Talk:Mooloolaba

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Mooloolaba, Queensland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060822090409/http://www.dovenetq.net.au/%7Epiula/Placenames/page43.html to http://www.dovenetq.net.au/~piula/Placenames/page43.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061210175459/http://maroochy.qld.gov.au:80/sitePage.cfm?code=Fact_File to http://www.maroochy.qld.gov.au/sitePage.cfm?code=Fact_File

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 10 July 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: moved as proposed. SST flyer  09:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Mooloolaba, Queensland → Mooloolaba – There is no other Mooloolaba, so to have the article at Mooloolaba, Queensland, is not necessary. The original move rationale was for consistency of naming, and I assume that means with other locations in Queensland, but that is not a valid reason. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose per apparent naming convention, as well as WP:CRITERIA consistency and precision and recognizability. Dicklyon (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Consistency is a perfectly valid reason: per policy, being consistent with the pattern used by similar titles is one of the characteristics of a good article title. ╠╣uw [ talk ]  19:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:NCAUST. Clear primary topic and Australian localities do not need to have the state tacked on. Jenks24 (talk) 09:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – already a redirect here. WP:PRIMARY comes into play. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀   19:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per Jenks24, compounded by the fact that Mooloolaba is already a redirect. -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - As "Mooloolaba" unambiguously refers to a city within the Australian state of Queensland, there is no need to disambiguate the title. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 04:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, per WP:CONCISE; adding the state is unnecessary over-disambiguation. WP:NCAUST covers this already. If it's a unique name like Mooloolaba, or a globally-recognised one like Sydney, no DAB is needed. If it's a feature within a city and needs disambiguation, DAB it with the city name (as in The Rocks, Sydney, though this should probably be changed to "The Rocks (Sydney)" to match how we'd do this for things within London or the city of New York). Otherwise, disambig by state; this is consistent with our treatment of placenames in US states, Canadian provinces, British subnational units, etc., etc.  In the case of Looloolaba, the bare placename is a sufficient title, per WP:RECOGNIZABLE, WP:PRECISE, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARY (more like "WP:ONLY"), and WP:CONCISE.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:NCAUST, as this town appears to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Mooloolaba". Dohn joe (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:NCAUST, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, etc. If this is the only place by this name, there no need for the natural geographic disambiguator. Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Just wrong
Who closed this RfC without rationale, favouring the minority of comments? Tony  (talk)  02:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * After he closed it in favor of the 3:2 support (counting nominator as in favor). But after reverting his close he gave a vote instead, which suggests a bias and not really aligned with conventions as I know them ("already a redirect" means very little relative to the point being discussed).  Still no real explanation.  And I find WP:NCAUST pretty ambiguous as to what is preferred.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It's open for you to leave your opinions. I'm not sure what the problem is.... -- Tavix ( talk ) 03:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 3-2 (since the nominator favoured moving), is not a minority of comments. Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:11, 27 July 2016 (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.

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20120321072036/http://www.sunshinecoast-australia.com/mooloolaba-history.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. IamNotU (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)