Talk:Deal Island (Tasmania)

Requested move
no move. There is no clear MoS or naming convention basis for the move and the proposal hasn't achieved consensus. Although Maias' points were stronger for the moment, it might nevertheless be an idea to seek more formalisation of the relevant MoS before other such moves are proposed. - Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Deal Island (Tasmania) → Deal Island, Tasmania — In order to fit in with the Manual of Style, I believe that it should be moved to Deal Island, Tasmania, and get rid of the redirect to Kent Group. —— Cuyler  91093  -  Соитяівцтіоиѕ  04:29, 17 February 2008 (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 naming conventions.


 * Support. Uncontroversial IMO. Andrewa (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wrong about it being uncontroversial, discussion below. No change of vote as yet. Andrewa (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose, pending clarification or establishment of an appropriate guideline, which I will then support.Maias (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments: — Cuyler  91093  -  Соитяівцтіоиѕ  04:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The redirect seems to have been fixed... and that's a shame, as otherwise I don't think we'd need the RM! Andrewa (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not that I have an particular objection to the proposed move, but can someone let me know where in the MOS is there a guideline covering article title styles for ambiguous names - i.e. where and when to use parentheses or commas to qualify place names. I am quite happy to go along with a standard, but I note that many such titles use the former.Maias (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Now, I can't find it in the MoS, but as a general guideline, places should be separated by a comma, not by parentheses (e.g. Honolulu, Hawaii, Los Angeles, California). — Cuyler  91093  -  Соитяівцтіоиѕ  06:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that seems to apply to states, towns and cities when it is necessary to show what country or state they are in. However, with smaller geographical entities, such as islands, lakes etc - where they share names with other similar places - they are often, though not always, differentiated by parentheses.  See for example Blue Mountain.  I would just like to find some consistent guideline here to follow.Maias (talk) 07:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not in the MOS. Worse, the convention varies from country to country. Worse still, the convention is not clear for Australia, but I think this proposal follows the established practice. Further information is at Naming conventions (places), which has a section on Australia but it needs to be read in the context of the sections which precede it, and also WikiProject Australian places. Yes, clarification would be good. Andrewa (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * To explain where I am coming from; I am at present adding some articles on various islands of Tasmania. If you look at Category:Islands of Tasmania you can see that I am only really following a de facto convention or guideline regarding titles in this area.  The same applies to the other subcategories of Category:Islands of Australia.  The total number of articles must be several hundred at least and rising.  Then have a look at all the nested subcats of Category:Islands, which (from a very quick and non-comprehensive perusal) appear to have overwhelmingly adopted the use of parentheses where disambiguation is called for.  Until there is an accepted standard guideline to the contrary (and preferably one that applies globally) I am reluctant to change.  The odd one-off page-move to a different style is not going to help matters very much.Maias (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Good points, and I see that Category:Islands of Tasmania generally follows the parentheses convention, not the comma one, as you say. But disagree that the odd one-off page-move to a different style is not going to help matters very much; Quite the opposite, this discussion is the first step towards a convention. Andrewa (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of a convention
What is the better style for this case? The unqualified name is unambiguous, so IMO parantheses are inappropriate; They are appropriate for Kangaroo Island (Tasmania) to distinguish it from Kangaroo Island, but not here. But while two other undisambiguated Islands of Tasmania articles have Tasmania appended to the name (Mewstone,Tasmania and Sisters Island Group), others currently seem to use parentheses, even where there is no disambiguation, for example Sidmouth Rock. Andrewa (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I stick to my decision and move it to Deal Island, Tasmania, but I saw the page Mewstone,Tasmania, and I think that is also improperly named because of the lack of the space, but somebody already created a redirect page at Mewstone, Tasmania. Thus, I believe that in addition to moving Deal Island (Tasmania) to Deal Island, Tasmania, I believe that Mewstone,Tasmania should be moved to Mewstone, Tasmania. Anybody else with me? — Cuyler  91093  -  Соитяівцтіоиѕ  22:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with your suggested move of the Mewstone article; I think the missing space after the comma is ridiculous and must have been a typo originally. Maias (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree that the missing space should be replaced, and I've done it. The article was originally called Mewstone, Tasmania, but was moved to Mewstone (Tasmania) and then to Mewstone,Tasmania, all apparently without discussion. Agree that this was a typo, the redirect had no history at the time and anyone could have moved it back to Mewstone, Tasmania. I think ridiculous is a bit over the top, it's just a typo. Andrewa (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Move question
Is the island also the name of the community and used in addresses? If so, then move it, else don't. - LA @ 00:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that it has no permanent population, but is occupied by a succession of volunteer wardens who, now that the island is part of a national park, would be transported there and supplied by the wildlife service. Maias (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)