Talk:Greater Perth

To merge
Other Greater Capital City Statistical Areas in Australia don't have separate articles. To merge with main article. Subtropical -man ( ✉  | en-2 ) 23:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should be merged — but with the Perth metropolitan region article, not the Perth one. Adondai (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose. Even though they look similar, they do not represent the same area. Each one of them has a specifically defined area:


 * 1) Perth = the area comprises the 29 Metropolitan Perth LGAs, as defined by the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development.
 * 2) Perth metropolitan region = Perth + Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale, according to the Metropolitan Region Scheme, compiled by the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage. If you use reiwa.com.au to search for a property, they use the exact same divisions as those defined by the Metropolitan Region Scheme.
 * 3) Greater Perth = Perth metropolitan region + City of Mandurah + Pinjarra Level 2 Statistical Area of the Shire of Murray, defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics as the Greater Capital City Statistical Area for Perth.
 * To avoid confusion, we should keep all three of them. Xindeho (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So, articles should be removed. Greater Perth does not meet the encyclopedic requirements. Besides, in the main article of Perth we can create mention about Greater Perth and Perth metropolitan region (what is it, what area it covers), simply. Subtropical -man  ( ✉  | en-2 ) 13:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Why should we remove them? One is for metropolitan land planning, another one is for statistics, they all have different purposes. If we remove them, how would we link Greater Perth to a statistical article in the future? Should we link it to a portion of the text in the main Perth article? I don't think it's appropriate to combine everything into one big article. Xindeho (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary to integrate entire articles. It is enough to add a mention to the main article of Perth (a brief description that there is such a thing, what it does, about four sentences are enough).  Subtropical -man  ( ✉  | en-2 ) 13:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My description above is already more than four sentences, but for people from outside of Perth, they probably still don't know the differences between them. Xindeho (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is just speculation. A trivial topics, not suitable for separate articles. Mention to the main article of Perth is enough. Even if someone suggested creating a small section \ sub-section about this in Perth, with a brief description of these two things - I would support the idea, however, keeping two separate articles (not counting the main article) is nonsense. Subtropical -man  ( ✉  | en-2 ) 14:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To call topics trivial, and nonsense requires some perspective as to where this perspective comes from - I fail to see where or how such criterion would even be allowed at discussions in other parts of wikipedia.  Some good arguments usually have examples, and explanations and precedents.  Otherwise such comments fall flat with experienced editors who have had to suffer the harsh criticisms of arguments at Afd say.  JarrahTree 15:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per nom. 144.130.162.86 (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, ridiculous merger proposal. 110.145.30.41 (talk) 06:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I cannot understand the rationale behind this merger/removal request. JarrahTree and Xindeho are both respectable geography editors, especially in regard to Western Australian geography contents. I reckon they have made some good points here, while the editor who started the proposal did not provide any solid supporting statements to back up his proposal, instead, he just took an "oppose for the sake of opposing" attitude towards people who had disagreed with his proposal, which further weakens his position. I for one will not support this bizarre proposal. Kenwick (talk) 09:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

... and Metropolitan Region Scheme - another gem. In the future new urban/lands programs may arise, and what? we need to create separate articles?!?!?!?! Lands planning like Metropolitan Region Scheme and Perth metropolitan region - heir encyclopedic character is very debatable. All of these examples was created by one user: Moondyne. Especially since all three articles (Greater Perth, Perth metropolitan region, Metropolitan Region Scheme) can be integrated into one section in the main article of Perth. Subtropical -man ( ✉  | en-2 ) 15:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Disagree. The Metropolitan Region Scheme is notable and worthy of a separate article. It’s an important element in the urban development of Perth. I’ve recently improved the article significantly. Adondai (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can also combine all the information in the universe into one big article: black hole. lol