Talk:Perth (disambiguation)/Archive 1

Perth redirect
Please read the discussion at Talk:Perth, Scotland for reasons that the Perth redirect should point to Perth (disambiguation) rather than to Perth, Scotland or to Perth, Western Australia or any of the other smaller Perths which exist. Any move to one of these is likely to be controversial and should only be carried out after consensus on a need for the move has been reached. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I have nominated Perth, Western Australia to be moved back to Perth. Notices have been posted at Talk:Perth, Scotland and Talk:Perth, Western Australia and Requested moves, with discussion to be centralized here (as a neutral location). -- Curps 01:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I kinda agree with Curps. I didn't even know that there was a Perth in Scotland until I saw this page. The Perth in .au is definitely more well known of the two to the general public. I propose having Perth redirect to the city in .au and then putting a disambig on that page for those looking for something else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)

Please note that the note you are referring to is a year old. Maybe you should read the rest of the talk page as well!! The whole problem of disambig and redirect issues for a large number of listed places in wikipedia clog up a lot of time and argument - best to leave as is! Please learn to sign your talk messages. If you feel short changed by this response - please try thinking of the people in Perth scotland who have never heard of Perth in Australia. SatuSuro 03:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Perth, Western Australia → Perth. -- Curps 01:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~ 


 * Support Perth in Australia is by far the most populous "Perth" and arguably the best known by a considerable margin. Note that Perth, Scotland has a population of only 45,000. It is standard Wikipedia practice for a city (or any other topic) to have the topic name to itself if it is the primary topic by that name.  For example, Boston redirects to Boston, Massachusetts even though Boston, England was the original namesake.  Similarly, Perth should go to the city in Western Australia (as a redir, or as the name of the article) even if Perth, Scotland was the original namesake. Note that Perth was in fact the page for the Australian city until just a few hours ago, when Derek Ross moved it to Perth, Western Australia.  I am not sure what justification he cites.  (Strike out as per Vclaw clarification below) -- Curps 01:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Note that Perth was a disambig page for over a year, until User:Trilobite moved the Australian city there few days ago without any discussion or explanation. Note that Perth, Australia only has 200 years of history, whereas the Scottish city has several thousand, and is a former capital of an independent nation. As Derek says, there is more on this at Talk:Perth, Scotland. Hence there is not a primary topic for this, so a disambig page at Perth seems best. Vclaw 02:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Support see 'What links here for Perth, Scotland (209) and Perth, Australia (820) -- Chuq 03:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose The reasons for the imbalance in the number of links between the two Perths has little to do with their individual notability and much to do with the excellent and untiring work that Mark has put into writing about his home town and state. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as far as I can recall, "Perth" has been a disambiguation for the two cities as long as I have been here (almost 4 years now). The Perth, Australia article began its life at the title "Perth WA". I'm satisfied that Perth, Scotland has sufficient notability to make disambiguation a worthwhile option. Type "Perth" into Google Earth and it takes you to Scotland. - Mark 06:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose move, weak support for redirect &mdash; as a resident of Perth, Western Australia, I wouldn't trust myself to say whether Perth, Scotland is sufficiently less notable. Although it certainly seems that way (cf the Boston case cited by Curps), I just don't think there's any practical demand for the move. And if there were, I'd support redirecting Perth → Perth, Western Australia rather than moving the latter there (again, as for Boston). -- Perey 08:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose move. Wiki disambig pages do not have notability or population counts. Perth, Western Australia should be a wiki standard.  Where's some wiki NPOV police when we need them? Surely you do not put an unqualified Perth against others by size, notability or whatever. If someone would read begiiners wiki logic, surely they would see that.vcxlor 15:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. What do you mean notability and population don't count? They go directly to the least surprise principle. CDThieme 05:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The two Perths are equally well known. – AxSkov ( ☏ ) 11:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose move, support redirect (as per Boston). Cursive 13:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose: Whilst I personally knew about Perth, Scotland, before stumbling across this issue I attribute that knowledge to my Scotish heritage and interest in history. Thus, I am not satisfied that the older Perth is of equal interest to the broader population as is its modern, far larger namesake. However, I see no problem with articles remaining where they are. Besides, any change would mean Wikipedians spending time disambiguating links that would otherwise be spent on more important tasks.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Support: Perth in Australia is larger and--to someone not from either island--more famous. What links here also favors Australia by a very large margin. Jonathunder 17:45, 2005 August 21 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose Perth, Scotland is supported by Perthshire, so that there is no primary usage; even if that were not the case, Perth, Western Australia should be the article and Perth a redirect to it.


 * Oppose. Perth in Scotland is a notable and historical city. While Perth in Australia is more popular, the difference isn't big enough to make the latter a primary topic disambiguation. -- Naive cynic 06:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Perth, WA, is the only Perth most people around the world have heard of; the Boston analogy makes the point well.  This is just silly. 216.199.161.66 20:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose. My reasons for this decision is because I personally think that "Perth" should either lead to a disambiguation page or to Perth, Scotland, as its the original city and all the others were named because of residents of the town.  Ross Rhodes (  T   C  ) Sign! 

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. Having reviewed everything written on this topic, I find no consensus for anything other than a disambig page to be located at Perth. Hence I will be moving Perth (disambiguation) back to Perth and leaving both cities where they are. Dragons flight 20:57, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

This is supposed to be a discussion area. Therefore I am rather worried to see that people are using it to make votes before any discussion has taken place. In fact before the full facts have come out. Voting should b a separate matter from discussion and should only happen after a reasonable period of discussion has taken place so that people have the opportunity to think about all the pros and cons. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This is quite standard, see any of the other proposed moves linked to at Requested moves, for instance Talk:Médecins Sans Frontières, Talk:Diddy, Talk:Szechuan cuisine. Discussion takes place, but to aid in tallying the end result, each person gives a one-word summary of their position in boldface at the start ("Oppose", "Support", or simply "Comment").  Sometimes people change their position as a result of the discussion, in which case they usually strike it out ( like this ) and state a new position (again prefixed with one-word summary in boldface). -- Curps 05:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * See also the introductory text at the top of Requested moves. It clearly mentions voting. -- Curps 06:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Perth in Australia is by far the most populous "Perth" and arguably the best known by a considerable margin. Note that Perth, Scotland has a population of only 45,000. It is standard Wikipedia practice for a city (or any other topic) to have the topic name to itself if it is the primary topic by that name. For example, Boston redirects to Boston, Massachusetts even though Boston, England was the original namesake. Similarly, Perth should go to the city in Western Australia (as a redir, or as the name of the article) even if Perth, Scotland was the original namesake. Note that Perth was in fact the page for the Australian city until just a few hours ago, when Derek Ross moved it to Perth, Western Australia. I am not sure what justification he cites. (Strike out as per Vclaw clarification below) -- Curps 01:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The Bostons are not comparable to the Perths because Boston, Massachusetts is better known, larger, and has a more notable history than its English counterpart. In contrast the two Perths are equally well known, and they are both administrative centres for their regions; the Australian one is larger but the Scottish one is historically more notable. So the American Boston wins over the English one on all counts whereas the two Perths are pretty even. As for justification, I was merely reverting a unilateral move by Trilobite to an agreement reached after discussion earlier in the year -- a perfectly reasonable action to take. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Note that Perth was a disambig page for over a year, until User:Trilobite moved the Australian city there few days ago without any discussion or explanation. Note that Perth, Australia only has 200 years of history, whereas the Scottish city has several thousand, and is a former capital of an independent nation. As Derek says, there is more on this at Talk:Perth, Scotland. Hence there is not a primary topic for this, so a disambig page at Perth seems best. Vclaw 02:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * A proud history does not equate to present-day notability. I know of no reason why North American or Australian topics should be at a disadvantage for naming purposes.  Even in countries with a long history there are cities which were mere villages a century or two ago, for instance Shanghai and Hong Kong in China, however this in no way affects their present-day notability.  Perth is not a top-tier city like London, Paris, New York, etc. but it is certainly in the second tier alongside cities like Boston, Philadelphia, Wellington, Vancouver where the existing Wikipedia practice has determined that these are indeed the primary topic. -- Curps 02:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The examples that you pick (Boston, Philadelphia, etc.) demonstrate that North American and Australian topics are not at a disadvantage for naming purposes so it is unclear to me why you raise the issue. These were all sensible decisions where the cities concerned are clearly better known (even in Britain) than their original namesakes. Their cases are very different from the far less clearcut case of the two well known Perths. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I raised the issue because Vclaw seemed to imply that age should be a factor. I believe these are all comparable cases.  Perth is quite clearcut too, except perhaps within Scotland or the UK. -- Curps 05:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't see why age should be ignored in all cases. It is reasonable to ignore it when the town concerned has been a sleepy backwater for a thousand years but for such a hotbed of history as Perth, Scotland, age should count for something in the notability stakes -- maybe not everything but at least something.-- Derek Ross | Talk 05:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No one is demeaning Scotland or its historical traditions. It's just that most people, worldwide, will be looking for information on the Australian metropolis and not the Scottish town.  It's on this basis that the disambiguation call should be made (aiming to minimize the global total number of clicks that users need to make to find what they're looking for), not on the basis of appeals to history or national pride. -- Curps 05:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "Most people, worldwide, will be looking for information on the Australian metropolis and not the Scottish town". Well, that's your opinion of course rather than a proven fact. It may be true -- but then again it may not. And since you bring up the issue, note that national pride is not an issue here for me. I objected to an earlier attempt to make Perth point to Perth, Scotland since that was just as wrong as the current proposed move. Both Perths are notable and admirable cities and thus disambiguation is the correct solution. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The reasons for the imbalance in the number of links between the two Perths has little to do with their individual notability and much to do with the excellent and untiring work that Mark has put into writing about his home town and state. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, I haven't really done that much work. I think the imbalance is largely due to the obscurity of Perth, Scotland. It has high historical relevance, but we don't exactly have an exhaustive examination of Scottish history. On the other hand, we have lots of articles about Australia, a large proportion of which would mention Perth, Australia. - Mark 06:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, sorry for going ahead and moving without discussion. I should have forseen disagreement about this and brought it up on the relevant talk pages first, so I think Derek's revert was entirely reasonable. Vclaw says I made the move without any explanation, however I did leave the following as my edit summary when making the move: "aussie perth is primary topic - many times the population of Perth in Scotland (even though that is the original), also cf. Wellington, Christchurch, Boston etc." The move seemed logical to me as the Australian Perth has a population of 1,433,217 according to the article, and the Scottish Perth has only 45,000. The Australian one is about 32 times more populous. Wellington in New Zealand appears to have only about seven times the population of its biggest rival, but gets primary topic status. Christchurch in New Zealand is bigger than Christchurch in Dorset by a similar factor, and also gets primary topic status. I'm sure there are more examples. I hope this goes some way to explaining why I made the move. Since two residents of the Australian Perth have now come forward to oppose its move to primary topic status, and because of the historical significance of the original Perth, I'm inclined to withdraw my own support. Sorry for the unilateral action. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 11:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry I didn't see your explanation. Probably because of the strange bug where the edit summary for moves only shows up for the page moved from (or is it the page moved to?), so with all of the moving back and forwards I'm not sure where it ended up. Compared to Christchurch and Wellington, I'm not sure how historically notable the original places are. I notice Wellington, Shropshire says "Historically, its only claim to fame is that King Charles I was staying at an inn at Wellington when he declared war on Parliament (raising his standard at Nottingham days later)". Vclaw 12:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * At the risk of repeating myself, I'll just say that Wellington and Christchurch are clearcut cases. Even within the UK most people will think of the cities in New Zealand rather than the towns in England unless they live quite close to the English towns. A similar example is Calgary in Canada which far outweighs its Scottish namesake, Calgary, Mull, in terms of notability on all counts, both inside and outside Scotland. So in all these cases redirection to the most notable settlement is clearly the right thing to do. The two major Perths are both notable though, albeit for different reasons, and while it could be argued that either is more notable than the other, there's not much in it. So this is not a clearcut case. That is why I think it best to make the link to the disambig page. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Wiki disambig pages do not have notability or population counts. Perth, Western Australia should be a wiki standard. Where's some wiki NPOV police when we need them? Surely you do not put an unqualified Perth against others by size, notability or whatever. If someone would read begiiners wiki logic, surely they would see that.vcxlor 15:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand what you've written, especially the last two sentences. In any case, we certainly do make "notability" judgements (or "primary topic" judgements, to be more precise) for disambiguation purposes all the time.  When we point London to the UK capital instead of to London (disambiguation) or London, Ontario we have made a consensus judgement that this meaning very much overshadows all the others.  The question is not whether to make such a judgement, but how and when, on a case-by-case basis. -- Curps 01:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Perth
battles to the death, kings murdered, crowned and widows fleeing in fear of their lives, 2000 years of the most wonderful history imaginable, why would you want to link to any other Perth than the scottish one??? sent on 08:32, 29 October 2005 82.26.146.29 unsigned
 * Well, there are currently seven times as many links to the one in Australia, and the ratio is likely to increase as it is growing faster. Perth should go directly to the major city of that name. ReeseM 07:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The head of the article has disambig for a place. why oh why some obscure reference to farting in runes, a new year joke???? vcxlor 08:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

How stupid
I agree that a search on Perth alone should show all centres with the name PERTH whether they are 200 years old or whether they have a population of 2,000,000 or 2.

But what I cant fathom is when time is spent correcting links from the disambiguation page to the article that is object of the link people are going back and removing the disambiguation. Gnangarra 14:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's probably just newcomers making mistakes and not understanding disambiguation (I'm assuming good faith here). Don't bite them but get help disambiguating from others. They'll get the idea. Kind messages help. Erath 18:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I can see how that would be annoying but don't get discouraged. You are doing the right thing. You just need to persevere (in the face of cluelessness, stupidity or whatever). -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well you don't agree with the policy that is used in other similar cases then. The Perth is Australia is head and shoulders above the others is size and importance. ReeseM 07:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

City of Perth
Why does City of Perth exist as a separate article from Perth, Western Australia? If there is a good reason, then "City of Perth" should be mentioned on the disamb page. If not, then "City of" and "Perth, Western Australia" should be merged. - IstvanWolf 14:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * City of Perth is a local council area, much like Cities of London and Westminster in London, which have their own page. Perth, Western Australia, is a vast metropolis of which the former is a very, very tiny part with a few thousand residents. Orderinchaos78 10:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Formatting
The bolding and separation of the Perths in Australia and Scotland from other Perths is not necessary and implies "These two Perths are important. The others are somehow inferior". Being bigger or older does not require special formatting on disambiguation pages which are intended to differentiate between similarly titled articles, nothing else. WP:MOSDAB states "There is no need to emphasize the link with bolding" and makes no mention of differentiating formatting between places. I've also been unable to find a similar layout on other pages (checked London, Boston, Cambridge, Oxford, Aberdeen) so in the absence of a policy or guideline that states "bigger and older settlements of a given name should be afforded different formatting on disambiguation pages", we can standardize the formatting.  Dei zio  talk 11:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It absolutely is necessary and is meant two imply that those two Perths are "important" - for the reasons set in WP:D, and other principles from WP:COMMONNAME, etc. The reason: More people are likely to be searching for one of those two, for the simple fact that so many more multiples of people live in or are familiar with those cities.  You say you are unable to find "similar layout on other pages" including London, Boston, etc., but the fact that the articles exist or are redirected to from London, Boston, etc. is the exact same form of prejudice and is your answer.  If you don't want them to be bold, then fine -- but they do need to be separated.  The "absence" of policy is never a reason for undoing something that has had common sense put into it. And FYI, it seems pretty clear to me that there are guidelines for this: the instructions under "Link to the primary topic (if there is one)" indicate separation and bolding of a primary topic link, and in this case there are two primary topics (as decided in the thread above) that are far more common than any other on this page. -- Renesis (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you have not responded, I am going to implement it as I have said above. Again, this is completely within the specified guidelines for MOSDAB (I am not trying to create a special case; you will find that most of my edits to disambiguation pages are labeled "MOSDAB").  Please refer back here before reverting in the future. -- Renesis (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The primary topic example in MOSDAB (school) is not, imo, applicable here. I simply don't get your enthusiasm for this formatting - are Wikipedia readers unable to select the place they want without bolding and separation? Having the two topics first in the list without bolding is closer to the layout suggested by the various MOSDAB criteria. But if you are determined to have it this way, knock yourself out.  Dei zio  talk 00:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The "enthusiasm" is because any other way simply doesn't make sense -- these two items need to be called out. Even most of the other items below the places list are in some way related to either the Perth in Scotland or the Perth in Australia.  There has even been discussion (above) to actually locate one or other of the topics at Perth, but because they were determined to be of "equal" importance, this disambiguation page was located here.  Just because they are equally important does not mean they need to be mixed in with half a dozen other extremely less common place names. -- Renesis (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hohum
I'll not add to silliness of this page, except to encourage dis-favour between the antipodeans. Please start fighting (in a civilised way)!. Where did the name Perth come from? who used it first? What does the name mean? Brendandh 22:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's on the Perth%2C_Scotland page. --Revolt 17:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Och I'd seen that and knew it! It just seems that some post colonials don't appreciate their origins as much as the crowd on Edinburgh's High Gate suggests. Brendandh 03:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect discussion again
I know it's been a couple of years, and that should quantify the reasons for this. Perth should redirect t Perth, Western Australia. I recognise and can see the point made by people that the Scottish city of the same name deserves as much merit, but we're not talking about a matter of subjectivity. We're talking about the fact that on google, just under 90% of searches on the word "perth" are for the Australian city, meanwhile less than 5% are for the scottish city (while the remaining 7% or so is spread amongst the remaining places and other things named Perth). Secondly, I need to point out that, one person said "people in Australia have never heard of Perth, Scotland and people in Scotland have never heard of Perth, Western Australia." Now, while the former may be true, considering it's talking about a broad township/municipality which encompasses only around 40,000 people, the latter is vastly inaccurate. I can't imagine one being so sheltered living in the British Isles as to neer have heard of Perth, and certainly not in Scotland. In fact, one thing, if any, is that Scots are tenacious with regards to their legacy internationally: they're keen and the first to announce what internationally has been named after one of their places (new York's obviously the first that comes up in conversations). Another matter is that we're literally talking about a comarison of 40,000 people vs just over one and a half million people. That's a substantial difference. Scotland's Perth would fit into Australia's over 35 times, and is not in almost any stretch considered to be an "international" city, while Perth, Australia's fourth biggest city, just trailling Brisbane, is widely considered to be. I'd be fore redirecting over the WA, moving this page to a full dab page. -- rm 'w a vu  14:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you assess notability and importance? population, age, Google hits or all of the above?  800 years of settlement vs 200 is a perfectly valid metric and 40,000 is not an insignificant population.  But the respective articles also refer to 8000 years and 40000 of known pre-history.  This says to me that this is not a clear cut case.  Perth, Scotland is highly notable and to redirect Perth to Perth, Western Australia assumes otherwise. Moondyne 03:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is interesting to compare the traffic stats for the two articles: about 2000 hits per day for Perth, Western Australia; about 250 for Perth, Scotland. Hesperian 05:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * An 8:1 ratio. The relative populations have a 35:1 ratio which might indicate Perth, Scotland is holding its own on Wikipedia. Moondyne 05:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Traffic stats are interesting, but they are not by any means the last word. If Wikipedia had been around in 1997, Titanic (1997 film) would have absolutely killed RMS Titanic in a hitcount-off. But redirecting Titanic to the former still would have been a very bad idea. Hesperian 05:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The Google hits reasoning has always bemused me. That aside, I wouldn't be comfortable reading that Perth, Western Australia, is named after Perth, Scotland, in the latter article, yet the latter article is a disambiguation page while the Australian one gets the root name. - Dudesleeper / Talk  09:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This comes and goes without ever obtaining a clear consensus, the reason being is that there are many valid arguments about which should be at Perth(oh this'll annoy those that are dabing Perth). as side note a there is no article on the suburb of Perth nor is it mentioned in the DAB page. Interesting when looking at burb level articles in the info boxes West Perth, Northbridge, East Perth they all suggest that they border a city of 1.5 million rather then the burb of approx 2,000 people. Gnangarra 11:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying dudesleeper, but as was discussed earlier, Boston redirects to Boston, Massachusetts, rather than Boston, England, and Boston, Massachusetts is the same size as Perth WA, while Boston, England is a larger, and in fact more historically notable subject matter, than Perth, Scotland. The typical definition of what an article should redirect to is based on the intent of the most common uses by search, and by far, this is Perth, WA by a longshot. Even a ratio of 8:1 is very solid in favour of this, though, when I checked it, it was more like 18:1:1, with each one being Perth, Scotland and the other being for a combination of others, but I won't go into semantics of which one's correct. -- rm 'w a vu  12:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm casting my !vote for keeping this as a disambiguation page. I think Perth, Western Australia is easily the best known Perth, but perhaps not quite easily enough to justify such presumptuousness on our part. Hesperian 13:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Both are notable, one is much larger than the other in the modern world, but the other has a longer history. I observe that the items on the current article list are split fairly evenly between the two. It is annoying for everyone, but cooperation and compromise often go together. Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  14:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Having been one of those who periodically dab the links, I have a suspicion that many of the links to Perth, WA would be better pointing to Perth Airport or WACA Ground or City of Perth or something else, maybe even Fremantle, like here. Ignorance and sloth means that they generally remain pointing to Perth, WA, but I think a serious cleanup by knowledgeable editors would produce interesting results. Anyway, it's ambiguous enough, even in an Australian context, that a dab page seems unavoidable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Street, London 4th February, 1830 Mr. Under-Secretary Twiss, Sir,— Can you not give Captain Stirling a hint on his imprudence in calling the capital of Swan River by the Insignificant name of Perth? Is it because Sir George Murray was born at this insignificant place, known only to reading men or Geographers, as an obscure place in Scotland? I have heard a vast number already declare against the Swan River because they now consider it a place where the Scotch interests will only prevail. There is Perth Town, Melville Water, Cockburn Sound and Dalrymple Sound, in fact nothing but Scotch names. Why was not the principal town called Swan River, London Town, Wellington, or a name which the three countries in unison may look up to? Pray show this to Sir George Murray and tell him to give a friendly hint to Captain Stirling who seems to go astray like all other Governors of Colonies. He ought, however, endeavour to get the Colony established before he gives birth to his Scotch prejudices and feelings. As one who has sent out a son, I am more than annoyed by his giving the principal town the name of Perth. Who ever heard of such a place? I have the honour to be, etc., William Leake
 * Picked/copied/stolen from User:Hesperians page;
 * It does put rather an alternative perception on the way in which Perth could be dabbed. :) Gnangarra 14:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, bravo, that's gold! It's odd that in this instance the amount of traffic received by either respective page has not affected the choice of linking to the dab page. It's also very inconsistent that Perth is the only [state] capital city in Australia whose article does not have a single-word name, especially because the reasons do not seem to have to do with how well-known it is. I do think that this has to do with national pride, because the Scottish Perth used to be their capital while they were still an independent country. Not that I think that it should go to another vote, because the controversy will still be there if it does. I'm just content that I have an understanding now into what is going on. --Susurrus (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I take one point back. The articles for the Australian state capitals except for Perth all have one-word names--Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Hobart and Adelaide. Canberra also has a one-word name--which makes sense since, being an Aboriginal word, it won't be competing with any other cities for this name. Darwin in the Northern Territory, however, does have a disambiguation page, where Charles Dawin is named before Darwin, NT. Fair enough, since Charles Darwin's article must get a lot of traffic. --Susurrus (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I couldn't have put it better myself. It's also very inconsistent that Perth is the only city in Scotland whose article does not have a single-word name, especially because the reasons do not seem to have to do with how well-known it is. I do think that this has to do with national pride, because the Australian Perth is a capital now that they are an independent country. Not that I think that it should go to another vote, because the controversy will still be there if it does. I'm just content that I have an understanding now into what is going on. Oh, bravo, that's gold! Particularly in the way that it demonstrates once again why this page is and should be a disambiguation page. -- Derek Ross | Talk'' 01:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Where do I start?
 * 1. I note that you do not mirror the first and what I thought was the most important point, about page traffic. This is obviously because that point does not work in the reverse.
 * 2. Perth, Scotland is not a city; according to its own article, it is a town that was declassified as a city. I note that all six cities in Scotland do have one-word names, but there is no inconsistency there with Perth, since Perth is not a city. Conversely, there are lots of burghs in Scotland whose articles have names that include the enclosing region. So this is a factual error committed for no other reason than to attempt to mirror my words. I'm not commenting on how well-known Perth, Scotland is because your analogy has already broken down.
 * 3. This is your second factual error commited purely to try to mirror my words: Perth is not a capital now that we are an independent country. It was always a capital, and the only difference now that we are an independent country is that it is the capital of a state rather than an independent colony. But it's hard to see how that bestows any more glory upon it for the sake of national pride.
 * Remarks like this clearly show why this page is a disambiguation page, but hardly why it should be. --Susurrus (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I posted that quote on my user page because it was very amusing in the context of this discussion. I wasn't using it as an argument in this debate, nor do I believe that any cogent argument can be drawn from it. It's an old letter, written by an English bigot. Hesperian 02:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's actually quite an amusing label for him: William Leake, English bigot. Should be in his Wikipedia article... --Susurrus (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it even more ammusing the Leake and Murray streets cross in Bayswater, Western Australia right out side the primary school...nothing like like a school yard stouch...Gnangarra 11:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I support leaving this as a disambig page. Disambiguation hurts nobody. - Mark 02:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite right. It's the only way some people will ever know that there is a Perth in Scotland. --Susurrus (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is another alternative, a hat-link at the top pointing to the disambig page. Though I don't feel terribly strongly about this, I have to disagree about disambiguation not hurting anybody.  It certainly shouldn't offend anyone, but if the vast majority of users are surprised by the page, and then have to click another link to get where they want to be, we should accommodate that (either way).  Just sayin'. -- Renesis (talk) 06:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it certainly surprised me enough to want to go to the talk page to ascertain the reasoning behind it. Once I decided I knew what that reasoning was, I immediately got trolled for my effort. This strengthens my conviction that it's just wiki politics. --Susurrus (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If an 8 to 1 traffic ratio is not enough to justify setting a primary target what is? 10 to 1? 20 to 1? 100 to 1? I have a feeling if it were even 10 to 1 or greater, we would have a lot more disambiguation pages. -- Renesis (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, and it is for this reason that I'm not opposed, for example, to a disambiguation page for Darwin. After all, I'm sure that the page on Charles Darwin gets a lot of traffic. --Susurrus (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is probably true in fact that most people in Scotland have never heard of Perth in Australia, and probably most that know it do so only because it was named after the Scottish town. While Perth is a decent size city, it's of little cultural significance (so not much "sheltering" is needed). Although having a pop. of c. 1.6 million, you could easily fit that kind of population in the New York–Northern New Jersey–Long Island or Manchester-Liverpool conurbations without making much of an impact. Similarly, most Scottish people (and probably most Australians) have never heard of most of the cities in China and India that surpass this population. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 03:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I was astonished when I typed in "Perth" in the search box and didn't end up directly at the Perth, WA page (as one would end up at Boston, MA directly from a search for "Boston"). Some of the rationalizations for the disam. page above are amusing. I recommend to you Old Worlders that you get over your vanity. Perth Scotland (and all the other Perths) are insignificant holes in the wall compared with Perth, Australia.


 * Not everyone has a super fast computer and Internet connection. We're wasting the time and resources of at least 90% or so of people looking for "Perth". Let's make this like the Boston page. It will save our users a lot of time. PeterH2 (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)