Talk:Muludja

oh dear
it could be a dangling particple or a full stop - but to argue with identification of places because of a grammatical issue is sad..

So by precedent does this mean that all aboriginal communities - of which some have strong sense of their community are to be stripped of their identity because of some grammatical issue? shame on you mitch. JarrahTree 23:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * For this article, this report (from ), page 7, says:
 * Community's Common Name = Muludja
 * Formal Name = Muludja Aboriginal Corporation
 * General discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Western_Australia.
 * Mitch Ames (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The planner's report continually refers to the community in most of the text, just the title seems the solitary name. JarrahTree 07:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The report typically refers to "Muludja", "Muludja community" or "the community" - with "community" in lower case - not "Muludja Community" because "Community" is not part of the name (as shown on the title page and page 7). If there were other things with the same name, we could rename the article to "Muludja (community)", but there is no need for parenthetical disambiguation because there is nothing else with that name. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Which for the reader becomes less accessible and more obscure and unreachable, than with the qualifier - valid from refs or not. This is an approach to 'rules' that makes the content of the western australian project less accessible.

In a lot of cases readers/users of wikipedia will have heard of the xxx community, but have no reference point as to xxx in the general level of material from news and internet sources JarrahTree 09:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)