Talk:Electoral district of Croydon (South Australia)

Opening heading

Considering one is current and two are former, wouldn't it be best to have SA hold Croydon, others to keep their disambigs, and have a Croydon (disambiguation) page? Timeshift (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The current electorate should take precedence. Digestible (talk) 07:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

So no objections to moving this back? Timeshift (talk) 06:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Electoral district of Croydon (South Australia) → Electoral district of Croydon – Per the discussion above, and the discussion at Talk:Electoral district of Ivanhoe, this page should be at Electoral district of Croydon, because there's only one current electorate by this name (the precedent being that if only one current electorate by a certain name exists, it gets primary, and abolished electorates of the same name are hatnoted from the primary). I have also updated the hatnote at the (South Australia) article to reflect this.

(Note to moving admin: customarily, we don't have (disambiguation) pages for state electorates, so Electoral district of Croydon can just be deleted, and this (South Australia) article moved into its place.) Miracle Pen (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Removal of obviously informative qualifiers is getting out of hand. An encyclopedia is not bound in time as a newspaper is; so it is irrelevant if electoral districts with the same name exist no longer. Now, I am an Australian; yet the three articles (all Australian) listed at the disambiguation page are completely alien to me. I would want to know at a glance where the damn thing is. For all I can tell, Electoral district of Croydon might concern Croydon Central (UK Parliament constituency), Croydon, Cambridgeshire (not associated with that constituency, as I find), Croydon, Utah, Croydon, Pennsylvania – or Croydon, Victoria, which is the only Croydon I have been to. If policies and guidelines are diverted to the satisfaction of brevity at all costs, away from the convenience of readers, policies and guidelines should be changed. Noetica^Tea? 21:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Qualifiers aren't supposed to be "informative", they exist only so different articles can have different names (I notice this particular misapprehension of WP:D policy is becoming more common, e.g. here and here). At any rate, your argument is an argument for the existence of a dabpage, not against moving the article, which is in line in with policy for Australian electorates. Miracle Pen (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a narrow, legalistic understanding of the situation, MP. I argue not from any "misapprehension", but from what should be accepted as an overriding principle: the readers need to know what an article is about, and the title is their first entrée into that mystery. This idea is present at WP:TITLE. Look at these, from the five questions that are to be posed in determining a title:

Recognizability – Is the candidate title a recognizable name or description of the topic?
[Ask yourself: recognisable to whom? Some residents of South Australia, or the general readership?]

Precision – How precise is the title under discussion?
[Again, precise for whom?]

Consistency – Does the proposed title follow the same pattern as those of similar articles?
[It does now, with small exceptions that need to be fixed; but it would not, if this RM were to succeed.]

Do you have any potential source of bias to declare, MP? I have declared that I am an Australian; as I make pretty clear below, I am not a South Australian.

Noetica^Tea? 02:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Your consistency argument makes no sense because this article is inconsistent with the treatment of other Australian state electorate articles. Consistency would be served by following my suggestion, because, like I said, that's consistent with precedent for Australian state electorate articles. This article is an exception to that rule. The proposed title does not clash with the other guidelines.

That readers need to know what an article is about is not the same as removing ambiguity altogether, which is what you seem to be arguing. This is why hatnotes exist. Miracle Pen (talk) 03:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

(Do you have any potential source of bias to declare, MP?) I concede that there is a problem with that consistency argument; I note, though, that other electoral districts are named in an unhelpful or misleading way also. Readers might be looking for Napier (New Zealand electorate), and be waylaid by Electoral district of Napier. You answer, it seems, what you consider easy to answer; but you are silent on the main consideration: getting readers to the information they want, reliably and efficiently. This is not achieved by hatnotes; it is achieved by the simple expedient of sufficiently accurate and informative titles. Do you deny it? A reader who has prompts appearing in the search box at top right is best served if "Electoral district of Croydon (South Australia)" turns up as a prompt, rather than merely "Electoral district of Croydon". Show me how any reader could be misled by the present arrangement for this article! Show me how any could even be inconvenienced. Rather than working with what I "seem to be arguing", attend to what I manifestly am arguing. Answer those arguments, and answer the questions. Noetica^Tea? 03:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

We are going to have to agree to disagree on the utility of hatnotes. I am proposing they be used in the customary manner in which they are used in Wikipedia. A user looking for this might wind up here instead: should we move the latter to here? The title of this article, as it currently stands, violates WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Miracle Pen (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

(Do you have any potential source of bias to declare, MP?) We are going to have to disagree, it seems, because you have no answers to my basic questions. At least, you don't give answers. As for Miami, so what? In some cases, there is a clear "primary topic" (for those enamoured of the guideline in question). To parallel your example, consider Melbourne and Melbourne, Florida. The existence of such clear and extreme cases has no bearing on such obscure articles as this present one, and how to avoid the sheer nuisance value that any change here would represent. Same for the other articles in its category. As for "violations of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC", I suggest you re-read that guideline (not policy). Note the question at its head: "Is there a primary topic?" More subtle than many editors think. To read the guideline as applying straightforwardly in the present case is to oversimplify things, in typical fashion for RMs. I don't now why we bother with these RMs, if it's all as simple and mechanical as some people suggest. Let's just implement a clever algorithm, and be done with it. The last time I observed an actual change of mind, and vote, through rational argument was when I did that myself. Let's not waste our day, if such persuasion is ruled out from the start. Noetica^Tea? 04:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"Electoral district of Croydon" has a clear primary topic - this one. Essentially, our disagreement boils down to whether or not this is a primary topic, and this is why I mentioned the Ivanhoe precedent. Your counterexamples a few posts above fail on the following grounds:

* Croydon Central (UK Parliament constituency). No-one looking for "Croydon Central" is going to type in just "Croydon". (It also fails on account of the fact that the British don't commonly use the term "district"; the customary British term of art is "constituency", which is why the titledab includes that word.)

* Croydon, Cambridgeshire. A town or suburb; not an electoral district, so "Electoral district of" serves as sufficient disambiguation.

* Croydon, Utah. Ditto.

* Croydon, Pennsylvania. Ditto.

* Croydon, Victoria. Ditto.

Looking at Croydon (disambiguation), we find some more examples, all of which also fail:

* Croydon, New Hampshire. Yet another town.

* London Borough of Croydon. No-one looking for a "borough" is going to type in "electoral district of Croydon".

* Croydon North (UK Parliament constituency). No-one looking for "Croydon North" would type in "Croydon".

* Croydon South (UK Parliament constituency). Ditto, mutatis mutandis.

* Croydon South (historic UK Parliament constituency). Ditto.

Indeed, there are only three articles that could be referred to as "Electoral district of Croydon". Only one is extant, and, per precedent, has primary. That is this very article. Have you any examples of ambiguity? Miracle Pen (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

(Do you have any potential source of bias to declare, MP?)

You write: "Indeed, there are only three articles that could be referred to as 'Electoral district of Croydon'." But that's not true. Electoral district is a generic term, as that article makes clear. Here is the entire lead of that article:

An electoral district (also known as a constituency, riding, ward, division, electoral area or electorate) is a distinct territorial subdivision for holding a separate election for one or more seats in a legislative body. Generally, only voters who reside within the geographical bounds of an electoral district (constituents) are permitted to vote in an election held there.

What's more, it is used generically in the present title for this article, and in the proposed alternative title. With a lower-case "d". The article's first words: "Croydon is an electoral district of the House of Assembly ...". Yes, the term is used in specific references, in South Australia. But it could be used anywhere, no matter what terms are preferred locally. Croydon North (UK Parliament constituency) is an electoral district, in the broad generic sense. So are the others, adjacent to it. You have still not answered my core questions. How could anyone, anywhere, be disadvantaged when they type in "Electoral district of Cr", and at that point have prompts that include Electoral district of Croydon (South Australia)?

Noetica^Tea? 09:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

That colloquial usage of "district" to which your refer is not common in other countries (specifically, it's not common in Britain, the other country where there are electorates that have "Croydon" in their title), so there's little risk of confusion. (Americans use the term "district", but they number their electorates, so there is no scope for confusion.) A person who wants the "Electoral district of Croydon" almost certainly wants the current SA state electorate. They do not want an electorate named Croydon North, or they would have typed that. They do not want a Croydon South, or they would have typed that. They do not want towns or suburbs or boroughs named Croydon. They do not want the Croydon Aerodrome. They do not want the Croydon Pirates. There is some minor likelihood that they want the electoral districts of Croydon in NSW or Queensland, which can be serviced with a hatnote.

Your solution is to point them at the current disambiguation page, one that is almost certainly redundant. How does pointing them to a almost certainly redundant dabpage help them? Miracle Pen (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

(Do you have any potential source of bias to declare, MP?)

What on earth are you talking about? I want the status quo for this article, whereby the title informs readers immediately of the precise topic. You have twice ignored my question concerning prompts. I will have to give up answering you; this is no dialogue at all. Pay attention.

Electoral district is in use in other countries. Official, legislated use. Look at this concerning the electorate of Napier, in New Zealand:

The Electoral Act 1993 provides that the South Island has 16 General electoral districts. The General electoral population of the South Island is divided by 16 to give the South Island quota. The North Island General electoral population is then divided by the South Island quota to give the number of North Island General electoral districts. The North Island General electoral population is divided by the number of North Island General electorates to give the North Island quota.

[Search for its wording on Google. WP software blocks that site, so I cannot post the link.]

No more tonight. It's ridiculous.

Noetica^Tea? 10:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you are looking at something titled Electoral Act 1993 - a piece of legislation! - should have been the most obvious clue that you are wandering far away from any colloquial or common uses of a term. So far, what we have are people who are almost certainly South Australians looking for the seat of Croydon, and they get a worthless dabpage that points them toward two districts that they are almost certainly not looking for, and the one that they almost certainly are - this one. (Meanwhile, people looking for Croydon North, or Central, or South, found their page long ago.) Miracle Pen (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Strong agree... if one seat is current and two are former, then it makes sense that the current one gets the default name. Timeshift (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Super-strength power comment. No it doesn't, Timeshift. It only makes sense if you set all other considerations aside, cling to the idea of a "default name", search vigorously for one, and apply it so that as many titles as possible are as short as possible – ignoring the convenience of readers, and the specific argument I adduce above. The move proposed here makes as little sense as the title Surrey North does. Entirely misleading, to almost everyone everywhere. You are from Adelaide, South Australia, Timeshift. Do you think the vehemence of your support might be influenced by that fact? I do! Do you think you should have disclosed it in this RM discussion?* I do! Think about this: the world does not end at Bordertown (a dab page, note). The other seven billion of us might like to know what you're talking about. Noetica^Tea? 02:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

* A quote from Timeshift's userpage: "This user believes that only articles need reflect a NPOV, and that displaying political, religious, or other beliefs on user and talk pages should be encouraged. Bias is better declared." Noetica^Tea? 02:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

That is certainly a very narrow way of looking at my bias declaration. My bias declaration refers to political partisan issues. The current SA Croydon is more likely to be viewed at a higher rate than abolished historical seats from other states. If the current one was in another state and the abolished ones were in SA and another state, my opinion wouldn't change. It's also worth noting that although this is a talk page, my referring to bias being ok on talk pages does not extend to what should happen in an article. Articles should not contain bias, this debate refers to a specific change to an article. Way to clutch at straws. Timeshift (talk) 04:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no need to clutch at straws, Timeshift. In the end, it matters little to me how the names of electoral districts in your home state are dealt on Wikipedia. I just want everyone to know where the arguments are coming from. I thought you agreed, from the evidence at your userpage. Do you think that anyone commenting so far (apart from myself) is disinterested? And tell me: do you really think that the title Surrey North is optimal? That it serves all readers' needs? That no added qualification could bring a net benefit? Noetica^Tea? 04:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

But you are clutching at straws. If one seat exists and the other two don't, the one that exists takes precedence. You call my talkpage partisan bias "evidence", I call it irrelevant, as it does not apply to this sort of debate. You say me being from the same state as the seat makes me biased. Does that make any American editor for the Obama article biased? As for Surrey North, I'm interested in political articles. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please treat this on it's own merits without bringing in others with the intention of muddying the waters. EDIT: Ok, upon actually viewing the article, it is a political article. I've had a look at that page and other "riding" pages, their naming conventions for these articles appear to be very odd. But that's how it is, that region who is able to form a consensus does it their way, and wikipedia does work like that. Different countries use different standards on wikipedia, that evidence is all around us. All I wish to speak for is the Australian political articles. Timeshift (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Timeshift: "Ok, upon actually viewing the article, ..." ☺.

"... All I wish to speak for is the Australian political articles."

Uh-huh. You wouldn't biased, then? Naaah.

All they want to speak for in British Columbia is British Columbian political articles. But you see, Timeshift, this isn't South Australian Wikipedia, or British Columbian Wikipedia, is it? Me, I'm interested in English Wikipedia, and article titles that will mean something to the English-speaking world – which doesn't end at Pinnaroo, any more than it ends at Cranbrook, British Columbia.

Noetica^Tea? 09:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Different countries have local variants which is allowed and has plentiful examples. There's no requirement to be across all of english wikipedia. Are you proposing to get rid of "Electoral district of" and simply name the article of the name of the seat and nothing else? My view is valid whether you like it or not, and i'm still awaiting an apology for bias accusations. Timeshift (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Super-duper disagree': Maracle says: "Qualifiers aren't supposed to be "informative", they exist only so different articles can have different names". I could not disagree more with this interpretation. Removing the parenthetical item would be a serious disservice to readers. And what of those who might consult our key navigational aid, the categories? How irritating to have to visit this article without knowing which Croydon it is. Tony (talk) 09:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

But that is indeed all title disambiguation is. The neatest and most concise summary of title dabs I can find is the following:

The purpose of disambiguation is to provide context only if there is a title conflict

It is not the purpose of title dabs to include helpful extra information. It is there to provide context in the case of a title conflict, which is why the (Queensland) and (New South Wales) articles have them. As for your objection re categories, if someone is in a category titled Electoral districts of South Australia, then I fail to see how they could possibly be confused - they're clearly in South Australia. As for knowing which Croydon it is, anyone looking for the "electoral district of Croydon" is almost certainly looking for the South Australian one. They're not looking for constituencies named Croydon North or Central, the town of Croydon in Pennsylvania, the suburb of Croydon West, et al. Miracle Pen (talk) 10:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support, devoid of superlatives. I have to say I'm surprised that this is causing so much trouble. As far as I'm aware - and correct me if I'm wrong here - Australian electorates are the only ones to use the "Electoral district of Foo" construction for article titles. The British ones might be electoral districts in the technical sense, but (as a non-Brit) I've never heard them referred to as such. Thus there are three articles that might use the "Electoral district of Croydon" moniker, and this one is clearly the primary topic. And, to be perfectly honest, I find the chances of a complete novice in this area typing "Electoral district of Croydon" into the search box to be astronomically small, so I'm not seeing much validity in the arguments about readers' ease. That is not, ultimately, what article titles are for. In any case, the reader would see "Electoral district of Croydon (disambiguation)" pop up to set them on the right track. I'd also like to say that the continued badgering of Miracle Pen on the subject of supposed "bias declarations" is rather unnecessary and hardly helpful. It's laudable that you've made your possible biases clear, Noetica, but there's no obligation for everyone to do so. Frickeg (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It would seem that anyone who disagrees with Noetica is declared as biased in this particular discussion. Timeshift (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Timeshift: That's ridiculous. I asked you: "Do you think the vehemence of your support might be influenced by that fact? I do! Do you think you should have disclosed it in this RM discussion? I do!" Now, "I do" means it might (influence the vehemence of your support), and you should, respectively. That was not to say that you are biased in having the opinion that you express here; it was to do with the vehemence with which you expressed it: "Strong agree", as if that makes your opinion count more. But as you have revealed, "all [you] wish to speak for is the Australian political articles." If that is not a prima facie reason for suspecting an epistemic and exegetic bias inappropriate for determining titles in a worldwide encyclopedia, it is hard to see what would be. When confronted with the obscure and misleading name of a British Columbian equivalent of your South Australian electoral district, you were as deceived and misled as any reader could be! But you appear not to take any lesson from that.

As for Miracle, I have asked him or her repeatedly about potential reasons for bias, but I have no reply concerning that or any serious matter of substance.

Frickeg: Apparently you did not see, or respond to, this that Miracle wrote in the text of the RM proposal (see at the top):

(Note to moving admin: customarily, we don't have (disambiguation) pages for state electorates, so Electoral district of Croydon can just be deleted, and this (South Australia) article moved into its place.)

Bear this in mind as you consider my response to you, and your own submission above. You write:

And, to be perfectly honest, I find the chances of a complete novice in this area typing "Electoral district of Croydon" into the search box to be astronomically small, so I'm not seeing much validity in the arguments about readers' ease. That is not, ultimately, what article titles are for. In any case, the reader would see "Electoral district of Croydon (disambiguation)" pop up to set them on the right track.

You don't seem to appreciate the many ways WP article titles work, for users of the web (not just within Wikipedia). Google scoops up Wikipedia titles and give them prime place on the results pages – though that may not be the most salient consideration in the present case. Consider someone finding somewhere on the web the string "Electoral district of Croydon", who might select it with the mouse and put it into Wikipedia's search box. This is an entirely plausible way to proceed, as an alternative to typing a string in manually. Try it. As things stand, you get four prompts:

Electoral district of Croydon
Electoral district of Croydon (South Australia)
Electoral district of Croydon (New South Wales)
Electoral district of Croydon (Queensland)

(With a shorter input string, the order of these is different). Now, how is this not close to ideal? What could be the advantage to any reader, in any change from this arrangement? We surely want "Electoral district of Croydon (South Australia)" to come up prominently, because as people have pointed out, it is the only one currently in existence! Why do we have prompts at all, if these considerations are to be discounted? Set fixed ways of thinking to one side, and you might see that I make some points that are worth considering, in the larger picture that unfolds beyond Ceduna and Oodnadatta. I'll do the same in return; but I'm still waiting for realistic responses to my points, and to my questions.

Noetica^Tea? 01:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to such arguments that are so condescending. Ceduna/Oodnadatta? Give me a break. My points stand, so do yours, but different countries do their political articles differently and many editors only edit political articles in their region. Timeshift (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I had overlooked the intended lack of a disambiguation page; in this case I would support the existence of one, since there is more than one alternative article (it's not true that we never use them - see Electoral district of Murray, Electoral district of Sturt for examples, incidentally two instances where I do not think there's a primary topic and the current situation is best). Even without one, though, my point about people not typing in "Electoral district of Croydon" still stands. This is one of those pages that gets the vast majority of its traffic from clicking links rather than direct searches. As for your second point, well, I do actually understand how Wikipedia article titles work, thank you. Going along with your scenario, I still find the probability that someone finding that string would be looking for the South Australian one (the New South Wales one hasn't existed since 1959 and the Queensland one since 1912) very high, which is why I believe the South Australian one is the primary topic. And your argument about what would show up in the search box is not quite right - no one is suggesting the deletion of the redirect, so anyone searching would get exactly the same as the four titles you've got there, with the addition of a (disambiguation) one. If in doubt the person can click the South Australian one, and they'll get redirected to the primary topic. I think your points are worth considering, of course, and I have considered them; ultimately, though, I disagree, and I have explained why. You are, of course, entitled to disagree with me as well, but you might consider that some other people might be making valid points too. Frickeg (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

But Frickeg, you are continuing to make assumptions for which we find no support above. Yours is the first mention of redirects; and in the code for the RM we find this: {{no redirect|1=Electoral district of Croydon}}. Under the arrangement you now propose (with a disambiguation page, and a redirect), the prompts would be like this, perhaps differently ordered:

Electoral district of Croydon (disambiguation)
Electoral district of Croydon
Electoral district of Croydon (South Australia)
Electoral district of Croydon (New South Wales)
Electoral district of Croydon (Queensland)

Who would click on "Electoral district of Croydon", especially if they were looking for the one in South Australia? The only reason I can find for anyone doing so is sheer curiosity, after having gone to the page that was actually wanted: what's it doing there?

I ask, yet again, how that or any other arrangement is an improvement on what readers now find – augmented, now that I think further on the matter, with addition of "(disambiguation)" to the present title of the present de facto DAB:

Electoral district of Croydon (disambiguation)
Electoral district of Croydon (South Australia)
Electoral district of Croydon (New South Wales)
Electoral district of Croydon (Queensland)

Now think about what turns up in Google, after the RM as proposed above, or after your amendment. How would the situation be any clearer, for anyone at all anywhere in the world – beyond North Terrace, and the verdant Arcadia that is Elder Park ♥?

Noetica^Tea? 03:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose – the former/current distinction is not a good reason to remove a useful disambiguation. The requested new page name is already a useful disambig page. It works best this way, and doesn't contravene any guidelines, so let's leave it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The lexicographical difference between 'electoral district' and 'constituency' is unclear to me, but it seems pretty obvious it's the wrong thing to do to remove the dab. For consistency, it should be moved to 'Croydon (South Australia constituency)'. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting on the virtue or otherwise of this suggested move, this really isn't the place to consider it, as it would involve hundreds of other articles and would require centralised discussion. Frickeg (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Me, Frickeg, and Miracle Pen, the only three names I recognise as regular Australian political contributors and who would be very familiar with the regional variances, support the move, and the presumed overseasers don't and they win the debate. Funny stuff. All part of the imperfections of life I suppose. Timeshift (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Who is an overseer? And why should a narrow topic area have its style determined so locally? Is there something about Australia, or politics, or Australian politics, that bears on the questions of titling brought up here? Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Overseaser. And because that's because that's what happens in regional political articles. Australian political article standards are regionalised, same as any country. On an extreme comparison level, if we didn't, we'd all be writing words like mom and honor. Timeshift (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow! I wish I had seen this while it was open. Mandatory disambiguation lives, it seems. Why stop at unnecessary disambiguation for Croydon - Electoral district of Melton could relate to the UK town. Why we are at it, lets add the state to non-unique Australian locality articles like Ballarat, Rockhampton et al. On the other hand, common sense could reign and we could keep articles at their simple, unambiguous name especially when it is clearly the primary topic such as this article. An article title should uniquely identify the topic as accurately and succintly as possible. The purpose of the article title is not to provide additional information to the reader. That is what the article text is for. Amazed that this even a topic for discussion - if I had seen this before a discussion I would have summarily renamed it myself. I thought it was only US populated places that went in for this idiosyncratic mandatory disambiguation business - guess I must be out of touch. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Another Australian that laughs at this decision. Surprise surprise. Timeshift (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Gotta say I was pretty surprised and disappointed with the way this went as well. Not least because not a single policy-based objection was raised, not to mention that not a single person opposing even attempted to argue that this article wasn't the primary topic, which was actually what was at issue. Frickeg (talk) 07:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Timeshift:

"Me, Frickeg, and Miracle Pen, the only three names I recognise as regular Australian political contributors ..."

Tony is a vastly experienced editor, deeply versed in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines – indeed, a writer of tutorials on such matters. He frequently contributes to articles on Australian topics. I myself keep a watchful eye on Australia, and am deeply involved in matters of style and titling on the Project. Sorry: I don't think either of us intended to intrude on a cartel.

"Australian political article standards are regionalised, same as any country. On an extreme comparison level, if we didn't, we'd all be writing words like mom and honor."

We would have to analyse this to see what you mean exactly. Of course I agree concerning spelling, and I have vigorously defended WP:MOS against domination by American ways, which the rest of the world often sees as parochial and insular. Being insular ourselves is no part of the solution when such incursions threaten. It is parochial and insular to argue for titles that are utterly mysterious to "outsiders". I adduced the example of Surrey North, from which apparently you have learned nothing. Now try Little Bow, and let us know how you fare. Do you think that Electoral district of Callide is a good title? I don't. Do you think it should be moved to Callide? I don't! Yet if you applied WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as in a blinkered way as some sought to apply it in the present case, it ought to be Callide.

 

Mattinbgn:

"On the other hand, common sense could reign and we could keep articles at their simple, unambiguous name especially when it is clearly the primary topic such as this article."

I am always wary of those who claim that common sense is on their side. It reminds me of With God on Our Side. What do you think about Callide, and the others I mention just above? What do you think about French Quarter, and Ursuline Convent (now a redirect) when that was the title for Old Ursuline Convent, New Orleans?

 

Frickeg:

"Not least because not a single policy-based objection was raised, not to mention that not a single person opposing even attempted to argue that this article wasn't the primary topic, which was actually what was at issue."

Startling. I had expected a more penetrating analysis. If we are to appeal to laws, we had better read them thoroughly first. I saw little evidence of that from those supporting this move: just a genuflection in the direction of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I wrote (and you and the other supporters of the RM ignored me):

"As for 'violations of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC', I suggest you re-read that guideline (not policy). Note the question at its head: 'Is there a primary topic?' More subtle than many editors think. To read the guideline as applying straightforwardly in the present case is to oversimplify things, in typical fashion for RMs."

That guideline is treated in RMs as reverentially as a monument to motherhood; but it does not say, as some here have assumed, that there is always a primary topic to be found for every candidate title. Nor does it say that if there is one, the article for that topic should automatically bear that title. In any case, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a guideline; and policy at WP:TITLE presents considerations that often outweigh it.

"...  which was actually what was at issue."

No. More was at issue than a supposed primary topic, and there are other factors (as I have said), even if we assume that such argument would work unequivocally in favour of the proposed move here. Surely the utility of the title for readers was paramount. Do you think it ever is not paramount? Unlike Mattinbgn, I do not invoke some supposedly objective "common sense"; but I would be tempted to in this situation. You had the opportunity to explain and modify your submission when I pointed out the anomalies in the wording of the RM, and how your take on it differed from the proposer's. But you did not. What am I supposed to think or do, after the work I put in toward analytical clarity? A little grace in defeat would be a good thing – if this must be seen in the polemical terms of comments since the close of the RM.

Noetica^Tea? 09:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

My "common sense" is screaming to me that I should leave this well alone, and I suppose I probably should, but there are things there that I feel warrant a response. I understand that there was no consensus for the move (although, not to get too deep into BRD, there was absolutely no consensus to remain either (not that I'm arguing that meant it should be moved; of course I'm not), so let's not get too worked up about victory and defeat). As for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I saw arguments that as a title it was potentially confusing (which is what hatnotes are for); I saw no arguments that this "Electoral district of Croydon" was not, of the three possible articles, the primary topic, and from my reading of the discussion there was no disagreement that it was the primary topic. As for WP:TITLE, note a little further down in that policy where it talks about precision and notes that concise titles are preferred; I also note in that section that it links to the much-maligned mere guideline about primary topics in saying that if there is one the article should be there. As a guideline WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should still be followed unless there are substantive reasons not to. Clearly the primary (ho ho) disagreement was whether or not there were substantive reasons. Either way this is all getting very deep and worked up about what is apparently a fundamental disagreement as to the function of qualifiers in article titles, and that perhaps highlights a regrettable omission in both the policy and the guideline; I don't think any of us would disagree there. You have every right to your view. I'm not going to get into rehashing the arguments of the RM or embarking on further ones; the RM's over, and despite the fact that I'm disappointed in the result I think we should all move on (although noting one's disappointment in the outcome is hardly an offence). This has already been an absurdly fraught discussion over what is — let's face it, everyone — a pretty minor issue. Frickeg (talk) 10:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a very minor issue, but considering that the expression "electoral district" is only used in Australia, it should follow the conventions used for Australian Electoral district artilces and be moved to "Electoral district of Croydon".--Grahame (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)