Talk:Mosman, New South Wales

Racially intolerant

I'd like to mention that according to a recent study, Mosman was found to be one of the most racially/culturally intolerant areas of any in New South Wales or Australia or something. Is this appropriate?

Separate page for the Local Government Area

As per discussion at Talk:List of Sydney suburbs, I have created a separate page for the Municipality of Mosman, the Local Government Area. -- Ianblair23 11:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Copyrighted Text?

I have reverted the large chunk of text that was added in April along with the chronology of Mosman events. Both looked as if they were cut-and-paste verbatim from another website Steve 05:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

And reverted when it was added again verbatim from http://www.mosman.nsw.gov.au/library/history.html Steve 23:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

And again, and again! Steve 00:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding History of Mosman text

Steve, the text as it appears on the our website (http://www.mosman.nsw.gov.au/library/history.html) was written by Librarians at Mosman Library. We are happy for it to appear on this page if the source is acknowledged; e.g. "- from 'History of Mosman', Mosman Library website" (hyperlinked)

I am not an expert in these things, but a cut and paste from an external website can only be done when that party explicitly "gives permission" to do so. In this case, I have seen administrators (I am not an admin, not yet anyway) tell the person who is claiming to be the presumed copyright holder to use the "email this user" option in the toolbox to send mail to an administrator from an email address that is associated with the organization which owns copyright to confirm that they really are the owners of the copyright. So I think you should get an account, set the email to your Mosman council email, and then email and administrator to verify that you are the copyright owner and are happy for it to be put on the wikipedia. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Update

This page has had its infobox updated to [[Template:Infobox Australian Place|Infobox Australian Place. This update has been automatically preformed by TheJoshBot. The following infomation has been lost in the transition, and will need to be converted to the document prose:

Field Name	Field Value
council	Mosman Municipal Council
ausborn	64.7
atsi	0.1
statistical_local_area	5350
federalmember	Tony Abbot

I've put "council" in as LGA. I do not think "ausborn" and "atsi" are really needed (they're not particularly notable). SLA is not very interesting, and "federalmember" can be found via the Federal Division. Chovain 22:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. The info box seems to be for the LGA. But isn't this page the suburb of Mosman? Chovain 22:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Photos

I restored some of my photos that had been deleted. I went to a lot of effort to take those photos and they can't be found anywhere else on the internet. If editors believe that there are too many photos for the amount of text in the article, then maybe they should try to expand the articles. Have a look at some good examples for other Sydney suburbs eg.Ashfield, New South Wales. J Bar 22:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to find photos that are relevant. Not just cos they look good (even though they do look good). Photos in an encyclopedia are for information, not decoration. For example, you "Prince Albert Terrace" has nothing to do with history. It was built in the 90's and I can't see why many of these pics are relevant/notable. You need to describe them and establish notability to the article. Merbabu 22:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If it was inappropriate to have the Middle Head photo in the article then I think the zoo photo is also inappropriate for the very same reason . --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) 07:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam.J.W.C. (talk • contribs)

I think you're Middle head photo was entirely appropriate for the article. If we had better photos of Middle Head or the Zoo, then I think they should be used but if we don't then there's nothing wrong with using what's available right now, even if they aren't perfect. J Bar (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree - a picture of the zoo is OK to use, but it should be something a bit more descriptive. Maybe a pic of the iconic entrance building.

We need to be careful of what photos we add - we can't just add pics because they are pretty or because we like them. We also need to be careful that we are not forcing our own pics in based on flimsy reasoning - the insignificant Prince Albert terrace is a case in point. There are too many photos, but there are many more important ones that should go before that. --Merbabu (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Photos

Photos from the Mosman article, which illustrate the landmarks in the article are being deleted. We should be expanding the articles with information and photos, not deleting them. As a guide, I suggest that you take a look at some of the more extensive articles that have been produced for Ashfield, New South Wales and Parramatta, New South Wales. If we had that much information for Mosman, then the photos would not look out of place at all. Maybe editors can do some research and provide more information so that the Mosman article can come up to the standard of other Sydney suburb articles. Please leave the useful photos in there.J Bar (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That they are useful is not at all evident. I note that they are predominantly your photos and your previous justification was that they took you some effort. When you were questioned on the relevance of the Prince Albert terrace pic, for example, you provided a weak original research opinion that they were an example of “sympathetic” development. What does that mean, and how is that (a) encyclopaedic, and (b) relevant to this article’s subject? Or is it simply a way to get your pics onto the web?

The idea with images is not to decorate an article, nor is it to create rows and rows of galleries, rather well-chosen and relevant pics are to link specifically with the text of an article. If you don’t have the text, you can’t have the pic. Nor should one create flimsy original research text (as mentioned above) to attempt to justify their inclusion.

Adam JWC’s pic of Middle Head was a good example – his original pic was very weak, and didn’t show Middle Head (rather part of its view). His subsequent replacement with a pic of the forts was a great improvement linking back to relevant text. Although the Ashfield article is indeed a much better article than here – a lot more text, for example - it does suffer too from gratuitous placement of pics. “I like it” may be the criteria for inclusion in one’s own website, but not wikipedia.

--Merbabu (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

PS, The problem is the excess of pics, not “usefulness”. The conservation shopfront is indeed a highly significant aspect of Mosman and should be illustrated. Rather, than a whole gallery just slapped in, chose one very good example, and place it in the article as an example. It’s not too hard. --Merbabu (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Those are your points of view and not necessarily shared by the majority. You have deleted significant photos of historical landmarks such as the Mosman Town Hall and Anzac Memorial Hall (now used for the Country Road shop) and the shopping centre Bridgepoint which is referenced in the Commercial Area section. From experience with the Sydney suburbs project, I have found that including photos in a Suburb article often triggers other editors to provide relevant information and history on the subjects. For example, someone might find information on the Anzac Memorial Hall and could add that to the article.

I have found a reference to the sympathetic contemporary architecture in Military Road (and have added it to the article) in my book on Federation architecture, that specifically looks at Mosman. J Bar (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that' not much of an argument - ie, I can quite as easily say that they are also your views and not necessarily that of the majority. But my views are based on established policy for creating wikipedia articles.

Could you please provide page numbers - that is standard wikipedia citation techique, and also the excerpt that specifically shows that this building is cited as an example? That it is "sympathetic" is a highly subjective statement, it is also flimsy in that it is more neo-Georgian than Federation - in fact, it looks nothing like the federation architecture. Why not include the numerous other buildings that are not federation style? It's such a minor point it doesn't warrant inclusion, further, it is demonstrably inaccurate. --Merbabu (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not looking for an argument and no longer want to be bullied. I'm sick of justifying every fact and edits to somebody who thinks they are the owner or ruler of a particular article. Delete the whole thing if that is your desire. Ultimately, the article will be the loser and will end up being incomplete, in comparison to other Sydney suburbs. We believe we have compiled some important information and photos, that we want to share with the rest of the world but some people obviously do not share our passion. J Bar (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely disgree with your interpretation of this issue ("bullying"? WP:OWN?). Every edit should be justifiable - that's the idea of wikipedia. But, I doubt that you are actually disagreeing with me on this fundamental. On a specific note, are you now saying that you are unable to provide specific page reference? I will have to dig up my copy of that book (from memory though it's a late 80's version). --Merbabu (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I will add the page references when I get a chance. I don't cut and paste information from sources. The point is, the information in the article is referenced from a number of sources and usually involves a rewrite using three or four different sources. If I had to put a 'fact citation' in there for every sentence or part of a sentence, then the reference list would be longer than articles. There's more important things to worry about than arguing over whether a contemporary townhouse development is sympathetisc or not. The fact is that I have three sources that say something along the lines of: 'Attractive modern townhouses rub shoulders with Federation style houses' . J Bar (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You appear to not grasp the difference between architectural writing (which is inherently subjective) and encyclopedic writing (which must be 100% objective). Just because a source (which you are yet to verify) makes a clear POV/subjective statement, does not mean we can repeat it here as fact - or indeed if we should repeat it at all. And you still haven't established that this point or indeed the picture are important. If you cannot do this, then the text needs to be removed. If it is not important as you say, then please tell me why you are consistently reverting it back in. Think quality, not quantity and "I like it" is not a criteria for inclusion. --Merbabu (talk) 04:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The photos of Bridgepoint, Council Chambers and Anzac Hall are important landmarks and should be reinstated. Although I can see your point about whether the contemporary townhouses are significant, they are nevertheless Mosman landmarks, whether you love them or hate them. I believe most residents would regard these as sympathetic development, especially in comparison to some of the latest offerings. 144.139.155.116 (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Bridgepoint might be important to Mosman, but is it important to an encyclopedia? hmmm. I wouldn't mind it going back in *if* we can chose one photo of the streetscape and tie it into the article, rather than just dump 8 photos in without tie-in to text. How are the terraces landmarks? Do you have a reference to say that residents like them? --Merbabu (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reference that says otherwise? I think you're being way too precious about the subject. It seems like you have taken this on as a personal crusade. I am passionate about heritage conversation but I don't think there is any harm in also featuring new developments in theses articles. We can't pretend that they don't exist. I would actually like to see more of the Federation residential architecture from my suburb featured in this article. 144.139.155.116 (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - what is your point? Are you suggesting I need a reference to remove information, but you don't need one to add? No wonder this article is such poor quality.

It's not "precious" at all - I'm just insisting on some quality, but people are insistent on dumbing everything down. Why do we need 6 pictures of the conservation frontage on Military Road? This is wikipedia - not Flickr. If you would like to provide information on the federation architecture, why not research and add it? (although, the terrace is more accurately described as neo-Georgian - it certainly doesn't look very federation). It seems this article is destined to remain lightweight - and you say you want more pics!?!. --Merbabu (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Merbabu re the images and I removed them again. Seriously, JBar, stop edit warring over your own images - it's like spamming. I recommend you allow other otherwise uninvolved and uninvested editors decide if your images should be added to the articles as you quite clearly have a conflict of interest in regard to this issue. Sarah 13:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the image "Enigmatic rock carvings at Ashton Park" really necessary, it seems like wasted space when something more worthwhile should be in its place. . --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam.J.W.C. (talk • contribs) 13:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said, there may be a case for either the Council or Bridgepoint - but why are there so many photos of 100m of the shopping strip? I suggest dropping 3 of the 4 current pics, and then maybe there is space for either the council or bridgepoint. --Merbabu (talk) 14:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Or how about one wide shot or panorama to replace the whole lot. (Like this one)--User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam.J.W.C. (talk • contribs)

A wide shot of the shopping strip could work. I've seen a wide shot on a magazine from Spit Junction down to Mosman Junction. But then again, one killer *example* shot of is better than 6 shots of shopfronts. Look at the Federation book listed here. It's got one single good shot of the shop front - and its 100 plus pages. Whatever happens, remember this is not an image gallery but an written article that should be complemented by a few *strategic* and relevant pics - but that doesn't mean that every (or even 6) relevant pics should go in - chose one for each point. Remember, it's wikipedia, not flickrpedia. Here are two Feature articles: Indonesia and Australia. There are thousands of times many more potential pics compared to Mosman - yet look at the restraint in pics. They're article's, not galleries. --Merbabu (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If the Mosman article wwas extensive as your Indonesia article then the all the photos would fit in nicely with the relevant sections. That has been my point all along. People should work on expanding the article rather trying hard to delete any contributions. If only all that effort was being put to better use for the sake of the article. J Bar (talk) 11:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Your numerous photos might be all useable if the article was called Built environment of Mosman. Please don't talk about misguided effort when you are the one continually forcing your own photography of a very narrow aspect of the topic - that is not "expanding" the article as you request. --Merbabu (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

J Bar, I agree wholeheartedly - someone should expand the text; perhaps you might like to? However, even with extended text we still don't need all the shop photos. Sarah 11:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Adam, I think that's a good idea. If we can remove some of the current shop strips and replace them with something else, the article would look much better. There are some unused images in the Commons' Mosman cat we could start with: [1] also Mosman on Mayflower. And don't forget we can upload to Commons Flickr images that are licensed as CC-BY and CC-BY-SA. I'd like to see some beach pictures on this article - you guys do realise that this article has no beaches images?! It seems really bizarre that an article for a suburb famous for its beaches and national parks would have no images of either. An outsider skimming through this article would be forgiven for thinking Mosman was just a town of strip shops. :/Sarah 11:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Sarah, Merbabu and all and the expansion of article

Here is a scenic pic that I took in Mosman with a small beach in the distance

The pictures on commons look pretty good, I actually started that category and took a few pics for it. Some of the pictures are usable but I think we could do better. When I learn how to use my camera properly I will go back and try again. This time I would probably take a couple of wide shots or panoramas that take in more than just a picture of one house or one building, which I think in some cases is a waste of space in the article. I know I am guilty of adding shonky images and not practicing what I have mentioned above but I am still trying to figure this out. If someone was going to add an image to brighten up the article it would be good to find the nicest place in the area take five or six adjoining images and then stitch them together to form one good shot, I actually took 24 shots for this Image:Harbour bridge stairs.jpg and I think about 3 or 4 for this, Image:Malabar1234.jpg which takes in most of the suburb even though the quality is not all that great.

Also concerning the expansion of the article, I think Mosman has an extensive Military history, most of it related to historical forts and Sydney Harbour defences, especially around WWII. I have created several articles concerning this and some of this text could be rewritten for the Mosman article. All those articles can be found in this template Template:Barracks Batteries Bunkers and Forts in Sydney. Some interesting history as in how they used to line the harbour with mines from Clifton Gardens to blow up enemy subs or ships trying to enter the harbour could be written for this article (information and refs are available in this article), or the extensive tunnel network that exists under Middle Head, Georges Heights and Bradleys Head that link to adjoining historical forts that were built around 1871 or prior could be written for this article. One or the forts built prior to wwii in the area that is not quite visible from the outside is the equivalent to an underground train station, almost like St James but not quite that big, heres a pic Image:Chowderbay-forts0079.JPG and this Image:Chowderbay-forts0042.JPG. The place is about 200 metres long by about 50 metres wide, has about twenty rooms or so, so theres got to be some history here. There are many refs available for this as well, I may look into this in future but would not want it to be a carbon copy of the content that I added into the Sydney Harbour article. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact remains. The article is 'Start' class and will remain so, as long as the intimidation continues on any contributions from any other editors. Adding photos to illustrate landmarks in a suburb article is 'dumbing down'. Please, spare us. It's important to have quality articles but looking down your nose at other contributor's efforts doesn't help. I have failed to see any constructive efforts from you towards improving this article. J Bar (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Those sorts of comments are really unhelpful. There's no need for snarkiness and absurd accusations - everyone is here in good faith trying to find ways to improve the article. I feel you are too emotionally invested in this article. Sarah 11:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made extensive contributions to almost all Sydney suburb articles. From researching History to building infoboxes, providing important facts and photos of landmarks in each suburb. If I seem passionate it's because I don't want to see all the contributions that people have made lost. I'd rather see improvements made to all these articles rather than having important information deleted because somebody doesn't like the way it looks. I've often found snippets of rough information that has been included in an article, that some might think was inarticulate, but with a bit of research and a rewrite it can be turned into a gem, and a vital part of an article. Every aspect of this article has been criticised and I fear that there will be indiscriminate deletions. J Bar (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

References

Comments

It's always debatable whether various shots are worth having in an article. I asked at AN/I once and was told:"It's really an editorial decision, but generally, pix should be supported by the text."

Personally, I think it's better to leave things in than delete things unnecessarily. I've clashed with editors who are always deleting other people's contributions. We all have to respect the right of other editors to make a contribution, otherwise people will give up if someone comes along and deletes their contributions.

By all means write about the fortifications at Middle Head; don't talk, act. Make a contribution instead of jus talking or, worse, just deleting what other people have done. I was thinking of putting in a shot of the Scottish cairn at Rawson Park, but maybe I'll think twice if someone else might just delete it. It becomes hard to make a contribution if you know that people are constantly coming back to an article and deleting things. It's not worth deleting something unless there's something very wrong with it.

Sardaka (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

When my motivation returns I will write about middle head. Also when adding photos you should also consider if people really want look at the photo. Take for instance the Revesby, New South Wales article, you have a picture of the main road in the info box and then a close up of three very ordinary looking shop fronts in the same street. Nobody wants to see that, those shops are the same kind of structure that you would see in any town or suburb in Australia and they are boring, I also think that noone would really be interested in looking at them. I know and admit that I have done similar things in the past but I am trying to improve on this . --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's an editorial decision, that's why we're discussing it here. You can add pictures to articles but Wikipedia is a serious project, not a file hosting facility and we are under no obligations to use them. If you add them and other editors don't like them, they will remove them and ask you not to add them. If you continue restoring them and edit warring over them you will find yourself blocked for disruptive editing. I might add that Sardaka is the fellow who was adding the most insane volume of images to pages. I was once asked by an editor to look at a NSW article which had become impossible to load properly because Sardaka had added a gallery of 40+ images to it. I mean, you have to show some common sense. If an article has lots of images of shops - don't add more. If you go to a feature article, discuss on the talk page before you start adding images because generally the editors have spent a huge amount of time on FAR discussing images and trying to find the right image:text complement. I think it all comes down to common sense and the basic awareness that we're here to build an encyclopedia, not promote ourselves by spamming content, including images. Sarah 14:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC) PS Frankly, telling a longterm, established editor like Adam who has contributed a great deal to Australian content "don't talk, act. Make a contribution instead of just talking or, worse, just deleting what other people have done," is very offensive and probably not the best way to go about editing in the Australian community here. Sarah 14:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

True, I'm the one who put too many images in the Sydney articles -- which I've just been discussing with JBar -- but I've learned my lesson since then and I have created galleries at commons for my shots.

Revesby article -- I'm not the one who put the shots in the Revesby article. I've never contributed to it. I've just been saying to JBar that some of the articles have too many shots of shopping strips with nothing significant in them. I agree with that criticism -- and I agree that the Revesby shots are a bore -- but I think we should be careful about deleting things unless there's something definitely wrong with them.

Offensive to Adam? Really, that's being a bit oversensitive. What I said was completely harmless. All I was getting at was that he might just as well ahead and write about Middle Head instead of just discussing it. He doesn't need permission to do it. Why are you so hostile (Sarah)? Isn't anyone allowed to disagree with you? Even a little bit? I don't see what I said to justify all the hostility.

Sardaka (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying to find at least one landmark in every Sydney suburb, so that every Sydney suburb article has at least one photo. I've taken heaps of photos of Sydney landmarks and I've posted photos in suburbs from Cronulla to Warwick Farm, Toongabbie to Maroubra and Mosman to North Rocks. I'm not trying to be funny, but sometimes the shopping centre is the only significant landmark in some of these suburbs, such as Revesby. Even if it is boring, what is the alternative? A photo of a shopping centre is relevant anyway because there is usually some information in the article about Commercial Areas, so it's a perfect illustration. I guess we've established that some people don't like some of my choices but if they know of a better landmark for these suburbs, then by all means take a photo and put it in there. J Bar (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sure we can all agree that this is not problem for the MOsman article - rather, too many objects is the problem, and we need to restrain ourselves. The article doesn’t adequately cover these notable items – not even close. But the solution is not to fill the gap with non-notable items (eg, Bridgepoint, Village plaza) simply because we have a photo of them. Anyway, this is an article on a suburb, not just it’s built environment. --Merbabu (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Duplication

After making such a fuss about too many similar photos being used in the article, we now have editors duplicating facts in the article and captions: "Mosman Council has identified the early twentieth century shopping strip along Military Road as a conservation area. The awnings along the street were originally column-supported." Why does this fact appear twice?

I would also like to suggest that editors have another look at WP:OWN. J Bar (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

J Bar - you don't see the irony in crying "own" but still fighting tooth and nail to have your own photos in the article even when their relevance is shown to be tenuous, and their number repeated over and over? How does that not fit into WP:OWN? As for the repetition in caption, it's hardly a major issue but I've trimmed it a bit. However, it does show how the pic directly relates to the text – ie, a requirement for any picture in wikipedia that was not done particularly well here before hand. And it was referenced information - another rare thing here. --Merbabu (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You continue to delete and modify all contributions from other editors. WP:OWN. Enough said. J Bar (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to draw attention (again) to my changes, I have trimmed some of the caption you mentioned. I think though it is important to have some specific info explaining the pics' significance, and that means that one sentence is mentioned in the caption and the prose - no big deal. --Merbabu (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you guys please try to be a bit more constructive? All these ongoing accusations of ownership, bad faith, "making a fuss" and "fighting tooth and nail" are going to deter others from participating. If you have personal problems with one another, please try to see past those personal issues, or perhaps take it to your user talk pages. This is the place to discuss the article, not air dirty laundry. Let's forget about past disagreements, and get back to improving the article. -- Mark Chovain 01:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Other editors are trying to be constructive but the edits by all other editors are being constantly reverted. That's the problem. J Bar (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

More than just a built environment...

Potentially loads of info here to broaden the presently narrow scope of the article. I will help as I can, but can’t promise much. Too many other real and wiki life commitments at the moment. --Merbabu (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Images in #houses

Could you guys discuss the House images here please, rather than edit warring and taking cheap shots at each other? -- Mark Chovain 05:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. harej 08:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Mosman, New South Wales → Mosman — This article was recently moved to an un-disambiguated name and soon after moved back. The name "Mosman" is unique and does not need disambiguation save for compliance with the guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Australia. I am not convinced that this guideline enjoys wide support given the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/August#Australian place name convention. Mattinbgn\^talk 08:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose there is a perfectly good policy about this, and the redirect is there anyway. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment And as mentioned above the guideline no longer enjoys anything that could be considered consensus. Is there a reason for keeping an entirely superfluous disambiguation with more weight than "We have always done it that way?" -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It's called status quo bias. While many people oppose the current guidelines, there was clearly no consensus to change the guidelines, either. So, what we tend to do here on Wikipedia is favor the status quo -- which in this case, means pre-emptive disambiguation. Powers ^T 12:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as per above comments ***Adam*** 12:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Mosman is a surname and "Mosman Park" (2x) and "Mossman" are placenames around Australia - I haven't even checked internationally. A disambig page would, by my count, feature at least 9 entries. Even without the guideline, this is a poor candidate for de-disambiguating. Orderinchaos 00:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mosman, New South Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071107233007/http://www.harbourtrust.gov.au/topics/sitesmiddlehead.html to http://www.harbourtrust.gov.au/topics/sitesmiddlehead.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)