Talk:Caboolture, Queensland

Images for Caboolture
The Caboolture Shire Council can supply awesome images of 2007 Urban Country Music Festival. Contact Public Affairs Unit 5420 0187 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.30.244.29 (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This reads just like a brochure from a real estate agent! This needs a re-write badly. 168.140.181.4 — Preceding undated comment added by 168.140.181.4 (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sport
I tidied this section for spelling and grammar, but references and a complete re-write are badly needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.1.168.107 (talk) 10:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 3 March 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Not quite seeing agreement to rename this article. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors may take a few months to strengthen their rationales with guidelines and policies, and then attempt this page move again if desired. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there 20:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Caboolture, Queensland → Caboolture – Only place name. B dash (talk) 06:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dekimasu よ! 06:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 05:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per WP:PRECISE, article titles regarding geographic names may contain disambiguation even where they are the only topic with that name because it produces a more natural title. I note that all articles for suburbs in the Moreton Bay region (see Template:Moreton Bay Region) have the Queensland geographic identifier even though most are the only topic with that name. Changing this article title without changing the rest would be pointless and inconsistent. Shadow007 (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, no need to disambiguate.--Grahame (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I think it's standard to include the state. Dicklyon (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - we do actually have a policy on this, see Naming conventions (geographic names). It's quite acceptable to use Caboolture as the article title if it is the primary topic or the only topic (both in this case). However, it is usual to retain Caboolture, Queensland as a redirect to Caboolture, so that people writing other articles don't have to know which articles do or don't need the ", Queensland" as it is always safe to use the ", Queensland" form. Since a move would leave that redirect, all is fine. It's fair to say that there are a lot of Queensland place articles that could move to a simpler name. Kerry (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 'Comment WP:NCAUST is a guideline not a policy. Shadow007 (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: The general policy is not to disambiguate if there is no ambiguity.--Grahame (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As per WP:PRECISE. cited above, disambiguation when not strictly needed is perfectly acceptable for geographic names when it produces a more natural title. Consistency is also an important aim (WP:CONSISTENT) and this move is proposed in isolation to all other localities within the Moreton Bay Region and, indeed, the general practice across Wikipedia for place names for smaller towns/suburbs/localities to have a further geographic identifier even where not strictly required by ordinary disambiguation rules. Shadow007 (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not the "general practice across Wikipedia for place names for smaller towns/suburbs/localities". It is the practice in the US and nowhere else. It was once the practice in Canada and Australia but it is no longer. Locality names in every other nation state in the world are only disambiguated where necessary. This renaming would work towards making article titles for Australian localities consistent with the rest of the encyclopedia. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. ", Queensland" is required for recognisability and consistency.  "Caboolture, Queensland" is the usual format.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. A similar move request is taking took place at Talk:Goulburn, New South Wales. Dekimasu よ! 02:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Caboolture will mean Caboolture River to some readers. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. Unlike WP:USPLACE, which specifies the use of "Place, State", there is no such specification for Australia and, as a result, there is inconsistency, with various "Place, State/Territory" headers and standalone place names, such as Woolooga. Since Caboolture currently redirects to Caboolture, Queensland, rather than to a dab page, the ",Queensland" part is not needed. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support There is absolutely no need for disambiguation in this case. The reference to the other localities in the Moreton Bay region is a massive red herring. The vast majority of those are unnecessarily disambiguated too; a hangover from when this encyclopedia did have a mandatory requirement to append the state name to all Australian locality articles. However, there is no need to fix all other disambiguation issues to fix this this one particular disambiguation issue - that is not how Wikipedia works - Wikipedia is a work in progress. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Recognizability: there is only one Caboolture, nobody is confusing Caboolture with Caboolture River; if they do, hatnotes are cheap. Naturalness: the article itself starts "Caboolture is..." and a search shows that usually it requires no disambiguator. Precision: there is no other Caboolture to disambiguate, and Caboolture is already a redirect rather than a disambiguation page. Conciseness: the title should be no longer than necessary. Consistency: as has been mentioned, the move would be consistent with the naming convention for Australian localities. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have provided a draft disambiguation page below. --Scott Davis Talk 21:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support since this is already a redirect. The custom for several years has been to prefer unambiguated name where there is no confusion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per SmokeyJoe and In ictu oculi. There is no such custom: two users moving articles where there is no consensus doth not a "custom" make. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as the only place name with that name. The redirect will take care of any other issues, and there's no reason to have the state name in the article title or hypothetically make people type that out or disambiguate it if it's the only place name with that name. The article title should match those of the cities listed in List of cities in Australia by population. SunChaser (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of piping on that page. Try Category:Towns in Queensland if wanting to match others.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Of the first 45 cities in List of cities in Australia by population, the only ones whose Wikipedia article titles include the state name are those where there are Wikipedia articles on other places by that name (e.g. Gold Coast, Newcastle, Albany) or Wikipedia articles on other (usually more notable) topics of that name (e.g. Darwin, Orange, Gladstone), or a set of articles on the designated Australian metropolitan area. SunChaser (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Caboolture is not special like the top 45, it is like the masses in the category. Nobody (no reader) types titles, they follow links and choose options. They only have to read the title. Shortening titles to unique but inferior options benefits no reader ever. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, and I don't see the lesser-known of the top 45 on List of cities in Australia by population as any more "special" than Caboolture, even if they are regional capitals. Most non-Australian readers have no idea where Dubbo is or even that it's in Australia, but it doesn't have a state name in the Wikipedia title, because it doesn't need to -- there are no other cities named Dubbo. In addition, at a population of 60,000, Caboolture is more populous than half of the top 45 on List of cities in Australia by population. I've already given my rationale for supporting this proposed move, and I don't intend to keep repeating it or responding to comments. If you'd like the last word, feel free. SunChaser (talk) 10:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * weak oppose originally every australian town was dab as foo, state I personally think this is still a more informative title. With that other features like rivers were dab as foo (state) it did make make for easy article writing as you didnt have to guess and there existed consistency across all articles.  There was a discussion about changing that a while ago and the conclusion was that if the dab wasnt necessary then dont add it, it was also agreed that there wouldnt be a mass move of articles either. Personally I still prefer the dab, especially with Indigenous names as we have yet to invest and engage with Indigenous knowledge in significant way such words may have greater significance the idea of arguing a usurped Indigenous name is more significant than the source really isnt going to help getting under represented people involved. Gnangarra 09:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. No need to disambiguate; the US convention stems from the fact that it is usual to refer to US places by "name, state" in conversation, which is not the case elsewhere. Frickeg (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * “Place, State” is used extensively in Australia. Just off the top of a search: http://www.traveller.com.au/the-places-and-experiences-in-australia-2015-named-gjzoag. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That is because we used to exclusively name articles in that manner and many articles have not been moved since WP:NCAUST was changed. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 21:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:PRECISE and the long-standing convention established for articles about Australian towns. Some years ago, someone watered down the short list of exceptions at WP:NCAUST to include "however, the name of a city or town may be used alone if the place is the primary or only topic for that name (e.g., Sydney rather than Sydney, New South Wales)." then set about slowly finding places like Caboolture to break the consistency that had been established. I'd suggest that there are a number of things that can or could have a short name of Caboolture in various contexts. If I saw a student on a train and asked them where they were going and the replied "Caboolture", should I assume the town, the railway station or the school? --Scott Davis Talk 21:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Caboolture is a place name in Queensland. It may refer to:
 * Caboolture, Queensland, a town
 * Caboolture railway station, on the North Coast railway line
 * Caboolture railway line, a regular suburban service on the line
 * Caboolture River
 * Caboolture Airfield
 * Morayfield State School is also known as Caboolture National School
 * Shire of Caboolture, local government area from 1903 to 2008
 * All of these apart from the town, derive their name from the primary topic of the town, so they are secondary to the town. None apart from the town would be known simply as "Caboolture". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but not necessarily, and least likely for the river. The name derives from an aboriginal place name that does not directly correlate with the town.  The town lies in a place the Yugarabul called kabultur.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with the relative veracity of various sources for Queensland place names. The Centre for the Government of Queensland suggests that the name arose from the bay in 1848. it was used for the pastoral run in 1850, then the town of Upper Caboolture before the town of Caboolture itself in 1869, school in 1873 and shire in 1879. So the primary topic for the name would appear to be a carpet python, but kabul is already an article for something else.. --Scott Davis Talk 05:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel sure I must be misunderstanding you here, Scott, because the term "primary topic" has nothing to do with what the original use of the word was, but what its use is now. Graeme is quite right: there is no question that "Caboolture" by itself would be safely assumed by most people as referring to the town. Frickeg (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I was responding to Graeme Bartlett's first sentence that the others all derived their name from the town. That appears not to be strictly true, and none of the people in this conversation appear to know exactly where or how large the original "place of the carpet python" actually was - and whether it overlaps the current town area. That is somewhat tangential to the actual question under discussion of whether the article about the town should be moved to a shorter title. I still believe it has the right name, and at least one of the conversations that contributed to the drift in WP:NCAUST over the last eight years concluded that even if the guideline now provides two options for the name of a new article, existing articles should not be getting moved back and forth. --Scott Davis Talk 05:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:NCAUST. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 21:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Dispute that NCAUST holds, or ever held, consensus, either from a talk page !vote or in practice, along the lines of discouraging the real-world commonly used highly-recognisable full comma state titling of obscure towns even if technically unique. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * At WP:AWNB I have provided links to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/August and Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 36, two relevant discussions. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC also supports this move proposal. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I followed the links, they were not new to me, and I still can’t find evidence of the putative consensus. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The words were All Australian town/city/suburb articles are at Town, State no matter what their status of ambiguity is. Capital Cities will be excepted from this rule and preferentially made City . The unqualified Town should be either a redirect or disambig page. Local government areas are at their official name. from 25 April 2005 to 3 August 2010. A long time ago now, but over five years unchanged should indicate that the convention had consensus. --Scott Davis Talk 13:56, 14 March 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Where is the real history?
This page, along with others, has been edited with a lot of information removed. It now focusses on education. Where is the information, history and photos? All we can read about is when the schools were built. What about pioneers, shops, services, etc? Whoever has taken this upon themselves to remove important information has no right. 58.104.192.72 (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to look at this article history (or any other's) and see what was removed and why and whether it should be restored. However, my quick look at the relatively few edits on this article that did large deletions usually deleted uncited content (one edit summary said it had been uncited for several years). Wikipedia's policy on verification states "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." So people who remove information for that reason do indeed have the "right". So, if you are reading content that you like but can see is uncited, please consider adding citations if you can find them. In general, nobody has the right to delete cited content just because they disagree with it or they don't find it interesting; it must be in some way contrary to policy. Another cause of deletion of content relates to people who copy the content word-for-word from copyright material, that has to be removed for legal reasons, but I don't see that reason mentioned in any of the deletions on this page, but I have seen large deletions of content on other Queensland articles for that reason. Kerry (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Population and demographics
I have copied this content here for discussion. The table is problematic as it is mostly uncited and the two cited years are using aggregated data for a larger area than the topic of this article. But a lot of work has gone into it and I am hoping the issues can be resolved and the content reinstated. Kerry (talk) 03:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)