Talk:Withcott

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: move. I read the discussion at WT:NCGN and it seems to me that the consensus there is that the future naming convention for Australian places will be based on whatever consensus is reached at requested moves. As such I gave the oppose vote no more weight than any other vote and as such there was a clear consensus to move. Dpmuk (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Withcott, Queensland → Withcott — This article was unnecessarily moved to a disambiguated name here with the claim "ambiguous name; shouldn't break convention considering" If the name is ambiguous, why does the plain name redirect here and where are the other articles named "Withcott"?.--Mattinbgn (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:PRECISION... titles should only be as precise as necessary for disambiguation. Per WP:TITLE... titles should reflect the natural, common and concise name, which Withcott does.  Withcott, Queensland is overprecise.   --Born2cycle (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:PRECISION. There is no need for this disambiguation, and no support for the compulsory disambiguation of Australian place names. Reyk  YO!  01:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, because its general practice elsewhere (this is my first explicit support for the abandonment of the systematic disambiguation of Australian place names).--Grahame (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the convention Withcott, Queensland, has the proper preciseness and properly identifies the subject of the article.Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment So does Withcott and it is even more precise. What do you actually mean by "proper preciseness"? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The preciseness required by WP:Precision and Withcott neither identifies the subject of the article with preciseness, nor does it comply with the established convention.Alanscottwalker (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that "Withcott does identify the subject of the article with preciseness per WP:PRECISION. From WP:PRECISION "If the topic of the article is the primary topic (or only topic) for a desired title, then the article can take that title without modification" (my emphasis). This is the only encyclopedic topic by that name. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it. If what you are after is psuedo-preciseness, would you prefer article titles like Harlin, Queensland, Australia? As for the current convention, I think this comment sums up the current state of the Australian convention. I am happy to continue assuming good faith but I would ask that if you are using this discussion as a proxy for discussion about the US convention that you desist from doing so. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You've already demonstrated bad faith because, as I clearly stated, I support the current title not new strange ones you make up, for the reasons I already stated. The convention complies with WP:Precision, that's why its the convention.  It provides the proper preciseness. Alanscottwalker (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, what in WP:PRECISION supports your argument? It clearly states the opposite as detailed above. Another extract: "Be precise but only as precise as is needed" (my emphasis) "Withcott" meets WP:PRECISION as written and no amount of saying "black is white" will make it otherwise. I still have no idea what you mean by "proper preciseness" Can you define it for me? What in the Australian convention provides the "proper preciseness"? Are Melbourne or Hobart "improperly precise"? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * @Alanscottwalker, how did Mattinbgn make/create "new strange" article names "up"? This article clearly was "Withcott" before it was moved, so he hasn't made it up. Bidgee (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Matt's rhetorical statement: would you prefer article titles like Harlin, Queensland, Australia? is where he/she demonstrated bad faith. As I clearly stated I support the current title (not some title with Australia in it) It is in keeping with the city name guideline, its neither over precise nor under precise. Alanscottwalker (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How is "Withcott" underprecise when it is named in accordance with WP:PRECISION? You keep making a WP:VAGUEWAVE at WP:PRECISION, I do not think it says what you think it says. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is under precise because it does not comply with the guideline for Australian cities, which is fully in accord with WP:Precision. That's why its the guideline.Alanscottwalker (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)So your argument is circular. "Withcott, Queensland" is precise because the guideline says it is precise ... That is not a helpful answer. Why is using the state name precise? What is it about using the term "Queensland" that makes this already unambiguous article "precise"? Further, what is your justification for saying that the Australian convention as written now complies with WP:PRECISION? The Australian convention and WP:PRECISION clearly contradict each other and again no amount of stating "black=white" will make it otherwise. Either I can't read or you are talking about something entirely different that Article titles. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:PRECISION and clearly no disambiguation was needed when no other "Withcott" exists. Bidgee (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, as disambiguation is not required. The guidelines for this are changing and there have been multiple precedents to show this.  Night w   02:57, 17 January 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.