Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places in Victoria by population


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

List of places in Victoria by population

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Unnecessary, problematic, difficult to manage, quickly outdated and relatively pointless list that apparently serves only to rank cities in the state by size. Discussed at WP:AWNB and the only opinions expressed suggested deletion. It was originally created as a list of cities by an editor who appears to be under the misconception that an "Urban Centre/Locality" (UC/L) is a city. However, the list is simply that of various places in the state and does not necessarily include all UC/Ls in the state. Based on examination of all three similar articles created by the same editor (List of cities in Victoria by population, List of cities in Tasmania by population and List of places in Northern Territory by population) the list is likely incomplete. Article includes only a single generic reference. A more detailed explanation of the issues and a comparison with the other articles may be found at Australian Wikipedians' notice board AussieLegend (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Per nom. It's redundant to the much better organised and defined List of cities in Australia by population, uses a schema which isn't intended to be used for this purpose and is inconsistent from place to place, leading to misleading impressions. There are so many errors in the existing list that it's impossible to determine how it would be maintained. No such list is maintained by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in any of its publications. Some examples: The SSCs of Mt Eliza, Mornington and Cranbourne have been used (I didn't bother to check all places, but those three do not have UC/Ls). The Cranbourne one ignores the fact Cranbourne has several suburbs, so is comparing apples with oranges. Mt Eliza is part of Frankston, which is unlisted. Pakenham has a UC/L, but its SSC has been mysteriously used. The neighbouring SSC of Mt Martha was not selected - noone knows why. All of them are being weighed against Traralgon, which is individually defined as a UC/L. One could argue all day like this, but it's simply a poorly assembled list created by a new user who does not understand the statistical context in which these figures exist and that we don't just create lists because we can. Orderinchaos 19:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your objection is that it is factually inaccurate, I think. This is not a reason to delete it, it's a reason to fix it, or ask for someone else to. (Also, your objection is factually inaccurate; see my observation about a source.) —Felix the Cassowary 20:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My objection is that it is a factual mess which cannot be cleaned up. You seem to have the false impression that a list which meets Wikipedia's neutrality provisions actually exists. It does not. You have a list of UC/Ls which is arbitrarily determined by the ABS from time to time; it carries no legal weight and it is not an extensively used measure by statistical demographers (who tend to use SSDs which are just as arbitrary but are at least comparable with each other). It's not like the US where towns have gazetted boundaries and thus a clear authority exists to define the boundary of an area. Orderinchaos 20:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Unlike the other "arguments" made, that one has weight; and I realise I don't know enough to counter it (or even if it is counterable). I will retract my vote, but I will not vote to "delete". —Felix the Cassowary 21:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is a list of towns and cities in Victoria sorted by population—which is essentially an indication to everyone of their relative significance; it also allows readers to understand the population distribution of Victoria. I think this sort of information is quite relevant to an encylopædia, and there's no clear basis for deleting it. —Felix the Cassowary 19:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As for AussieLegend's claims, I don't understand what the relevance of "unnecessary" is. What list is necessary?
 * It is not problematic. The criteria for inclusion is straightforward and a correct list is easily generated by a script. I could do it in half an hour, and I probably would if I had time. But replying to AfDs takes time, so it will have to wait.
 * Based on its criteria, it will be outdated in 2012 (when the next census is released), and every five years after that [UC/Ls are only defined during censuses, and population projections are not published between times]. It will take about half an hour every five years to bring it up to date. If this is unmanageable, I don't know what would be manageable! Perhaps some other definition will provide itself for a list of towns and cities in Victoria, but given the current one there's nothing wrong at all with it.
 * Objections at WP:AWNB have been provided; it cannot be a serious argument in favor of deletion that I didn't object till I read it and objected.
 * If Urban Centre/Locality is not essentially a town/city, what is it? "City" is certainly commonly understood in Australia as referring to a sufficiently large built-up area. The source seems to be perfectly well suited for the task.
 * If the articles are incomplete, then complete them, or ask someone else to. I think there's a template for that. Don't just delete the lists!
 * I have a file I downloaded off the ABS website showing the UC/Ls in Victoria by population. I can't provide a link to it, because it's the result of a search. If I wasn't busy defending this AfD, I would be able to actually write down a source for it. In order to verify it, you'd have to do some manual searching, but it's not fundamentally different from a citation in a book.
 * In the interests of good faith, could you share this with us? There are hundreds of errors in the Victorian file alone, I have spent more than half an hour trying to fix them and there's still probably 20+ to go. I honestly have no idea what the creator's rationale or source was. Orderinchaos 07:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Basic instructions from memory (if this doesn't work let me know, but you'll probably have to wait a day) is you use the most complex of the ways of accessing census data. It's a pretty complex web app, I forget its name, but if you're used to their website you probably know the one I mean. Search by sex and population and add a UC/L (I think just one is possible during the phase where you go into it). Then, edit the columns using the box on the left hand side, to add all the rest of the UC/Ls in a state into it. Be careful to make sure everything's at the same level, otherwise it whinges, but you can have things from the same level but different subgroups as long as they're the same kind of thing. Update the data and you can download yourself a CSV file. The creator left his rationale here in this debate, and even if he hadn't, it's fairly straightforward to work it out. The fact that he made mistakes doesn't contradict this: Not everyone is as perfect as you. —Felix the Cassowary 08:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The last comment in your reply to Orderinchaos was inappropriate. Please, be civil. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You have been quite uncivil, and my incivility was in direct response to OIC being uncivil. WP:That doesn't make it right, but your selectivity in criticism looks like point scoring. —Felix the Cassowary 23:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't see where I've been uncivil, but that's not the issue. I simply asked you to not make uncivil comments, and I don't consider that OIC was uncivil. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think AussieLegend has provided any actual reasons for deleting.
 * (—Felix the Cassowary 19:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC))


 * You say it "indicates to everyone [the places'] relative significance" - no it doesn't. It indicates what managed to make it into an arbitrary list with inconsistent and unknown criteria. The criteria for inclusion is not straightforward, as I have demonstrated in my argument for deletion. Some places have UC/Ls which are not centres of population; a lot of places don't which are. It's not a matter of "a script will sort it out" as the entire concept of UC/L is a matter for interpretation by ABS staff - as to what is "contiguous" or not. Orderinchaos 20:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought that it would be interesting to see population change with next year census, there been talk for years about rural decline.
 * The state government has spent a fortune advertising about the advantages to move to provincial Victoria, after next years census we will see if it was money well spent. Purrum (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's unnecessary because it serves only to rank other places against each other. That has no encyclopaedic value, especially when the list is incomplete and, for the reasons Orderinchaos has explained, it compares apples to oranges. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is there any difference between (the principle behind) List of cities in Victoria by population and List of cities in Australia by population. Disregard the present problems with the apples and oranges placed in the current list, because we can make it exclusively apples of one sort or another. You say that the very idea behind the Victorian list is non-encyclopedic: "[Ranking other places against each other] has no encyclopaedic value". Does the same apply to the Australian list, or not? If the solution applied to the Australian list were applied to the Victorian list, would that satisfy you, and you'd change to keep? or do you dislike the Australian list too? or what other difference is there between the two? I do not ask this to "catch" you, but as you can see, my conscience tells me I must revert my vote to "keep" until I see why there should be some difference between two articles which seem to me identical in concept. I feel that the Australian list demonstrates that ranked lists are in principle encyclopedic, and that the task is in principle doable, because no-one has ever nominated it for deletion (so far as I can see). —Felix the Cassowary 18:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Australian list takes a much more thoughtful approach to the problem - it uses three different mechanisms to compare size, and notes some of the limitations involved. Especially once one gets below the 15-20,000 mark, things start to become very scattered, especially given the lack of clear definition of "what is a town" (unlike other countries which define such things). Orderinchaos 07:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Addressing the points Felix the Cassowary's put forth:
 * Orderinchaos' issues today along with the convoluted and confusing description of how to download a complete list of UC/Ls with populations demonstrates how problematic this article is. The article's creator initially intyended it to be a list of cities when clearly the article is not, so it was problematic even for him. The criteria for inclusiion is not straightforward. The article mentions urban centres with a population of 1,000 or more, but OIC has removed a number of locations that are not UC/Ls at all, clearly the criteria does not match the content.
 * No, it will be outdated each year, when new population projections make the content in the article redundant. UC/Ls are only updated every census, but the ABS releases population projections every year. Claiming that it will take half an hour (this period of time seems a common, but unsubstantiated claim in FTC's points) is a rather optimistic estimate that ignores issues such as the likelihood of UC/L's changing, as they did between the 2001 and 2006 censuses. It will be a major task to update the article, ensuring that such updates are accurate. Those of us who've had to update List of cities in Australia by population, which is more limited in content than this article needs to be can attest to that.
 * "City" may be "commonly understood in Australia as referring to a sufficiently large built-up area" but the actual definition of a city is not. It was removed from the NSW legislation and different states have different definitions as to what constitutes a city and UC/L seems to have a different definition altogether. For example, in NSW cities are defined by LGA boundaries. The city of Newcastle is both an LGA and a city, as is the city of Lake Macquarie. However, the Newcastle UC/L includes much of Newcastle, parts of Lake Macquarie and part of one suburb in Port Stephens Council. It has some very peculiar exclusions. I'm not as familiar with Victorian locations as I am with NSW but the Victorian UC/L maps provided by the ABS seem to show the same sort of inconsistencies.
 * Since FTC apparently has no problem downloading complete lists that others can't seem to get, perhaps FTC can volunteer to fix the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Awhile ago, I said: "I could do it in half an hour, and I probably would if I had time. But replying to AfDs takes time, so it will have to wait." Why do you think I said it? What sort of substantiation do you think such a sentence needs?
 * In any case, the fact that there isn't a direct link to the data doesn't limit the fact that the data is available. Lots of articles on Wikipedia depend on articles or books in foreign languages, in deadtree fromat only, or behind paywalls. All of these facts make it non-trivial to access them, but that doesn't limit their validity. —Felix the Cassowary 23:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Twice now you've said things would take you only half an hour. If that's really the case, then please, spend a half-hour to fix the article and bring it up to a standard that justifies its retention. As to data availability, nobody said that it's not available. The point is that if you can fix it in half an hour, because we can't, go ahead and fix it. You told OIC that his objection is a reason to ask someone to fix it, so I'm doing that now. Would you please fix it? Rather than spending time "defending this AfD", fix the article and post "I fixed it!" If it really is fixed I'd happily consider withdrawing the nomination. There have been 344 half-hours since you claimed you could fix it but you haven't made a single edit to the article. As it stands now, your claim that it can be fixed in half an hour lacks credibility because it's not supported by action, so I'm not at all convinced there is any reason to keep this article. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I disagree that the list is redundant to the australia-wide list. Each state-based list has much more detail than would be possible when comparing the whole country. If that list is acceptable, then so is this one. Bandwidth is plentiful. Whether the localities are somewhat arbitrary or not, they are still verifiable to the most highly respected statistical agency in Australia. The definition of "urban centre/locality" should be explained in each article, so readers know exactly what is being asserted. I also suggest linking directly to the exact ABS citation for each entry, as has been done on the List of places in South Australia by population list.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Would also support a merge to List of cities in Victoria and converting data there to a sortable list, which effectively achieves the same thing anyway, with the added bonus of not duplicating information. However as someone stated above, there may be some issues with implementing this given the ABS definition of locality.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Since its creation 3 1/2 years ago, List of cities in Victoria has been a redirect to List of cities in Australia. That article is a list of city names only. It doesn't include towns and other randomly selected places in the state. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeti Hunter, how do you propose to address the problem I've raised in my submission? Orderinchaos 12:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I simply contend that a list of places (by whatever definition) ranked by population is an informative item to have in an encyclopaedia. As long as it is explained that the list ranks ABS-defined localities (which may or may not not coincide with towns or suburbs as such), I don't think the article is irretrievable. A possible solution would be to have a column of the list for the name of the ABS area, and a column for the areas/suburbs encompassed by said statistical locality if the name differs from the existing WP article(s). --Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The reality is that this article, like the others recently created by this editor, is a mess and needs to be completely rebuilt from the ground up. As it stands, it serves no useful purpose. The single function that it first appears to provide, comparison of UC/L populations, is voided by the fact that only 106 of Victoria's 350 UC/Ls are listed. There are no references for any of the populations, other than the generic link to the 2006 census data, which provides no confirmation at all. The creator seems to have made his own determinations as to where the UC/Ls are located so these all need to be confirmed. When I rebuilt the table for the New South Wales article last night I had to throw away everything except for the population data, which I transferred across and then confirmed manually. The suggestions you've made could be included, but this would be more easily done at List of urban centres in Victoria, a new article. The article itself is likely to be huge though. When I rebuilt the List of places in New South Wales by population table, effectively only adding actual UC/L names and refs for each UC/L, the article jumped from 5.4 to 95.6kB. Of course, somebody needs to do the work. Who will that be? If the people voting keep don't want to step up, there's not much likelihood of anyone else doing so. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Merge to List of cities in Australia and make the other lists there sortable too. We have software features for sorting, no need for a separate article just for that.  Sandstein   06:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.