Talk:City of Whitehorse

Requested move 27 September 2016

 * 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 to move, after over two weeks and a relisting. Support !votes were in the numerical majority, but the opposers brought up compelling arguments that were never countered: specifically, we don't usually treat "City of xxx" as an alternate name or redirect for cities named xxx (and never have previously for the other Whitehorses), meaning there's effectively no conflict for the title City of Whitehorse. A hat note should take care of any reader who's confused. Cúchullain t/ c 12:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

City of Whitehorse → City of Whitehorse, Victoria – this is not the most prominent city named Whitehorse; the Canadian topic located at Whitehorse, Yukon is also called "City of Whitehorse" and it is a capital city, unlike the Australian one. The current title should redirect to the disambiguation page, listing multiple cities at White Horse -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 05:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support I am the nominator -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with this proposal. It would certainly be useful and it seems to be standard anyways for city articles to have their province or state named after a comma in the title when there's other cities with the same name. Air.light (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Clarity never hurt anybody. Dolphx (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Including redirecting City of Whitehorse to White Horse. No clear primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment - I am relisting this on the instruction of, following our discussion below. This should be regarded as their relist, not mine, as I am WP:INVOLVED by opposing this move.
 * Oppose "City of Whitehorse" is a completely implausible redirect for the article at Whitehorse, Yukon. We don't usually have City of X articles for every city X on Wikipedia. There is no City of Regina, City of Yellowknife etc. That term on Wikipedia only refers to this local government area in Australia, and the hatnote at the top of the article is perfectly fine to handle a very few tiny minority of people who may type "City of Whitehorse" intending the Yukon place. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why is Whitehorse, Victoria not considered an option?  ONR  (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it's a local government area and not itself a settlement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment for other examples where we use the "City of X" nomenclature to represent a local government district, even where "X" may legitimately have a primary topic that's a different article or different city, see City of Leeds (vs Leeds), City of Carlisle (vs Carlisle, Cumbria, Carlisle, Western Australia and others), City of Sydney (vs Sydney) etc. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment those things are all co-located in the same place (country/nation-state/UN member/whatever you call that), these two are not located even in the same hemisphere. (north/south or east/west) -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 03:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I also oppose the move. We need consistency; all of the other Victorian LGAs use the "City of" format, and there is no naming conflict. Orthogonal1 (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * I'm unclear on what is being asked here. On the article page it says that Whitehorse, Yukon should be moved here. However, that isn't mentioned above. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It is disrespectful to write that the city of Whitehorse, Victoria is not the most prominent city named Whitehorse as it has a population more than five times that of Whitehorse, Yukon. Chukk55 (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Chukk55
 * Population is irrelevant. The Canadian city is far better known. But nobody is saying it should be the primary topic here anyway. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "The Canadian city is far better known": Can you please cite a reference to substantiate that. Chukk55 (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Chukk55


 * 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.

Discussion against move 4 October 2016
I oppose this move. "City of Whitehorse" is a completely implausible redirect for the article at Whitehorse, Yukon. We don't usually have City of X articles for every city X on Wikipedia. That term *only* refers to this local government area in Australia, and the hatnote at the top of the article is perfectly fine to handle a very few tiny minority of people who may type "City of Whitehorse" intending the Yukon place. Please reopen and relist. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But it has gained a clear consensus. I go with . Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 11:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am just asking you to relist for one more week. I have raised a new point, and the discussion is still continuing. It is not good to close discussions when they are still ongoing. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But how to revert the move, I am not an admin. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 12:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I feel like I've been a little over aggressive here. I guess I got annoyed because I was busy writing an oppose vote and when I tried to save it the move was already closed! I would still appreciate a relist however, because I think it would be good to discuss my point a bit further. If you decide to relist the discussion I can undo the move for you. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, this is very reason why we are provided the talk pages, to discuss. Actually I am facing a problem when I tried to relist. The template shows something like "this request has already been carried out". I request you to relist if possible, I declare this, or instruct me on that. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 15:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I just found out about this discussion and I also oppose the move. We need consistency; all of the other Victorian LGAs use the "City of" format, and there is no naming conflict. Orthogonal1 (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)