Talk:Regions of Western Australia

earlier comments

The point inserted over federal agencies such BOM for weather reporting districts, and the local CBH loading districts and so on, they all sort of make a good mess of some terms as 'south west' - maybe there's a way around it?User:SatuSuro 12:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

it was good to include, I remember seeing several maps which showed the regions in different locations Astrokey44 12:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

One approach would be to create Regionalisations of Australia / Regionalisations of Western Australia, to list and discuss all the different governmental (e.g. these regions), electoral, statistical, biodiversity, etc, ways of breaking Australia / WA into regions. Hesperian 23:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The region that isn't

In this edit, User:Pdfpdf added (along with lots of other changes that there's no problem with), after the list of the nine RDCA regions:

(and, as mentioned, the remainder of the state could be, but isn't, called the Perth region.)

I disagreed with this addition and so I removed that line in this edit (along with other uncontested edits).

Pdfpdf disagreed with my removal, with this post on my talk page, which I've copied here so that the discussion is on the article talk page:

Hi! Thanks for your edits/proof reading - appreciated!

I have a problem with your removal of "(and, as mentioned, the remainder of the state could be, but isn't, called the Perth region.)"

I'm not wed to those particular words, but I feel there is a need to mention a pseudo "tenth" region to complete the set - I freely acknowledge I don't have a good solution, (and the fact that you removed my bad solution suggests that you, too, don't think my suggestion was a good solution), but your removal of a bad solution and providing no alternative is a much worse "solution".

I have in mind to reinstate my bad solution, in the fond hope that somebody (e.g. you?) will replace it with a better solution.
Simply throwing the baby out with the bath-water is not an improvement.

And I solicit your comments / suggestions / opinions / advice. Thanks in advance! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I still disagree with that line, but have restored it for now so that we can discuss it and perhaps come up with something better.

My main objections to the line in question is that the statement that "[it] could be ... called the Perth region" is not apparently supported by any reference, which makes it original research or synthesis, or possibly editorialising.

We've already stated, in the first paragraph of the section, that the Perth metro area is not in a region, so there's no need to say it again with dubious words like "could be, but isn't". If we want to mention explicitly that WA comprises 9 regions plus Perth (which I agree is a good idea), then a reword of the first paragraph is probably required - in particular, moving the "exception .. Perth ... not in a region" text out of the parentheses. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

In principle, I completely agree with Mitch Ames. (Completely agree.)

In practice, it appears to me that the RDCA system divides the State into 10 regions, explicitly acknowledges and names 9 of the regions, and leaves the rest-of-the-state (i.e. the Perth Region) "in limbo"!

As I (hope I) implied, in principle, Mitch Ames's comments are consistent with WP policy, and, in principle, I have NO problem with what he's saying.

However, there is this "elephant in the room" covered neither by the RDCA nor WP policy. i.e. the fact is / facts are that, de-facto, there are 10 RDCA regions, and de-facto, the tenth region covers the Perth area.

Yes, his statements: "it is not apparently supported by any reference", WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS, and WP:EDITORIAL are reasonable and rational, (and very well mannered and polite, too), but they ignore "the elephant in the room".

No, I don't have the answer.

However, his statement: If we want to mention explicitly that WA comprises 9 regions plus Perth (which I agree is a good idea), then a reword of the first paragraph is probably required - in particular, moving the "exception .. Perth ... not in a region" text out of the parentheses. sounds like a better line-of-approach than anything I can think of!

In other words, I support his suggestion/statement/comment/proposed solution, and would be VRY happy if he implemented it. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Pity one of the usual suspects of the wa editors doesnt hop into this one - as I am sure he would pipe in and say metropolitan region of perth is in fact in its own way is a region - so I would have no problem if we called the metro region of perth a region - it possibly isnt mentioned in the act that determines all other 9.... but it might save a lot of electricity if we settle on that and move on to something else...

If you want to have a clearer discussion on this topic, your appropriate reference points are: http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/1222.asp, Metropolitan_Region_Scheme, Perth_Metropolitan_Region, http://metroreview.dlg.wa.gov.au/Page.aspx?PID=Glossary - see last term in the list satusuro 14:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I've edited SatuSuro's post so that the external URLs are visible, and the Wikipedia pages appear as such. A clearer discussion might be easier with more clearly visible reference points. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

(It being well past bedtime here, I find it hard to resist the temptation to make a facetious reply, so here goes ... )

If you want to have a clearer discussion on this topic ... - Good heavens! Why would I want to do that! Pdfpdf (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The last item of http://metroreview.dlg.wa.gov.au/Page.aspx?PID=Glossary says "Metropolitan Region has a different definition under the Regional Development Commission Act." (the RDCA being the explicit source of the definitions of the Regions of Western Australia#The Regional Development Commissions Act regions we are discussing), but that Act (as at 01 Dec 2010) does not define the Metropolitan Region at all, and does not even mention Perth.

It also explicitly defines, in section 3(1), region as "a region described in Schedule 1", where Schedule 1 is a list of the 9 regions (ie without Perth). Thus for the purposes of Regions of Western Australia#The Regional Development Commissions Act regions Perth is very definitely not a region. Perth might be a region for the purposes of other definitions/sections (eg Bureau of Meteorology, local government, Metropolitan Region Scheme etc) but not this one.

(Also note that section 23(1)(e) says that the objections of a commission are to "... ensure that ... services ... in the region is comparable to that which applies in the metropolitan area" (emphasis added) - rather suggesting that each and every "region" is not the metro area.) Mitch Ames (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I've reworded the section accordingly.

I have deliberately not said that "WA = 9 RDCA regions + Perth" because the reference (Regional Development Commissions Act) does not actually say that explicitly, it only lists the nine regions. I could get a map of WA and remove all of the defined regions and see if all that is left is Perth - but that would be original research. So although I welcome the addition of another reference that explicitly says that "WA = 9 RDCA regions + Perth", until we have such a reference our article is obliged not to make that claim.

(As previously mentioned, Perth might be a region for the purposes of other sections of this article, just not the "RDCA regions" section.)

Mitch Ames (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for going to the trouble to check it all and spell out the issue. satusuro 13:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Regions of Western Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070519231453/http://www.fish.wa.gov.au:80/sec/rec/index.php to http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/sec/rec/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained reversions

@JarrahTree: would you please explain why you reverted my edits. Is there something wrong with the link I added? Is there some reason why this article should say "Covid 19" when others - including the link target - say "COVID-19"? Is there some reason why MOS:DATEFORMAT should not apply here ("18 May" vs "the 18th May"), or MOS:DOUBLE? Mitch Ames (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

needs more work - reverted my revert for the moment - not clear that it is relevant or suitable in this particular article. JarrahTree 03:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with deletion of the whole section. The closure is not particularly notable in the context of the Regions article (and it's already mentioned in COVID-19_pandemic_in_Australia#April_2020 and COVID-19_pandemic_in_Australia#Western_Australia). If the restrictions became permanent, then they'd be worth mentioning here, otherwise WP:NOTNEWS. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Disagree to an extent it should be noted this is the first time that the WA has had movement restrictions based on these regions, the other police enforced restrictions were imposed was during WWII. It shows that the regions are significant divisions of WA. That the use of the regions for this purpose does indicate the importance of the regions and their relationship WA Biosecurity laws. The divide of regions will continue past the 18 May for Midwest, Gascoyne, Pilbara, Kimberley, Goldfields(excluding Esperance) and that remote communities will remained isolated from region they are in. It demonstrates a socioeconomic and governmental disparity across the state. Gnangarra 12:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• oh and the fact it covered in the national COVID-19 article isnt reason not to include it here because people would never find this usage of the regions, without knowing what took place during COVID-19 pandemic era. Gnangarra 12:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• • Totally agree with what Gnangarra has said strongly disagree with Mitch - I did not say deletion of the text in my edit summary or note - the section addition was about regional lockdowns not state - the reason I removed Mitchs edit it brought a total furphy in including a reference talking about the state lockdown - this (regional boundaries) has nothing to do with the nullarbor border control and state boudaries in any way. I believe the notability of the action (and consequently the need for an article) is reinforced by the presence of military personael at the control points, the legislative context that substantiates the regional boundaries delineation and usage in ways that is rarely if ever seen in the Australian context in peace time (ie not wartime). To claim Not news is missing the point. I would say a counter argument is possibly required - just show how endemic joint police and military segregation of areas within other states in Australia since 1901 is a commonplace activity... JarrahTree 14:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

the reason I removed Mitchs edit it brought a total furphy in including a reference talking about the state lockdown - this (regional boundaries) has nothing to do with the nullarbor border control and state boudaries in any way. — You could have just removed that reference - there was no need to "removed" the "section". Actually the reference - whose headline is "New COVID-19 restrictions on travel within WA ..." does support the statements that "... travel between regions ... was restricted ... ". Some quotes from the reference:

• "The WA Government is planning to restrict travel between Western Australia's regions" (the first sentence)
• "... unnecessary intrastate, internal travel in Western Australia needs to be avoided"
• "... stricter travel restrictions within the state ..."
• "... restrictions on the movement between Western Australia's regions..."

But feel free to replace that reference with a better one if you think those quotes are not clear enough. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

the presence of military personael at the control points — Do you have a reference for "military"? I've added "police", but "military" would certainly be notable if supported by a reference. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

can only offer observational evidence, WP:OR that people I've spoken with at three checkpoints, Forrest Hwy, Albany Hwy, and Great Northern Hwy are all from 11th/28th Battalion, Royal Western Australia Regiment. These soldiers were providing support services as well as manning the actual checkpoint. From 3rd party personnel sourcing armed members from the regiment cleared walkers from Bibbulmun track and Cape to Cape track as well as cyclists from Mundabidi track when the restrictions were first announced. Gnangarra 11:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Atthis stage all that offers is a heads up when looking through source material for independent reliable confirmation. Gnangarra 11:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Article updated, with refs. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The more I see this, it convinces me more that it is inapropriate to have the section in this article - and completely is out of character to have been included in the main article about regions... the actual broader context of the subject is well out of the intention and scope of this article - and is much better suited to be elsewhere JarrahTree 14:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Disagree, the regions are very much at the centre of the structure of the COVID-19 travel restrictions because they are the primary way the WA government divides the state. It has been for a long time, many other region bits probably should be removed and put within the articles related to those authorities because they dont care the significance that the main article land divisions do. Gnangarra 02:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

sorry it is a multi faceted state emergency - it is not just state involvement - there are parts of western australia locked down under federal legislarion - it needs to be a separate article JarrahTree 04:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

there are parts of western australia locked down under federal legislarion — Can we have an example and a reference please? Mitch Ames (talk) 06:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Scope of the article

Quoting Gnangarra from #Unexplained reversion above:

many other region bits probably should be removed and put within the articles related to those authorities because they dont care the significance that the main article land divisions do.

It has always bothered me, that this one article covers multiple independent regional systems, merely because they are all "regions". I think there is merit in separating the different regional schemes, rather than trying to cover them all in a single article. Most likely, as Gnangarra suggests, move most of the sections into the relevant article, e.g. BOM regions should be covered by Bureau of Meteorology, wine regions by Western Australian wine. Possibly a disambiguation page would be appropriate, independently of whether Regions of Western Australia § The Regional Development Commissions Act regions is the primary topic - there are too many others to sensibly list in a {{For}} hatnote. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The regions have been around long before Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 created its definition. Regions it definitely needs to be an article it needs to cover the history of the regions. These werent created out of thin air they are based on earlier regions. The RDC as the primary article, with coverage of historical regions that lead to it, with dab Regions of Western Australia(Disambiguation) for all the other area articles to link from. Gnangarra 03:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Strongly oppose suggestions given (if I can understand what has been written above) There is no merit in the ideas as far as I can see, please see my reasoning below.

To understand the scope of different regional distinctions read the article - at one stage each department or authority or federal authority had different understandings of what cositituted a region in their legislated context. I strongly disagree with mitch regarding record of variant definitions - the article was very specifically created to actually illustrate the point of the variations of understandings of the regions. Mitch's suggestion to move into separate article is totally missing the point that this wikipedia article is one of the few points on the internet to actually see and understand where standardisation never happened between authorities at state and federal levels over considerable time, with even weirder regionalisations created by some authorities that never related to any particular base of information. I 'strongly oppose any attempt to dumb down the relevance of this article, in the context that I have just explained - counter argument - show me one place where any state or federal authority has gone to the trouble to illustrate their understandings of how inter-departmental and authority regional definitions over-lap or require comparison, so that the weird and wonderful ideas of 'regions' over the last 150 years of state authorities mapping and identifying things.

The fact that the state regional development act actually utilised LGA boundaries and incorporated them into the regions was a very clear utlisation of LGA boundaries and not creating the at some stages bizarre boundaries created by other authorities. The point I think that the other editors seem to assume above that the article can be broken up is bad faith and totally missing the point of the article in the first place - it reflects a chaotic range of regional categorisations over time - that was the intention, and to reduce to offshoot articles leaves the whole argument of the article as created 'undone' and lost. I fail to see why to even consider turning into a disambigauation actually helps the reader or the general intention of what wikipedia is about. JarrahTree 04:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like the article was created as a piece of original research, the RDC regions are the generally widely used and known ones, while the others are industry specialty regions which should be described within that context. Gnangarra 04:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

there is nothing, in any way OR - the material specifically gleaned from the chaos of the variant identifications of what constituted regions under the various authorities - that is a misinterpretation of what OR is about. industry specialty is a total misnomer - the variant government authorities were not beholden to any specific act or regulation as to how they divided the state up - that is why the regional development commission act and borders are an important template for understanding what happened in the past, and have a very specific affect on things in the future. To butcher this article shows a clear misunderstanding of what the history and context are in 'regionalising' western australias large area.

The reason why a separate article about the state emergency over covid is that the restrictions are also enacted at a federal level of regulation as well - it is not simply the state regulating - it is a situation where there are multiple events in the process of regulation. JarrahTree 05:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The intratstate/regional borders are purely a WA State Government decision, the federal government just supported the closing of interstate borders....that closure is actually a constitutional issue as freedom of trade between states is guaranteed under the constitution. Gnangarra 05:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you can explain - page 10 of saturday west specifically has biosecurity zones that are not state administered

https://www.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-03/Western Australia - Designated Biosecurity Area FINAL 260320.pdf JarrahTree 05:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Fixed link: http://www.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-03/Western%20Australia%20-%20Designated%20Biosecurity%20Area%20FINAL%20260320.pdf Mitch Ames (talk) 06:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Apparently the biosecurity areas are a federal govt thing: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2020/March/COVID-19_Biosecurity_Emergency_Declaration under Biosecurity Act 2015. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

according to https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-24/perth-stadium-becomes-coronavirus-hq-wa-travel-warnings-issued/12085616 the regional boundaries were a decision of the WA government, the regions they used are the RDC. That link doesnt work, I dont think anyone can explain why The West does anything it does especially given its owner has been exempt from travel restrictions and isolation rules Gnangarra 05:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that it might be better to keep the discussion about the COVID-19 section in #Unexplained reversion above, and keep #Scope of the article for whether we need an article covering multiple regional definitions (which is why I created a separate talk page section). Mitch Ames (talk) 07:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)