Talk:Perth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag Perth is part of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
This non-article page is supported by WikiProject Perth.
WikiProject Australia To-do:

Contents

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|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)

[edit] 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 — 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)

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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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. — 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Perth

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/e/r/Talk%7EPerth_e0c5.html"