Talk:Electoral district of Ivanhoe

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 moved per discussion. - GTBacchus(talk) 03:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Electoral district of Ivanhoe (Victoria) → Electoral district of Ivanhoe –
 * The custom for ambiguous Australian electorates is that, if there's a single extant electorate by that name, it gets primary, and the abolished electorate(s) get hatnoted in the primary article (see Electoral district of Flinders for an example). Primary dabs are only used where there are two or more abolished electorates (e.g. Electoral district of Elizabeth) or two or more extant ones (e.g. Electoral district of Mulgrave). (The logic is the usual primary-dab logic that a current electorate is lopsidedly more notable than an abolished one.) Miracle Pen (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Page Electoral district of Ivanhoe is a disambig. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure Miracle Pen knows this and is contending that the Victorian electoral district is the primary topic because the West Australian electorate has been abolished. I'll drop a note at WP:AWNB to hopefully get some more input. Jenks24 (talk) 06:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * support Makes sense, the WA one was only active for a few years. --99of9 (talk) 06:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Personally of the view it should stay as is - the "What links here" on the disambiguation page is a mess consisting of bits of both, and there are so few electorates in total which are in any way ambiguous that it's best just to say "if it's ambiguous, disambiguate". Orderinchaos 10:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The precedent I described has already been established, this would be an exception. Anyway, the Victorian electorate, which is current, is far more notable than an obscure WA electorate abolished a century ago, so it deserves primary for that reason alone anyway. Miracle Pen (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyway, if it's ambiguous, you can disambiguate with a dab hatnote, there's no need for a whole dabpage. (Strictly speaking, having a dabpage for two entries would seem to break WP:TWODABS, so we shouldn't really be doing it anyway). Miracle Pen (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, provided that a hatnote is included on the Victorian article pointing at the WA one. I feel that our readers are far more likely to be interested in the current, Victorian electorate.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Support. The DAB is unnecessary, a hatnote would be quite sufficient. For Pete's sake, the WA electorate only existed 1904-1911, its chief claim to fame is that its only member went on to be premier, but by then representing the merged electorate (see Electoral district of Brown Hill-Ivanhoe), which itself disappeared in 1950. It's a footnote in history, while the Victorian electorate has existed since 1945, has had members of four different political affiliations, has been at various times seen as a safe seat for both current major parties, and still exists. It is no contest. Andrewa (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2011 (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.