Talk:Wheatbelt

North American wheat belt
At the moment, Wheat belt (North America) is a red link, but it isn't linked to in any articles. Obviously, it's a notable subject and should eventually have an article, so I'm going to ignore MOS:DABRED and leave the red link. Until then, the best blue link I can find is for the United States only; no existing article seems to exist for Canada. It's not the ideal situation, but will have to do until there's an article to link to. — Gorthian (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the redlink because there's still no article or other links to it. The entry can easily be re-created if/when MOS:DABRED is satisfied. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Several articles mention the North American wheat belt, so I've linked it (still a redlink, because there is no article) and restored it to the DAB page. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

disambig
I know some disambig watchers get just a little annoyed by red links at the best of the times. In the case of the SA and Vic setups - both the locations that are identified have links to non existent articles (the link is blue but the end point is a non existent article) - to me that is not on. Even if there are links to the rare usages inside trove, no one has bothered to write articles to substantiate the usage of the term against low level usage or obscure points - I see no reason to leave the links at the disambig putting the red link for the north american term seems also somewhat missing the point - if there is an article or synonymic term - link it! JarrahTree 02:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The South Australia and Victoria redlinks - which I have just restored - nominally comply with MOS:DABRL in that another article links to each of the targets. Perhaps those targets are non-notable and do not warrant an article, but given the discussion at WP:AWNB I do not think it is appropriate to pre-judge their lack of notability, especially given that I've already demonstrated how easy it is to find references to them in Trove:
 * http://trove.nla.gov.au/result?q=%22Victorian+wheatbelt%22
 * http://trove.nla.gov.au/result?q=%22South+Australian+wheatbelt%22
 * Mitch Ames (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * putting the red link for the north american term seems also somewhat missing the point - if there is an article or synonymic term - link it! — As previously stated, this complies with MOS:DABRL. Even Encyclopædia Britannica has an article on the North American Wheat Belt, so it's probably notable. We (West) Australians grumble when "outsiders" claim to know more about our local area than we do, so we shouldn't claim any particular knowledge of the use of US terminology. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * as always missing the point - many disambig editors remove red links regardless of contest, - links should only be added when the articles exist - you are re-instating red links and not creating articles to match - that is disruptive editing JarrahTree 08:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Redlinks are good. They show which articles should be created. Not helpful removing them.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a matter of opinion - many disambig orient editors tend to dislike them - as like the two https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wheatbelt&oldid=752864415 that are causing issues here have been here for only a month, but the edit rates in the south australian and victorian rural articles is notoriously slow due to low number of editors and almost total disinterest in agricultural topics - and in view of the discussions here and at the australian noticeboard - whether there were ever substantial usage of the phrases south australian wheatbelt or victorian wheatbelt to justify and sustain stand alone articles is open to question JarrahTree 09:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a matter of opinion — It's the consensus opinion of editors in general, as expressed in the MOS guideline MOS:DABRL, which clearly allows for red links on DAB pages.
 * re-instating red links and not creating articles to match - that is disruptive editing — I disagree. There was a debate about the notability of the Vic and SA wheatbelts, and that debate was still in progress, and articles still (red)linked to the (non-existent) Vic and SA wheatbelt articles when I restored the red links to the DAB page in accordance with MOS:DABRL. I suggest that the only "disruptive editing" was the removing of them while the discussion was in progress (and other articles included the links), treating the "non-existence" of any wheatbelt other than WA's as a WP:Fait accompli, which is not in the right spirit of the discussion.
 * It's all a moot point now that has removed the redlinks from the other articles. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If there is potential content to make an interesting article at Wheatbelt (Australia), I doubt there would ever be enough to see it needing to be split into separate articles at the state boundaries into SA, Vic and NSW (and Qld?) articles. There is clearly content for the separate WA article which is about a recognised region by that name. The other states use different region names (SA for example has Eyre Peninsula, Yorke Peninsula, Mid North and Murray Mallee, and Goyder's Line is relevant to the topic). --Scott Davis Talk 21:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I must point out that I have no doubt that there is scattered and partial record of identifying wheat growing areas in states other than Western Australia as 'wheatbelt' exist in some form or other. That is in answer to treating the "non-existence" of any wheatbelt other than WA's as a WP:Fait accompli.

My contention is that, from the evidence so far, there is insufficient weight of multiple sources over time to back up either the idea of individual articles about wheat growing in those states under the title of 'wheatbelt', or for that matter as components of the the australian wheatbelt article. JarrahTree 00:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)