Talk:Macquarie River

Australia: New South Wales Low‑importance

	Australia portal Macquarie River 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (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 New South Wales.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Rivers Low‑importance

	Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers 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.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 27 November 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Wambuul/Macquarie River. The result of the discussion was not moved.

fish river

Is the Fish River another name for it or is that separate? --Astrokey44 06:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fish River is a seperate river Geez-oz (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

further work

Areas that need further attention...

Watershed - requires description of the catchment area
Bridges - list is incomplete
Early History - could do with more detail, how the geology developed into this basin
European History - more detail of history of settlement along river
details of water use

with appropriate citations Geez-oz (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bogan

So that map showing the "catchment area", well half of that is the Bogan River, which isn't part of the Macquarie River at all. It's quite bogus to say that the Fish River is a separate river, but the Bogan River isn't.Eregli bob (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The catchment is officially designated as the Macquarie–Bogan catchment according to the NSW Office of Water and includes the Castlereagh as well as the Macquarie–Barwon according to the Central West Catchment Management Authority. The MDBA recognises the latter broad catchment area (here). Please refer to the reference from the GNB about the river's sources. Bonzle confirms that the Fish River has its confluence to form the Macquarie near White Rock. Rangasyd (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Macquarie River. 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:

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) 15:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct dual name use

So far there is really no guidance if the dual name use is "Wambuul Macquarie River" (with or without the dash between Wambuul and Macquarie), Macquarie River Wambuul (with or without the dash between River and Wambuul) ect. I've seen a few different ways with media and Government with the way it is used. Sadly NSW Geographical Names Board isn't of much use. :( Bidgee (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bidgee for bringing this to the talk page as I'm not aware of any official answer. The only thing I'm sure of is that "Wambuul river" is wrong. The gazette notice confirms that both Macquarie River and Wambuul are valid geographic names, that both may be used and neither name has precedence, thus both "Macquarie River Wambuul" and "Wambuul Macquarie River" are equally valid. I chose the latter because it sounds better to me - putting something after river strikes me as a bit odd. I'm not a fan of hyphenated names but I accept others may have different views. For what it's worth the Australian Government style manual which says When writing official dual names, use a spaced forward slash to separate the 2 parts of the name. The order should be as written in the official name, which you can check in the Australian Place Names dataset. The latter doesn't help as Wambuul is not currently listed in that dataset, but the examples seem to suggest it would be Wambuul / Macquarie River. I will raise it at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board to get a broad range of views. --Find bruce (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does seem to be the slash for Macquarie River / Wambuul or Wambuul / Macquarie River.[1]. I think we should add the slash, with my preference being "Wambuul / Macquarie River". Bidgee (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have strong views that Wambuul needs to be included to maintain a neutral point of view - its not a new or changed name, but official recognition of a name that has been used for more than 200 years & continues to be used. Other than that I'm not too fussed. While not my personal preference, I can live with "Wambuul / Macquarie River". --Find bruce (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:COMMONNAME is Macquarie River. I have asked for the article to be moved back. It should go through the WP:RM process before moving again. Ghaemostro (talk) 06:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rivers of New South Wales

@Find bruce: re [2][3][4]

The article is in Category:Tributaries of the Darling River, which is in Category:Darling River, which is in Category:Rivers of New South Wales. So far as I can tell, each of those categories and parent categories is reasonable and correct, and none the exceptions in WP:CATSPECIFIC apply. Thus, per WP:CATSPECIFIC the article ought not directly in the super-category Rivers of New South Wales, because it is already implicitly in it via the sub-categories. (The fact that some tributaries of the Darling River are in Queensland is irrelevant.) Mitch Ames (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 November 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Macquarie River → Wambuul/Macquarie River – The river is dual named. As per the Geographical Names Board of NSW. both names have equal status and are considered official names for the river. Using both names in the title is not a breach of WP:COMMONNAME (the common name is still in the title) and it is not a breach of WP:PRECISE (Wambuul is not a clarification or disambiguation term but a core name Mattinbgn (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC) -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Absolutely not the WP:COMMONNAME. WP:OFFICIAL. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence? Or is this just an assertion? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of it not being the common name? Or is this just an assertion? You need to prove the case for a move, not vice versa. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This proposal seeks to modify our article name policy which may be a good thing but needs wider discussion than just at RM. There is certainly a strong political push in Australia to recognise first nations names and to have them adopted in common usage, similarly to the example reflected in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand)#Dual and alternative place names, but it is not the job of Wikipedia to promote this still controversial process. Andrewa (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uluru is offically gazetted as "Uluru / Ayers Rock", but everyone calls it Uluru. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 02:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can verify that, in my experience most of my fellow Australians now see calling it anything other than Uluru as ignorance at best. And in time that may happen to the Macquarie River, but even if it did, the rest of the world would not automatically think of Wambuul as the name of a river, so that name may never meet our goal of recognisability. Andrewa (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.