliza (Victorian town) or Mount Eliza, Victoria (town), but I can't see any reasonable way of disambiguating the four Victorian mounts under either system. Snottygobble 05:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

For this case it would be better to have a single mountain article cover the four sites ie

In the Victorian case, the town would naturally be at

talk

05:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That looks better for Mt Eliza, though I suspect that most of them wouldn't need more than a paragraph within another article. Gnangarra 05:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

cj, you said above that you support the parenthesis method, but down here you proposed Mount Eliza, Victoria for the town. Can you clarify? Snottygobble 05:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The

talk

06:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me for throwing my two Canadian cents in here, eh. Somehow Snottygobble's talk page is on my watch list (probably related to conversations about prospectors or gold rushes) and I just happened to look in it and saw the link to this page. Take a look at

City of Whitehorse :-) Luigizanasi

05:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, there may well be many physical features that can stand alone unambiguous with only one entry in the gazetteer, but we do need to have accepted credible means of getting around the exceptions that have been brought up above - I do not think we should default to us centric devices that have no identifier or clarifier in either the title or the first three lines of the intro - that's falling into the same trap of the us place name mess SatuSuro 09:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont think that there was any need to create

Wagga Wagga, New South Wales and that Wagga Wagga would have stood alone unchallenged, but the decision to have the clarifier is about consistancy. What we need is a format that applies to 95% of all geographic articles, the other 5% being places like Uluru. For some places the qualifier will be unnecessary and others an additional qualifier will be required. Overall the use of a qualifier needs to be consistant and easily applied to all articles. Gnangarra

12:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I think "Lake/river, state" format is quite unnecessary. I think the "American naming conventions" could be used here. For example "Swan River, Colorado" for settlement/town and "Swan River (Colorado)" for river/natural feature. American conventions also don't use "Lake/river, state" format where it is not necessary. For example Wabash River but White River (Michigan). - Darwinek 22:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as you're not suggesting that Swan River, Colorado and Swan River (Colorado) may simultaneously host different articles; that would seem absolutely bizarre to any reader not intimately familiar with our naming conventions. In such cases convention must give way to common sense disambiguation e.g. Swan River (Colorado town) and Swan River (Colorado watercourse). Snottygobble 00:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• On the point of pre-disambiguation, there is a guideline that disambigs should only be created when that it is reasonable to think that the article will be written at some point. There are a lot of places that probably don't require articles. Going back to to the Mt Victoria example, the towns in VIC and NSW, the NSW mountain (highest in the Blue Mountains) are probably the only ones of any real significance.--
  Peta
  01:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Summary

Regarding town names, it seems there are two positions. Some of us want to retain the current convention; some would like to change it. Perhaps we can set this issue aside for now? Those of us who like the current town naming conventions should be happy to set the discussion aside; those of us who don't like it will perhaps recognise that first formalising the geographic naming conventions will make this issue easier to tackle later.

If I can attempt a summary of the geographical naming conventions side of the discussion, there seems to be two points of view over geographic names. My Western Australian compatriots I@n, SatuSuro and Gnangarra think that we should always pre-disambiguate article titles, and favour the comma convention for doing so (I was with them initially but have flip-flopped). The rest of us favour disambiguating article titles only when necessary, and prefer the brackets convention.--Snottygobble 00:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

My take after a first read. The <town/city, state> policy already exists, reads nicely and is consistent with our North American brethren. It is almost tempting to say that all geographic features should follow the same format - but I think some excellent arguments have been put forward for why we should not follow it. So, is there a problem with having one format for towns/cities and another for geographic place names? - I have to conclude that there is no real problem apart from communicating the policy and educating users. In fact, I would go a step further and say that it is desirable, because: 1. it provides the perfect solution to instances where the name is shared by both a town and a geographic feature - the format of the town automatically disambiguates betweeen the two; 2. the current format for towns/cities is now fairly well bedded down and should not be toyed with unless there is a very good reason; 3. there appears to be a consistency of approach emerging across all English speaking countries - which can't be a bad thing; 4. the two different formats for the two different areas of disambig appear to have an intuitive appeal.

That brings us to these two further questions (partly dealt with): 1. disambiguate always or only when necessary; 2. what to do when we have a particular geographic place name appear in the same state more than once (already having a solution for disambiguating from a town/city with the same name). With the first, I think it is a secondary issue that doesn't necessarily need a firm rule - there is very little consequence if one does always or doesn't - and I think in practice something will emerge over time in that regard - in other words, let's not allow this part of the discussion to slow down our decision making on the more important aspect. In any event, there is a general policy on disambigs already, if that were applied here, it would mean we are only doing it when necessary (although I would support a strict interpretation of that, meaning a preference to using the disambig format, unless absolutely clear that it is not necessary). With the latter, having decided to use brackets for geographic place names, it becomes clear that where more than one is in the same place, that another qualifier be used alongside the state name within the bracket, e.g. <apologising in advance for the stupid example>:

ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

02:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: "it provides the perfect solution to instances where the name is shared by both a town and a geographic feature - the format of the town automatically disambiguates betweeen the two", do you really think it is appropriate to simultaneously have a town article at Boyup Brook, Western Australia and a watercourse article at Boyup Brook (Western Australia)? This would seem rather ridiculous to anyone not familiar with our naming conventions. Snottygobble 03:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well yes, the

Boyup Brook article could become the article about the stream, with a disambig link like {{for|the town|Boyup Brook, Western Australia}}

For the town, see Boyup Brook, Western Australia

.

Or the plain one could remain a redirect to the town with {{redirect|Boyup Brook|the stream|[[Boyup Brook (stream)]]}}

"Boyup Brook" redirects here. For the stream, see [[:Boyup Brook (stream)]].

or {{redirect|Boyup Brook}}

"Boyup Brook" redirects here. For other uses, see Boyup Brook (disambiguation).

or make the primary term a disambiguation page like Crystal Brook, which allows space to later add Crystal Brook, Queensland, Crystal Brook railway station and Crystal Brook earthquake/train crash/serial killer. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Snottygobble on this one. I'm not convinced that there is a need for this change at all, really. We needed the town and suburb standard because there was major problems with articles being at a bunch of different titles. I'm not seeing that issue here. Rebecca 03:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

But isn't he actively exploring the need for a change? (or at least seeking clarification on what to do with names other than towns/cities). In just a quick scan, I have certainly come across a few different formats already in use in Aust-geo names, so we certainly need to take a good look at this.

ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

04:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't need to change if everybody already agreed on a convention, we'd only be formalising it. I've noticed a number of articles about natural features moved by someone else to <Mount Blah, State> form, citing an established naming convention, which clearly had not been established. I just never got round to asking why they thought it was. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why in this instance the watercourse Boyup Brook needs to be disambiguated - are there more that one? I don't think you are supposed to make disambig pages when there are only two entries, if someone seaches for Boyup Brook they will get the water course and a link to the town article. When there are 10 of the same place you just need to create a disambig at the most basic name like Mount Victoria, and then diambigate everything there - since someone is highly unlikely to search for Mount Victoria (New South Wales) - they will in all probability find what they are looking for on the disambig.--

Peta

03:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point. There's also the shire, but that could go at

Boyup Brook into a redirect to Boyup Brook, Western Australia, which title is just as ambiguous. We then include a disambiguation notice pointing to Boyup Brook (watercourse). What a mess! Snottygobble

03:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This is precisely why

ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

04:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that there's a shire has let you out of jail. What would you do if there was no shire? - we don't have disambig pages when there's only two articles.

Better still, how do you propose to handle Arthur River, which is a town and watercourse in Tasmania, and a town and watercourse in WA? Snottygobble 04:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You are correct on the first point, I think we would have to accept that at the end of the day there may be a handful of geo names that attract "creative" solutions (having exhausted all options as one progresses down the decision tree) - but the basic point remains that as long as there is a disambig page, that is less of an issue. On the second point:

ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

04:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the ongoing issue of communication and education of policy, yes, I am saying that it provides a possible solution to disambiguating a name used for both a town/city and a geographic feature. Especially so if we accept the current format for Australian towns/cities (which I think most do), and we are also leaning towards using brackets for geographic features, then it seems to me that the town/city vs geographic feature problem no longer exists - the agreed formatting has effectively taken care of it. Afterall, these are all just naming conventions to disambiguate, they have no bearing on the actual content of the articles themselves, and it's the disambig page that serves as the primary navigation tool - everything else is mostly window dressing (i.e. use of commas, brackets, or whatever else). --

ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

03:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

For the purposes of the discussion, may I highlight a few current titles that may inform the drafting of a policy. Firstly,

ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

03:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

when considering the use of a Dab option you only need to read past discussion about the use of Perth and the number of page moves. That it re occurs all to frequently as different people use different criteria for whats the more significant subject. Gnangarra 04:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Also places like Perth Airport need to be considered as part of this discussion Gnangarra 04:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

yes, agreed, I had to learn the hard way with a lengthy discussion on

ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

04:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should call a straw poll here and draw the attention of AWNB to its existence.--A Y Arktos\^talk 01:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've again refactored the discussion, chopping off a redundant part of AYArktos' above comment. I hope that's okay?

Yes, I think this ought to be settled. Someone care to post to AWNB?--

talk

01:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Initial proposal

Proposal 1 (withdrawn)

Based on the discussions this appears to be whats developing as a consensus Gnangarra 05:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that his reflects the discussion. I'd oppose outright any format like

talk

05:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 2

My understanding was something more like the below, although I accept that there are a number of view that differ. Snottygobble 06:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the last one is a reasonable summation and offers a decent decision-tree. I would just add (apologising in advance for perhaps unnecessarily complicating matters): 1. in the last example, and I know it was only an example, but it seems to me that

ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

06:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

What I meant was: if Example Creek was a WA crater, a WA creek and a Tasmanian creek; AND the WA crater and creek were co-located making it impossible to disambiguate on location; then the article titles would be:

Example Creek (crater);

Example Creek (Western Australian watercourse);

Example Creek (Tasmania);

Snottygobble 08:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

lets go with this one it is clearer when displayed Gnangarra 07:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this one as far as geographic features go. I think we may need some flexibility that a state is not always the natural disambiguator to put in parentheses. There are presently 11 links to Brisbane Water. Should 9 go to Brisbane Water (New South Wales) and two to Brisbane Water (Queensland), or would "(bay)" and "(utility)" be better disambiguators? The fact that four times as many links go to one of the meanings, and that's the meaning that presently has an article, makes it obvious which is the primary meaning, although I 'd guess most people outside eastern NSW get it wrong. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Only one is a geographic feature, so only one is subject to

the established convention that we disambiguate on administrative division in preference to feature type. Therefore I would go with Brisbane Water (New South Wales) and Brisbane Water (utility). Snottygobble 08:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Or Brisbane Water and Brisbane Water (utility). Snottygobble

08:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This proposal seems good to me. I think some binding poll should be set up soon to solve this issue. - Darwinek 08:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - Drew's additional examples make it clearer for me - does it follow automatically that

ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

10:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a guideline rather than a rule, and can be broken when there is good reason to do so. Snottygobble 11:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The remaining issue that's bugging me is whether it is appropriate to simultaneously have a river article at Arthur River (Western Australia) and a town article at Arthur River, Western Australia. I've expressed opposition to this; Pippu has expressed support; noone else seems to have commented either way. Snottygobble 11:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

How will a joe blow reader know what the hell the distinction is? Surely thats the bottom line? SatuSuro 12:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much to Snottygobble and others for getting the discussion to this point and helping to clarify the proposal for us all. WRT to Arthur River, I can't see a problem with having a

I@n

12:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I also don't think it is a problem since they will both be on a disambig page that says that one is a town and the other is a river.--

Peta

12:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that we go with the second proposal for Australian articles and post it at

It seems to me that cj's query is just about the final thing to sort out. If I understand it correctly, this will arise when these sets of circumstances coincide: 1. the name is used for more than one geo feature within a state; and 2. the same name applies to one or more geo feature in another state. If the name applies to more than one geo feature within a state, we simply go with

ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

13:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

sorry - I just realised the someone was cj in the actual proposal! so, the region thing is only an issue, where say there is more than one type of that feature with the same name in the one state. Is that right? Are there any examples?

ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

13:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Snottygobble listed this example earlier in the discussion for the name Mt Eliza. Gnangarra 15:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

1. One mount in NT
2. One mount in QLD
3. One mount in Tas
4. One hill in ACT
5. Four different mounts in Vic (one no longer official)
6. One town in Vic
7. Three mounts in WA
8. One mount in NSW

Another thought: Where do islands sit? Are they geographical features or place names? I would assume we'd call them geo-features. --

Islands are features that are not towns, the same as mountains, rivers, bays and lakes. I support CJ that if disambig is needed at a finer level than state, then a

region name or nearby city should be enough. --Scott Davis ^Talk

14:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok - got it - the regional question arises in the case of the 4 mounts in Vic and thee three in WA - region or nearby town/city will do it. The town in Vic gets done as normal. The others might be something like

ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

20:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

A close read of

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) indicates that the breakdown should be successive administrative units. We seem to have come to the consensus that we would rather just use whatever breakdown is sensible and easily recognisable. For example, one of the WA Mount Elizas is probably best disambiguated by region (Mount Eliza (Kimberley, Western Australia)); another by city (Mount Eliza (Perth, Western Australia); and the third either by shire (Mount Eliza (Ngaanyatjarraku, Western Australia)) or desert (Mount Eliza (Gibson Desert)

). I'm happy with this outcome, and don't mind thumbing my nose at the overall convention on this point.

The naming conventions also establish that we should be using

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (places)#Parenthetical method

where it gives the example format "ShortName (HigherDivision, HighestDivision)". I think this yields a neater and more sensible disambig page:

Mount Eliza may refer to:

Mount Eliza (Australian Capital Territory)

Mount Eliza (New South Wales)

Mount Eliza (Northern Territory)

Mount Eliza (Queensland)

Mount Eliza (Tasmania)

Mount Eliza (Gippsland, Victoria)

Mount Eliza (Wimmera, Victoria)

etc

Mount Eliza, Victoria, town

Mount Eliza (Kimberley, Western Australia)

Mount Eliza (Ngaanyatjarraku, Western Australia)

Mount Eliza (Perth, Western Australia)

but I can see cj's and others' points too, and I have no objection to ignoring the convention on this point. Perhaps we could agree to take into account the ambiguity of the disambiguating term. e.g. "Perth" has many uses so Mount Eliza (Perth, Western Australia); "Kimberley" exists in both Western Australia and South Africa, so Mount Eliza (Kimberley, Western Australia), but "Ngaanyatjarraku" and "Gibson Desert" are both fairly unambiguous so Mount Eliza (Ngaanyatjarraku) or Mount Eliza (Gibson Desert). Snottygobble 00:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Makes good sense - I think you have successfully wrapped up the discussion - this represents just a minor addition to cj's decision tree above - ok - what do we do next?

πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

03:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess a collaborative attempt to explicate our consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian places/Naming conventions. Snottygobble 03:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Further to Drew's suggestion above, I thought we could mould the second table into something that could be placed on the

We have a de facto standard for Australian town names at

• Category:Lakes of South Australia
• Category:Lakes of New South Wales
• Category:Rivers of Western Australia
• Category:Mountains of New South Wales

After much discussion, debate, toing and froing and general mayhem at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian places, the various views were distilled to the following logical and comprehensive decision tree:

Is a poll going to achieve anything if everyone here has agreed to the proposal above? The proposd system appears to be inline with other wikipedia conventions. I think if all interested parties involved in the discussion agree, we should add this to

ok by me!

πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

06:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Me too! --

I@n

07:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks good - SatuSuro 07:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not that familiar with NSW geography - where should these go
  Peta
  11:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Bendemeer is midway between

πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

11:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

hmmm, interesting...Bendemeer seems to be around the border of the North West Slopes and Plains and the Northern Tablelands; and St Albans, NSW is on the border of the Sydney Metro area and the Hunter...hmmm...

πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

11:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

the LGAs are probably Tamworth for the first, and City of Hawkesbury for the second. --

πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

12:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• What about parks and gardens, can they stay as [[name, state]]? That's the way the Canberra ones are done at the moment, and on the face of it, that seems fine (because I presume we do not classify them as a geo feature).
  πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)
  12:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I note that

πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

06:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly, the name is officially Uluru/Ayers Rock, there are other similarly binary names for some Australian places. The argument on Uluru has been to put it at the more common name which I agree with - but the more common name can often be a point of contention. So should our convention explicitly be to put the article at the more common of the names?--

Peta

07:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The preferred name should comply with the standard and the less preferred name, a redirect called whatever commonsense rule applies. Decisions as to what is the preferred name are best made a case-by-case basis. The

I@n

07:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you give such a "complex" example where applying

(Talk)

19:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This convention does follow the US convention, in that each is dab by the largest government area. The difference comes in that it is being applied to not just watercourse but to all geographic features and therefore needs to be clear and consistant. It isnt possible to say that it sohlud be dab by the watercours it which it discharges as this is possible for mountains. Gnangarra 23:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

By and large, I think we have followed the thrust of the above policy, but as Peta says, we simply have looked at a wider range of potential ambiguities than they ended up doing, not to mention that we considered all geo features, and not just rivers. I honestly do not think that there is any contradiction here.

πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

22:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the only part of

Saint Lawrence River anyway, so it has to be more specific. I think this proposed policy is quite in keeping with that one. --Scott Davis ^Talk

00:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

to

Snottygobble 23:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the example on the rivers naming convention page I have never seen a river that is disambiguated by its principal river. I don't think it's useful, unless all other options have been exhausted.--

Peta

00:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to include, if nothing else, to highlight the existence of the WikiProject Rivers - but the likelihood is that in the Austalian context this convention will be little used. Also, I'm not sure how strongly the rivers project pushes this convention, it seems to be mentioned as a possible method of disambiguation, in which case, our "more specific location" guideline pretty much covers it. Your wording leaves it flexible so little harm in including the reference. Possibly useful if we have a stack of similarly named creeks both within the same state and in more than one state.

πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

00:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: "if we have a stack of similarly named creeks both within the same state and in more than one state". Here's a scary factoid for you: there are 540 places in Australia named "Spring Creek". Snottygobble 00:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Having said all that, I can recall last night when I was checking out where St Albans, NSW was, noticing how remote the immediate area surrounding this Macdonald River was, and thinking that both

πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

00:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I do think it's important to take other conventions into account, but I would be happy to remove the specific WikiProject Rivers example. Perhaps: "...the type of the disambiguating location should take into account other relevant naming conventions such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Lakes#Naming, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains#Naming conventions and Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers#Naming." Snottygobble 00:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Only 540 Spring Creeks? - I bet there are plenty more, not to mention Breakfast Creek (43 according to GA) or Dinner Creek (67 according to GA. I wouldn't be able to work out what most of them were a tributary for either - if I indeed insisted on writing about them, I would much rather disambiguate by LGA and so I disagree with the naming convention at the Rivers project , though I can see why it might be necessary for other continents where rivers cross international boundaries. Most of ours don't even cross state boundaries.--A Y Arktos\^talk 01:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to keep this dragging on; I'd like it to end too but we have a problem:

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#Australia
  says:

  "Geographic features will normally follow the Geographic feature (State) format"

• but Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 23#Naming convention for geographic places - conclusion says:

  "Unambiguously named geographic features use Geographic Feature, e.g. Uluru;"

These are contradictory and leave me unsure what we've agree upon.

Snottygobble 05:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think that unless there is ambiguity then the name should not be disambiguated.--
  Peta
  05:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I have to now agree with Peta,
    I@n
    05:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I would have thought our recently agreed convention automatically sat within broader wikipedia policy on disambiguation. This says to me that the points cited can actually live quite comfortably together - and a careful reading of both leaves me convinced that that remains the case. If that needs to be spelled out somewhere along the line for clarity, then I guess there is no harm in that.
      πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)
      06:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Where should I put the article on Blackwood River? The first statement of our convention clearly tells me to put it at
        Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#Australia. Snottygobble
        06:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Is
          this correct now? Snottygobble
          06:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
        • That does clarify it. I noticed that Tobias' dot point re the contradiction is also there - should that remain?
          πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)
          06:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Probably not, someone should add a link to the rivers naiming convention to explain how we are doing things though.--
          Peta
          06:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • On a broader level, I note that there is a
      πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)
      06:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I can't see the problem, the towns aren't called Blackwood River. Make a Blackwood disambig and put all the towns and the river there for good measure.--
      Peta
      06:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
      • The articles would be Gnangarra 06:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Blackwood dab page
          • Blackwood River
          • Blackwood, South Australia
          • Blackwood, Victoria

That's fair enough - but just to tease this idea out a little bit more, I note that there is a Blackwood Creek in Tasmania - now I can see we can simply call it

πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

10:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

At least noone suggested we try it with places name Emu, according to the article there 619 of them. Mind you most will never rate an article anyway. Gnangarra 10:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

my apologies, I didn't expect to find an article on it, and it's actually the name of a town correctly named and directed - but I guess the general principle I am trying to clarify in my own mind remains - can a name that is technically unamibiguous cross the threshold just as in the potential example I provided in the last point. And in relation to Gnangarra's post above, well, I'm not even going to try and get my head around that one! My brain cells are limited in number, and on the decline...

πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)

10:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is only a convention; and

WP:IAR. If you felt that there was a high probability of confusion between Sherbrook Creek and Sherbrooke Creek, for example, and you decided to clarify the situation by naming them Sherbrook Creek (Queensland) and Sherbrooke Creek (Victoria), I for one wouldn't mind in the slightest. But I think such matters can be handled on a case-by-case basis; we don't need to alter the convention to cover it. Snottygobble

11:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)