Talk:Deal Island (Tasmania)

	Australia portal Deal Island (Tasmania) is within the scope 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Tasmania (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Tasmania.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Islands

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands articles

Requested move

The following is a closed 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.

The result of the proposal was no move. There is no clear MoS or naming convention basis for the move and the proposal hasn't achieved consensus. Although Maias' points were stronger for the moment, it might nevertheless be an idea to seek more formalisation of the relevant MoS before other such moves are proposed. - Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deal Island (Tasmania) → Deal Island, Tasmania — ~~In order to fit in with the Manual of Style~~, I believe that it should be moved to Deal Island, Tasmania, and get rid of the redirect to Kent Group. —— Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 04:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support. ~~Uncontroversial IMO.~~ Andrewa (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wrong about it being uncontroversial, discussion below. No change of vote as yet. Andrewa (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, pending clarification or establishment of an appropriate guideline, which I will then support.Maias (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments: — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 04:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect seems to have been fixed... and that's a shame, as otherwise I don't think we'd need the RM! Andrewa (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I have an particular objection to the proposed move, but can someone let me know where in the MOS is there a guideline covering article title styles for ambiguous names - i.e. where and when to use parentheses or commas to qualify place names. I am quite happy to go along with a standard, but I note that many such titles use the former.Maias (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I can't find it in the MoS, but as a general guideline, places should be separated by a comma, not by parentheses (e.g. Honolulu, Hawaii, Los Angeles, California). — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 06:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems to apply to states, towns and cities when it is necessary to show what country or state they are in. However, with smaller geographical entities, such as islands, lakes etc - where they share names with other similar places - they are often, though not always, differentiated by parentheses. See for example Blue Mountain. I would just like to find some consistent guideline here to follow.Maias (talk) 07:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in the MOS. Worse, the convention varies from country to country. Worse still, the convention is not clear for Australia, but I think this proposal follows the established practice. Further information is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places), which has a section on Australia but it needs to be read in the context of the sections which precede it, and also Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian places. Yes, clarification would be good. Andrewa (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To explain where I am coming from; I am at present adding some articles on various islands of Tasmania. If you look at Category:Islands of Tasmania you can see that I am only really following a de facto convention or guideline regarding titles in this area. The same applies to the other subcategories of Category:Islands of Australia. The total number of articles must be several hundred at least and rising. Then have a look at all the nested subcats of Category:Islands, which (from a very quick and non-comprehensive perusal) appear to have overwhelmingly adopted the use of parentheses where disambiguation is called for. Until there is an accepted standard guideline to the contrary (and preferably one that applies globally) I am reluctant to change. The odd one-off page-move to a different style is not going to help matters very much.Maias (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, and I see that Category:Islands of Tasmania generally follows the parentheses convention, not the comma one, as you say. But disagree that the odd one-off page-move to a different style is not going to help matters very much; Quite the opposite, this discussion is the first step towards a convention. Andrewa (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of a convention

What is the better style for this case? The unqualified name is unambiguous, so IMO parantheses are inappropriate; They are appropriate for Kangaroo Island (Tasmania) to distinguish it from Kangaroo Island, but not here. But while two other undisambiguated Islands of Tasmania articles have Tasmania appended to the name (Mewstone,Tasmania and Sisters Island Group), others currently seem to use parentheses, even where there is no disambiguation, for example Sidmouth Rock. Andrewa (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I stick to my decision and move it to Deal Island, Tasmania, but I saw the page Mewstone,Tasmania, and I think that is also improperly named because of the lack of the space, but somebody already created a redirect page at Mewstone, Tasmania. Thus, I believe that in addition to moving Deal Island (Tasmania) to Deal Island, Tasmania, I believe that Mewstone,Tasmania should be moved to Mewstone, Tasmania. Anybody else with me? — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 22:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with your suggested move of the Mewstone article; I think the missing space after the comma is ridiculous and must have been a typo originally. Maias (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the missing space should be replaced, and I've done it. The article was originally called Mewstone, Tasmania, but was moved to Mewstone (Tasmania) and then to Mewstone,Tasmania, all apparently without discussion. Agree that this was a typo, the redirect had no history at the time and anyone could have moved it back to Mewstone, Tasmania. I think ridiculous is a bit over the top, it's just a typo. Andrewa (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move question

Is the island also the name of the community and used in addresses? If so, then move it, else don't. - LA @ 00:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it has no permanent population, but is occupied by a succession of volunteer wardens who, now that the island is part of a national park, would be transported there and supplied by the wildlife service. Maias (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.