Talk:Coffs Harbour
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
External links
editThe External Links section of this article has grown to include a number of sites with only limited relevance. I've made some edits in line with the guideline for external links and where I've removed a link my reasoning is outlined below:
- Links to social networking sites - [1]
- Links to sites only indirectly related to the article subject (in this case mostly groups that simply happen to be located in Coffs Harbour)- a local football club[2], amateur radio group[3] and amateur computer clubs [4][5][6][7][8]
- An advertising link which also requires registration to view its contents - [9]
- An advertising link to the Big Banana - [10] the Big Banana is a genuine tourist attraction but it has its own article and the link here is primarily for the purpose of selling services.
I've left links to the local council, the university campus, the National Library images, and some media outlets. I appreciate the Myspace link above also claims media outlet status and would welcome more discussion on its inclusion or otherwise.
As always I'm happy to discuss these changes if there is disagreement - let's seek a consensus here rather than reverting one way or the other in the article. Euryalus (talk) 01:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Would you the readers consider my blog relevant? [11] 1.152.88.154 (talk) 03:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- No, as far the text on your site goes and its general tenor (point of view promotional material adding nothing beyond the article) but probably yes for the pics if you can give them some explanatory captions and organise them a bit better, and link to them described as photos. Not all may necessarily agree with me. Regards (Crusoe8181 (talk) 04:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)).
- You and other page editors are hereby allowed to use any individual photo [I took them myself] if you think it would enhance the page. 1.152.88.154 (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yep, they would, so off you go and create a user account and become a page editor yourself, log into Wikipedia Commons (from home page), upload selected pics (higher res. than on your site, if possible) with free use license (my own work etc), give them some decent descriptions, label them free use, find a spot on article where a pic would be useful and add it in (a few more pics wouldn't go astray on the Coffs article) and all of a sudden you are a highly-respected Wikipedian - If you get stuck you ask for HELP at my talk page and if you don't let me know anyway! -see WP:BOLD, Cheers (Crusoe8181 (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)).
- You and other page editors are hereby allowed to use any individual photo [I took them myself] if you think it would enhance the page. 1.152.88.154 (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Highway Deviations?
editWhat on the face of the Earth is a Highway Deviation? Please write in the kind of English that is understood in the major countries of the Northern Hemisphere (the United States, Canada, etc.), and not in the dialects of "Down Under". Perhaps you are trying to refer to a "beltway" or a "highway bypass"? It isn't clear at all at all from what you wrote.
By the way, the word "deviation" is a technical one from the field of statistics, as in "standard deviation".
We also have deviant criminals and so forth. There is no need to dream up new meanings for this well-worked word.98.67.163.249 (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is not the North American Wikipedia. See WP:BIAS and MOS:TIES. A quick search shows it's a widely used term though possibly Australian English. If you don't think it's meaning is clear from the context in the article feel free to ask for clarification. --Nerdwithagun (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Requested move
edit- 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: Page moved per rough consensus. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Coffs Harbour, New South Wales → Coffs Harbour — This article was recently moved to an un-disambiguated name and soon after moved back. The name "Coffs Harbour" is unique and does not need disambiguation save for compliance with the guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Australia. I am not convinced that this guideline enjoys wide support given the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/August#Australian place name convention. Relisted Vegaswikian (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Mattinbgn\talk 08:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. While there is discussion about the convention, there is no consensus to overturn. So there is no reason to use that discussion to rename this article. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Of course I am not using that discussion as justification. My justification is simple: bedrock Wikipedia policy in the form of WP:AT. The reason I raised the discussion was to show that the convention to flout WP:AT no longer enjoys wide support. Avoiding the question doesn't assist in resolving the issue. Either WP:AT applies, or it does not. Scraping around 50% of editors to agree to ignore long-standing policy does not mean that we should continue to do so. That a hotly disputed convention should outweigh a widely accepted policy seems bizarre to me. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- One common objection to changes like this is the reduced clarity in the article name. Personally I'm tried of going to a place article, not seeing where it is and then having to click a few more links to finally get some idea where in the world the place is. There is nothing wrong with the current name for this article. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- There is plenty wrong with the article name. The name does not comply with WP:AT, it is less concise than it could and should be and it is misleading insofar as it seems to allude to other Coffs Harbours (when there aren't any). It is also misleading in that it suggests that "New South Wales" is an integral part of the name of the city when this is not the case. Besides, how is the undisambiguated name less clear? - there is only one place called "Coffs Harbour"! The plain title uniquely identifies the topic, and does not need embellishment. Disambiguation is a necessary evil, not a positive good. As for having to click through links to find where Coffs Harbour is, well you are just making that up. From the article, the first sentence reads "Coffs Harbour is a coastal city located on the north coast of New South Wales about 540 km (340 miles) north of Sydney, 385 km (240 miles) north of Newcastle, and 440 km (275 miles) south of Brisbane". Not to mention the push pin map in the top right hand corner! No need to click through a link there (or on most Australian place name articles). Besides, if we were to be really clear, the article would be titled Coffs Harbour, North Coast, New South Wales, Australia!!! If you want to argue for a change to WP:AT to make names do more work than is currently the case, feel free to do so, but unlike the Australian place name convention, the policy enjoys wide support. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- @Vegaswikian: Thats what the infobox is for! It has the location name, state it is in and in most cases a location map. Bidgee (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- There is plenty wrong with the article name. The name does not comply with WP:AT, it is less concise than it could and should be and it is misleading insofar as it seems to allude to other Coffs Harbours (when there aren't any). It is also misleading in that it suggests that "New South Wales" is an integral part of the name of the city when this is not the case. Besides, how is the undisambiguated name less clear? - there is only one place called "Coffs Harbour"! The plain title uniquely identifies the topic, and does not need embellishment. Disambiguation is a necessary evil, not a positive good. As for having to click through links to find where Coffs Harbour is, well you are just making that up. From the article, the first sentence reads "Coffs Harbour is a coastal city located on the north coast of New South Wales about 540 km (340 miles) north of Sydney, 385 km (240 miles) north of Newcastle, and 440 km (275 miles) south of Brisbane". Not to mention the push pin map in the top right hand corner! No need to click through a link there (or on most Australian place name articles). Besides, if we were to be really clear, the article would be titled Coffs Harbour, North Coast, New South Wales, Australia!!! If you want to argue for a change to WP:AT to make names do more work than is currently the case, feel free to do so, but unlike the Australian place name convention, the policy enjoys wide support. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- One common objection to changes like this is the reduced clarity in the article name. Personally I'm tried of going to a place article, not seeing where it is and then having to click a few more links to finally get some idea where in the world the place is. There is nothing wrong with the current name for this article. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Of course I am not using that discussion as justification. My justification is simple: bedrock Wikipedia policy in the form of WP:AT. The reason I raised the discussion was to show that the convention to flout WP:AT no longer enjoys wide support. Avoiding the question doesn't assist in resolving the issue. Either WP:AT applies, or it does not. Scraping around 50% of editors to agree to ignore long-standing policy does not mean that we should continue to do so. That a hotly disputed convention should outweigh a widely accepted policy seems bizarre to me. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. ***Adam*** 23:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Care to supply a reason. This is a discussion, not a vote. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support Coffs Harbour is known as Coffs Harbour[12][13] (or in short just called Coffs) and not Coffs Harbour, New South Wales and no other Coffs Harbour exists. Bidgee (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per Vegaswikian and my past comments at other recent articles. Sb617 (Talk) 15:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Where are the other Coffs Harbours that cause this article to require disambiguation? Bleakcomb (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Pointless disambiguation whose sole purpose and justification is to comply with a convention that apparently no longer has consensus support.--Kotniski (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support per above arguments. Propaniac (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2010 (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.
No mention of the Gumbaynggirr people
editIt seems odd that there's no mention of the Gumbaynggirr people anywhere in this article. — OwenBlacker (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Coffs Harbour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720035328/http://www.ncahs.nsw.gov.au/services/results_detailed.php?serviceid=517 to http://www.ncahs.nsw.gov.au/services/results_detailed.php?serviceid=517
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140416174350/http://libraries.coffsharbour.nsw.gov.au/Local-Heritage/Pages/default.aspx to http://libraries.coffsharbour.nsw.gov.au/Local-Heritage/Pages/default.aspx
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140416174628/http://libraries.coffsharbour.nsw.gov.au/Local-Heritage/newspaperindex/Pages/default.aspx to http://libraries.coffsharbour.nsw.gov.au/Local-Heritage/newspaperindex/Pages/default.aspx
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140416205718/http://libraries.coffsharbour.nsw.gov.au/Local-Heritage/collection/Pages/Aboriginal-history-of-the-Coffs-Harbour-region.aspx to http://libraries.coffsharbour.nsw.gov.au/Local-Heritage/collection/Pages/Aboriginal-history-of-the-Coffs-Harbour-region.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
- 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)