Jump to content

Talk:Perth/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Religion

This section recently contained only a reference to Roman Catholicism. Someone has now added a reference to Mormonism. This seems misleading, as the RC population of Perth is much, much higher than LDS (despite the number of knocks I get on my door on Saturday mornings). I cant excuse removing the LDS reference, as it is most certainly worthy information, but if anyone can think of a way to more accurately express the religious representation of Perth, and hopefully add references to more religions, it would make me feel much happier. Metao (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are the stats from the Aust Bureau of Stats site (2006 census for Perth statistical region). I've only included those with > 10,000 members. 

Catholic 	 360,257 
No Religion 	 320,516 
Anglican 	 286,121 
Religious affiliation not stated 	 173,823 
Uniting Church 	 49,980 
Presbyterian and Reformed 	 33,514 
Buddhism 	 31,422 
Christian nfd 	 30,485 
Baptist 	 23,647 
Eastern Orthodox 	 23,628 
Islam 	 22,138 
Pentecostal 	 14,110 
Other religious affiliation  	 11,292

The Latter Day Saints (Mormons) had 4259.

http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ABSNavigation/prenav/ViewData?&action=404&documentproductno=51&documenttype=Details&tabname=Details&areacode=51&issue=2006&producttype=Community%20Profiles&&producttype=Community%20Profiles&javascript=true&textversion=false&navmapdisplayed=true&breadcrumb=PLD&&collection=Census&period=2006&producttype=Community%20Profiles&#Basic%20Community%20Profile

Paul Fisher (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ive put it in. I just have to put in the cite. Metao (talk) 09:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
you also left out the Old Apostolic Church.........perth is Multi-Religious and Multi-Cultural,D,Good. 203.35.135.133, 05:02, 27 January 2009

Perth

That old chestnut about whether Perth should be a disambiguation page or redirect here has arisen once again at Talk:Perth. Hesperian 01:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"City of Light"?

I removed the following text that was recently added:

Perth is known worldwide as the "City of Light," as city residents lit their houselights and streetlights as American astronaut John Glenn passed overhead while orbiting the earth on Friendship 7. The city repeated its feat as Glenn passed overhead on the Space Shuttle in 1998.

I could not find any web source for this fact. The "History of Perth" entry states the same thing, and had a reference, but the reference pointed to a web page that does not mention city of light. This definitely needs a verifiable citation before being added back in. Jkraybill (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

My access to Factiva is broken atm, but this story by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research confirms some of it, as does space.com, CBC (Canada), [1] (by the then Mayor of Perth), CNN, copy of AP. Also this documentary by the ABC, our national broadcaster. For any of the CBC, CNN and Associated Press to be widely reporting on anything to do with Perth is actually pretty surprising, let alone all three plus others. I've added it back using the ABC documentary and an article I didn't mention above in the Daily Telegraph (UK) as references. Orderinchaos 17:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
You're probably too young to remember it - were you even born then? - but it was a big deal back in the 60s. However to say that Perth is still known as the City of Light is possibly stretching things a little. Paul Fisher (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd change "is" to "became". Orderinchaos 17:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
WHat a lot of bollocks - I agree with paul fisher - most wikipedia editors were neither born or even thought about when the first event occurred - it was a very big thing in the 1960's - the last thing you do is try to find a web based item for 1960's local history - wikipedia is not totally reliant on web based information - if it was it would get laughed off the internet SatuSuro 01:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Rent prices/real estate

There's a huge problem with people struggling to pay the insane rent prices at the moment in Perth, the city has the highest rent prices in Australia. There are a number of articles describing this, to name a few:

I'd like to include this information in the article, but I don't know where. Can anyone help? Black-Velvet 13:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The first and second of those links are useful, the second one mentions a WA Council of Social Services report which appears to be here, who however don't compare rents with elsewhere, focusing more on the fact the ones here are a problem. It's of course very difficult to get sources which would be authoritative in comparing the state of housing in different states, but we can quote them in the third person without trying to state facts - i.e. "According to ___," or "On (date), ____ reported that" or "Over 2007 and 2008, several reports appeared in the media highlighting..." Those are all referencable statements as we're saying what other sources said, not making a factual statement. Agreed that it is significant enough to go in - others may have better suggestions as I'm overworked and tired :) Orderinchaos 18:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Also Stateline (27 Jul 2007); ABC Brisbane (24 Jul 2008) (while a Brisbane focussed story, it gives figures which show Perth is highest, and references this APM report from a few days earlier). Orderinchaos 18:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • IMHO WP:NOT#NEWS this is just a news story its not an encyclopedic content issue. Suggest writing an article Wikinews instead Gnangarra 02:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
    • It definitely doesnt fit anywhere in the established structure of the article. Another page might be more appropriate, but Im not sure where that might be. Metao (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
      • It is encyclopedic, though. WP:NOT#NEWS would allow for a notable spike in tenancy costs - it's notable because it affects living standards, amongst other things, for a large number of people. The article's structure is a problem, though. It doesn't even have a section on crime, which is a major problem in Perth. I could make a new section for real estate, or 'cityscape' as is common in articles for American cities, but I'm not sure how well it would fit in. Black-Velvet 06:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Crime isn't a major problem in Perth. I've been to quite a few places where it is, and one *really* notices the difference. Orderinchaos 07:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
          • WP:NOT#NEWS. I'm uncomfortable with rent levels being in this article at all. Just that Perth rents happen to be temporarily high doesn't make this encyclopaedic. What do we do next year when another story tells us Perth rents are relatively low? People in every city struggle to pay their rents and every city has crime problems. If you can show me a city that doesn't that would be encyclopaedic. These are subjective terms and definitions and are insufficient justification for inclusion in a encyclopaedia article. Moondyne 07:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Explanatory notes - recent edit - Federation and beyond

Seemed to be a big jump from Seccession (1933) to statements about the present day. While I haven't attempted to fill in the 80-year gap, I've tried to clarify the contents in the final pargraph of the section. Removed reference to Perth being the "closest city" which isn't strictly true (re: Kalgoorlie, Geraldton), replacing that sentence with a sourced statement roughly along the lines of what I presume the original editor intended. Removed the bit about "world's major resource companies - head offices etc. There was a reference to an influx (of o/s and interstate migrants?) which properly belongs in this section but would only be meaningful in the context of an expanded section dealing with the second half of 20th century. Deleted the sentence on ethnicity which is covered at length in the demographics section. The edit I've just done is nothing more than a temporary fix for the section. GlenDillon 16:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Population growth (Lead-in) - explanation

Found no previous discussion about this in archives. This note is merely to explain the change I've made. Sentence previously read as follows: "One of its LGAs, the City of Perth, is currently the fastest growing area in Australia in percentage terms". A few problems with this:

  • Starts off using a specific term (LGA) but then the ambiguous term "area" is used.
  • "Fastest growing" is meaningless without a time context (eg. are we talking about the previous 3 months / 100 years / since last census?).
  • The cited reference confirms the statement is true for the 5 year period to 2007, but not the most recent 12-month period (Ravensthorpe had a higher % increase in 2006-07 and Perth LGA was not even in the nation's top 20 in absolute terms eg Wanneroo's pop'n grew by 9x that of Perth LGA)
  • The subject of the article is "Greater Perth" ie Perth Metro/Capital city not Perth LGA; the lead-in probably shouldn't reference a statistic which pertains to an LGA which comprises less than 1% of the total metro area population.

It just appeared to be verging on hyperbole (or at least along the lines of "my city's _____er than your city"). Initially I felt compelled to remove the sentence entirely, but given that it has been in the lead-in for a long time with no complaint, I've edited the previous sentence to incorporate a brief reference to Perth's growth rate relative to the other state capitals, which is supported by evidence. GlenDillon 08:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd also think to move it to the City of Perth article and give the actual stats for the Perth Statistical Division (which is measured from time to time by the ABS in terms of growth rates) as well as noting Wanneroo's recent growth. I did all the LGA articles early last year and hoped to, but haven't yet had time to, add tables to all of them indicating hard figures for population growth as I have with Queensland and Victorian councils. Orderinchaos 08:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
On taking a look, I think what you've done with it is pretty fair :) Orderinchaos 08:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Density

Just creating a talk space here in case there is any genuine controversy over this, it previously said 1090 or somesuch, whereas the actual figure (population ÷ area) appears to be 289. I am assuming this is simply a case where a good faith IP's edits have been mistaken for vandalism as large number changes and spurious rationales are the vandal's toolkit, but if I've missed something, feel free to respond. BTW I checked the Urban Centre/Locality, and while its boundaries are rather artificial (excluding Coogee, Kwinana/Rockingham, Ellenbrook and the Hills for no apparent reason), it gives a population of 1,256,035, an area of 1035.2, which is a density of 1213.3. However I think we should use the Metropolitan Region Scheme boundaries as the ABS and most government agencies seem to have agreed that means "Perth". Orderinchaos 09:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, I reverted initially simply because the first change had no citation, no edit summary, no previous discussion and was by an unregistered user, so it looked a bit like vandalism. Besides which, the density was long established in the article without any debate, wasn't it? Now that I see the reason behind the change though, it does muddy the water somewhat. I can see how the maths of the density seems wrong, but I'm not sure it is as simple as taking the population and dividing by area. Isn't the BOS a better source than doing the maths yourself? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your 'watching over the page' and quickly reverting an unexplained anonymous edit :) In this case, doing the math seemed to be required, and I think it is as simple as Pop/Area, the key is that the population must match the area. All the articles on Aust capital cities, by convention, if not agreement, use the ABS Statistical Division (SD) to deliniate the area. See [2] which shows the area covered by Perth Statistical Division - which, as OrderinChaos points out, goes some way to explaining why Perth's calculated figure appears to be so low in comparison with the other capitals. I haven't found where the ABS publishes a density value for the Perth Statistical District, so a calc is required. (The figure that is mentioned in the ABS' Perth Social Atlas, rather inexplicably, relates to a much smaller land area than what is in the Perth SD. GlenDillon 10:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I did a quick Google on the ABS website for Census Population Density. [1]
Deliberate Nil Collection Districts
Deliberate Nil CDs are land based CDs that have been purposely designed to contain no dwellings or population. This could occur for example in industrial areas and national parks. The inclusion of these unpopulated areas into an adjoining urban area would distort the calculated population density. These CDs are still allocated to collectors who confirm their Nil CD status. The census form for any person enumerated in a Nil CD is transferred to the nominated alternative CD at the time that the census forms are processed. Deliberate Nil CDs can be identified by their CD Type.
I realise that this is for the 2001 Census, but the ABS being the ABS, the methodology would probably be the same in the 2006 census as the 2001 Census (and probably the 1901 Census!). I personally would prefer the higher figure. Either way, I think it's important that a consistent treatment of ABS data is applied to all Australian cities. Is there a "higher" talk page this debate could take place?--AtD (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the ABS's reasoning on this one and that was what I was getting at when I said I didn't think it would be as simple as dividing the population by area, as the area could be inclusive of non-residential areas. Population density should really be about the density of housing in residential areas after all. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I'm not really sure how they got the 1090 figure, or whether that even appears in the source (I'd check myself, but I'm without reliable internet atm so can't download the ~25mb file). Orderinchaos 11:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm the same in that I can't verify the original figures, but given that it was cited and has been there for a long time without previous controversy, I'd assume it is correct based on the assumptions mentioned above (only residential/urban areas included when calculating density). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the available data. To summarise, the content in each capital city article appears to be based on the city as deliniated by the (ABS) Statistical Division for each city. In the info boxes, the AREA and POPULATION fields are based on the latest (usually 2007 or 2008) ABS data for the Statistical Division. The DENSITY value for each city (except Perth as it stands) is the value provided in the ABS Social Atlas for each city, which is based on the 2006 census (note - not updated on annual basis). The following table is self-explanatory. The discrepancy between the calculated density and the reported density is simply explained by the fact that large portions of the TOTAL AREA are not counted in the reported DENSITY value. Grphically illustrated for Perth, by comparing [3] with [4], and for Melbourne, [5] with [6].

City Pop'n (m) Area Calculated Density Density (infoboxes)
Adelaide 1.16 1826 634 1295
Brisbane 1.86 5904 315 918
Melbourne 3.81 8806 432 1566
Sydney 4.28 12144 353 2058
Perth 1.54 5386 289 289
Darwin 0.12 112 1071 926
Hobart 0.21 1357 151 895
Canberra 0.34 805 422 1005

For the time being, for consistency with other cities, I'd be inclined to revert the Perth value to 1090 (which is the 2006 value stated in the Perth Social Atlas), although my preference would be for the density reported in the info boxes to be the calculated figure. Why? a)Because for it to be otherwise, the density would be based on an area different to that of the whole city b)it therefore wouldn't tally with the reported area and pop'n figures, and c)it can be updated anually instead of 5 yearly, and therefore not be potentially up to 7 years out of date. Obviously, this is best discussed at a 'national' level GlenDillon 13:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the ideal situation is to use the land area and population based on the smaller of the two areas you linked to above.--AtD (talk) 10:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Except that that leaves out entire highly populated sections of Perth such as Ellenbrook, Kwinana-Rockingham and a few areas around Butler-Quinns and Huntingdale-Southern River. Also as Glen points out, when the ABS release their periodic statistics on metropolitan areas, they're based on the SD boundaries, which in Perth's case is the entire MRS. I still don't see the problem with using the MRS area and population. Orderinchaos 13:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at the 'national' level here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australia#Capital City Population Density. --AtD (talk) 03:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Economy - Explanatory notes

Many months ago, when I first read this section, I preapred a replacement then forgot to upload it. Seeing that someone else, today, had recognised one of the problems with it, I decided to take a bold step. Here's why:

  • Previous Economy section was largely unchanged since its creation by an anonymous editor in July 2007
  • Some of the content in the section seemed to me to be untrue and even if it could be somehow massaged into solid verifiable claims, it still related to the state, not the capital. Also - unencyclopedic ("as for Tourism...", "...just to name a few", "having a great impact", "Perth has a booming economy...", "Perth is so important...that it controls about 80% or at least $A 11.7 B worth of Australia's total projects" (actually it isn't, it doesn't, and there aren't), "bustling retail services...", "expected to remain at the current rates for a while", and "Perth being the heart of Western Australia in culture, business...".
  • There were Only two citations: The first was a reliable source but the claim it supported didn't belong in this article (in WA Economy instead). The second citation (City of Perth website) is no more substantial than a press release/media backgrounder and itself contained questionable claims and weasel words.
  • An argument might be made that a metropolitan area/capital city doesn't need an economy section, although other Aust cities have such a section so I've done this rewrite in order to maintain some consistency.
  • Finally - the paragrpahs about industrial development in the 2nd half of 20th century probably belong in the article's history section - which had virtually nothing about the past 60 years - and really needs some work, in my humble view at least. --GlenDillon 07:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


Certainly has my support. It's my opinion that large sections of this article will need to be rewritten if we ever want to get the GA status back. The section you've put in appears solid to me. Orderinchaos 10:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • @ Metao- The reason I put the mention of Westfarmers there was because (to my knowledge) it is in the top 10 corporations in Australia. Just about the articles of all the other major cities in Australia have a mention of the big companies based there. -Depor23 (talk) 09:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Development Plans for Perth Waterfront

http://www.perthwaterfront.com.au/

Is this notable enough for a mention/section in this article, or perhaps a new article?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Squoups (talk • contribs) 07:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Too many images

This article has too many images now, in my opinion. That is all. - Mark 01:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I 100% agree. This anon editor has added some nine images to an article that already had plenty of images. It's turning into a gallery. MvjsTalking 02:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree also. I reduced the sizes to 200px and see a small improvement, but it needs some culling. –Moondyne 03:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I've just removed about half-a-dozen. Paul Fisher (talk) 07:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
The article is looking a lot better although there is still some cluttering of images. Aaroncrick (Tassie Talk) 00:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Do the images have to be enlarged? Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 05:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

City of Lights?

Seems like this is crowbarred into the article, "known worldwide as the city of lights". Given that that is the nickname of Paris and given that it's a much more famous city it seems ridiculous that people would know it "worldwide as the city of lights" from an event that is not remembered that well from 1962. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.160.103 (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


In some ways it shows the little global notiratiy that Perth has as a city. It is a little quirk that gives the city some global history. Perhaps changing the beginning to "Not a particularly well known city, potentially only known as the city of lights."

--Windsurfer-sp (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Glenn called Perth 'the City of Lights'. Paris is 'the City of Light'. Grassynoel (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The image File:Commonwealth Games Federation Logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved - image was removed from {{Commonwealth Games Host Cities}}. Franamax (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Climate

"The hottest ever recorded temperature in Perth was 46.2 °C (115 °F) on 23 February 1991. ... The coldest temperature recorded in the Perth metropolitan area was -3.4 degrees Celsius on 17 June 2006 at Jandakot airport."

Is that hottest recorded temperature the hottest "official" Perth temperature (i.e. Mt Lawley)? Or anywhere in the metro area? Because if it's the former, it seems strange to give the hottest for the official Perth station, and the coldest for the entire area. - Mark 10:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
46.2 was the official Perth one. 46.7 at Perth Airport (same day), btw, appears to be the highest metro - I say appears, as many Perth stations don't go back that far and the ones that do don't indicate what their highest ever was. (I'm thinking of the 1933 heatwave and one in the 1890s) The coldest at Perth was -0.7 (same date as Jandakot). Orderinchaos 10:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of the text in the Climate section, and the Weather data for Perth, Western Australia table does not appear to match the source reference. Possibly this is because (I believe) the Bureau of Meteorology has moved it's "official" recording centre within the last couple of years, so the source material may have changed since this article section was created. Someone with more time than I have at the moment might like to update the section and table to match the source. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This is because, frustratingly, the source keeps getting changed. The information was included from BOM monthly reports but it for some reason got re-sourced to the incorrect summary page with the same figures. I edited it that long ago that I can't remember, or find, how I sourced it, but I know it was the monthly reports. The summary page is incorrect, by the way, as it only summarises data from 1992 onwards, which is useless from any practical perspective. The monthly reports are the basis from which major news agencies such as ABC, Channel 9 and the West Australian report the averages. Orderinchaos 08:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Someone at BOM created summaries of them at [7] and [8]. The figures will slightly mismatch as the new averages provided cover 2009 as well as previous years. Orderinchaos 08:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Perth - suburb, city, metropolis

If the Perth, Western Australia article covers the metropolitan area and City of Perth covers the municipality, where is the article for the locality/suburb of Perth? The locality with the 6000 postcode is split between Town of Vincent and the City of Perth, so neither article covers the locality.The Hack 16:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

At present, it doesn't exist, although I agree it should. There were some discussions aimed at getting one going but our central suburb's boundaries are so manifestly bizarre that I'm not entirely sure we found a solution which worked. Orderinchaos 16:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I've created Perth, Western Australia (suburb), so let the fun begin...The Hack 07:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Perth Residents are known as:

Sandgropers... Never heard of Perthsiders —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.99.245 (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sandgropers are people from WA (not necessarily Perth) according to SOED 6th ed, 2007, and Macquarie Dictionary 2nd ed, 1991. I've not heard the term "Perthsiders" before (I've lived in Perth all my life), but I have heard "Sydneysiders" (used by people in Perth), so it doesn't surprise me if people in the eastern states refer to "Perthsiders". A google search for perthsiders turns up 269 hits, vs 231,000 for sydneysider. Both aforementioned dictionaries include "Sydneysider", but neither has "Perthsider". (SOED doesn't include "Perth" at all, but it does list Sydney: "Used attrib. to designate things from or associated with Sydney, the capital of New South Wales, Australia". Mitch Ames (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
A demonym isn't really used for Perth people - we had this discussion before and "Perthites" seems to be the agreed upon term, but it's only ever used colloquially or in jest. Orderinchaos 14:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I've always used/heard "Perthian". 10800 hits on Google (Perthite results are corrupted by some sort of mineral...) Metao (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
And of course Wikipedia has an article - OK, a redirect - on at least some things: Sydneysider, Perthsider, Perthite?!. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Never heard of "Perthsider", sounds like a drink to me though ;), Agree with Orderinchaos. Bidgee (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm born and raised in Perth but am currently living in Sydney, I've heard people say Perthsiders here, but never heard it when I was still living in Perth. I've also never heard of sandgropers. 210.84.59.222 (talk) 10:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yellow Submarine

Resolved
 – Apparent vandalism reverted. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, new editer (sic) here. I love how someone has said Perth is also known as the yellow submarine, but I suspect it is untrue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.245.225 (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Governance

Nearly all of the information in the 'Governance' section is about WA governance, not about Perth or its local council (which is what I was looking for). This information should be moved to WA or if already duplicated there deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneedy (talk • contribs) 22:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

If you are looking for information on Perth local council, try City of Perth or Perth, Western Australia (suburb). Hope you can find what you are looking for. IgnorantArmies 02:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Pruning needed?

The article was already becoming overblown before someone started adding large pics (admittedly quite good ones). We now have a jumbled collection of pics in clashing sizes and formats, some of which are unnecessary. I suggest we cut down on the bandwidth and maybe lump the best of the pet images into a gallery. Any thoughts? Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I suggest removing:
(From montage in info box)
  • Sunset at City Beach - not recognisably Perth (could be anywhere)
  • Black swan and family by the Swan River - There are better pics of the city and river. If we specifically want a picture of swans, find a better one.
  • the city skyline from Kings Park - there are other/better ones
  • Sorrento Beach - not particularly notable
  • Parliament House - it's duplicated further down
(From article body)
I also suggest keeping only the most recent of the Perth CBD/skyline pictures. But perhaps we should move the others into History of Perth, Western Australia or similar. A list of consecutive pictures showing the development of the CBD/skyline over time would be interesting and informative - but it needs to be in the correct place, and formatted appropriately (so as not to clutter or force the reader to scroll past them unnecessarily). Mitch Ames (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Good suggestions - Anything that is not cbd Perth should be removed without further discussion IMHO SatuSuro 03:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Mitch. Disagree about "not CBD Perth" as this article is about the metro, but only a handful of the pictures are non-local. A photo of either Scarborough or Cottesloe, a photo of the Perth Hills, an aerial shot of the metro if we have one, and a really good one of the CBD skyline from either South Perth or Kings Park would work without being overly cluttered. If you look at postcards for sale in the City, that's the kind of range they have. Orderinchaos 04:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree to disagree - even if the article is about metro perth - back to the way I read Mitch's list - less photos and only very good quality if need be - it would almost be an idea to have separate articles for CBD perth, and Metro Perth - conflating the two can be deceptive and misleading - unless the main article clearly separates the spread - I dont see why the spread should be utilised by photos- the article itself should make that clear SatuSuro 05:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
"... separate articles ..." - perhaps someone should create a Perth, Western Australia (disambiguation) page. :-) Mitch Ames (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Perth, Scotland is an former capital of a once independent country. It was been an important administrative centre since the eighth century. A modern population of 44,000 is not insignificant. It should comfortably win the long term significance test. Perth, Western Australia is an international city which is probably more notable in terms of usage. I still think the current disambiguation page setup is most appropriate here. Moondyne (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 1

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: pages moved per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I will update the hatnote to include a direct link to the location in Scotland, so that readers seeking that will still be the same one-click from it. Both have long-term significance, but the readership usage does indicate a better efficient arrangement by putting the Australian city at the base name, and being the namesake is not one of the primary topic criteria (which also leads to the arrangement of places like Boston). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Changed to no consensus. Previous close sounds too much like a support and too little like an impartial close. Discussion has clearly yielded no consensus nor has it revealed any clear policy application. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
My closing comments were not a vote, but a summary of the applicable guidelines brought up in the discussion. If you ignore WP:NOTVOTE and simply count heads, yes, there appears to be no consensus, but if you read the text and discard the ones that do not line up with Wikipedia guidelines and policies (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, WP:RMCI), there move was indicated. You should have gotten an uninvolved admin to review. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
J, there is indisputably no consensus on the discussion; that's not "head-counting", that's reading the discussion. "Consensus" is not a synonym for "something I agree with", it is a state of agreement/disagreement. If you wanted to express your opinion on the topic like you've done, you should be taking part in the discussion, not closing (as it stands you've made no reference to the discussion you implicitly claim to have read). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I have posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive755#Perth to ask that the original closure be restored, and then any editor who wishes can take the issue to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review. I believe the latter is the standard procedure for contesting a closure, rather than unilaterally reversing it. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
D, there is only disputably no consensus in the discussion, and I dispute it after sifting the !votes through relevant guidelines and policies. You are a member of the Scotland Wikiproject and not impartial. Search for "PRIMARYTOPIC", "primary", "usage", "significance", and "namesake" in the discussion below to see the parts that I made reference to in my closing comments. the proper reference to the "primary topic" guidelines. I have no connection to Australia or its project, and some MacAdams ancestry, so any partiality I have (other than towards Wikipedia guidelines) would have been opposite the close I made. "A close I don't agree with" is not a synonym for "not impartial". -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I restored the move. If it is was badly done, of if JHunterJ has a COI, there are channels to deal with that. Wheel warring over a controversial article is not a constructive approach. And given how long this debate has been going on, the time it would take to go through channels is not significant. — kwami (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

– With no disrespect to Scotland, the Australian Perth is pretty clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for international name recognition outside of Australia or Scotland. Although mere size is not a conclusive indicator, Perth in Australia has a population of 1.74 million; Perth in Scotland has a population of 45,000. This move would be consistent with, for instance, Boston in Massachusetts being the primary topic in preference to its namesake Boston, Lincolnshire.

Of course, there would be a hatnote at the top of Perth to make readers aware of Perth (disambiguation), in the usual manner.

Note: Perth, Western Australia (disambiguation) could be merged into the new Perth (disambiguation) as part of this move; currently Perth (disambiguation) is just a redirect to Perth. The recent resolution of the move of Las Vegas, Nevada to Las Vegas (in preference to having Las Vegas be a disambiguation page with Las Vegas Strip and other choices) could perhaps serve as a model here. Relisted. Favonian (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC). P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose - There is no good reason to remove the current disambiguation page, which works quite well. There are too many different Perths, and both “main” Perths have an equal claim to fame, despite the population difference. RGloucester (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I have always felt that the current situation does not reflect the importance of the Australian Perth - and not just because I live there. Perth is the capital of a state, has a population of almost 2 million, is the headquarters of several major companies and home to the world's richest woman, has a significant net migration rate from the UK in general so that in the other one's home region, "Perth" more often than not means the Western Australian one, and even in Scottish terms, has over 20,000 people born in Scotland as at the 2006 census. I don't think the claims held on the primary name by the Scottish Perth match up, and the other Perths beyond the two discussed have no claim at all. Orderinchaos 22:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Conditional support - I'm inclined to support the move, but I'd like to see some concrete evidence that Perth WA article is the primary topic, and that it meets the criteria described in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As a resident of Perth WA, I'm the first to admit that my perception of its primacy is likely to be biased. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
    One of the criteria suggested at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is Wikipedia traffic statistics, as provided by http://stats.grok.se/ . As of today, this shows that the Perth, Western Australia article has been viewed 7 times more often than the Perth, Scotland article in the month of May 2012. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
-Incoming wikilinks from mainspace - Perth, Western Australia 7822 vs Perth, Scotland 1550
-Page view stats - Perth, Western Australia 74747 vs Perth, Scotland 10828 (May 2012)
-Google search (with personal search options deactivated) - search for "Perth -Scotland" 383m results vs "Perth -Australia" 188m results.
The google results aren't really that scientific but the internal stats are very clearly in favour of Perth, Western Australia being the primary topic. Hack (talk) 05:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. As a Perth-based editor I'm not sure I want to comment on this just yet. As WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says, "[t]here are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is". I've posted a message on the noticeboards for WikiProject Scotland and WikiProject WA, but I hope this discussion won't degenerate into an Australia vs Scotland thing as previous move discussions at Talk:Perth seem to have done. I♦A 09:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per previous lengthy discussions at Talk:Perth/Archive 1 - PRIMARYTOPIC provides no clear justification for such a move. Re "I hope this discussion won't degenerate..." I wonder why this discussion has been re-started here rather than at Talk:Perth - not exactly an action rooted in diplomacy or good faith. Ben MacDui 09:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The origins of the author or authors concerned are irrelevant - it is the attempt gain an advantage that I am objecting to. Whether or not this was conscious is of course an unknown and it is the action rather than the intention that I am offering a critique of. Are you suggesting that this is the appropriate place to raise the discussion? Ben MacDui 10:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
The section at WP:RM regarding controversial moves suggests that the discussion be at the talk page of the article being moved. Hack (talk) 10:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Perth (Western Australia) is clearly the primary topic, the consensus at Talk:Perth/Archive 1 is over six years old and can't see the issue in having a fresh discussion and it doesn't have to be done at Talk:Perth. Bidgee (talk) 10:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are two major guidelines at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which deal with usage and long term significance, traffic and links are not criteria, just a way of trying to judge these, and obviously lean to the first one. It seems to me that a given the disparity in the length of existence of different places with the name, a single primary use is pretty unlikely to emerge and that a disambiguation page is the best and most workable solution. Determining the primary topic here is not a comparison between the one in Scotland and the one in W. Australia, but, in the terms framed, between finding the one in Western Austria and everything else and that is a strong argument for keeping the existing pattern. As to where this discussion is located: it makes very little sense to have it here, which is not the primary article on which a decision will have an impact. It is also likely to impact on the balance of the responses (although I appreciate the spreading of links by one editor once the discussion here had begun). Think about how that might look if the nature of a disam page were being conducted on the Perth, Scotland page. That doesn't assume bad faith, but it remains an issue.--SabreBD (talk) 10:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
    I followed the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting_multiple_page_moves. Under the guidelines, this discussion can't be hosted at Talk:Perth, Scotland because that page would not be renamed under this proposal. I put notifications at Talk:Perth (automatically done by the bot, actually), Talk:Perth, Scotland, Wikipedia:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board and Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board (manually a few minutes later). I don't follow the reasoning of your last four sentences at all. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Perth would have been more neutral. Several previous move discussions and comments at Talk:Perth/Archive 1. Moondyne (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Obviously I want suggesting this should be at Perth, Scotland, but at Perth.--SabreBD (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As per previous debates. There is no way of determining primary topic here, it just depends on which part of the globe you're sitting on. Come on folks, there are more pressing issue that re-opening this particular debate. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As it says for usage "if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term". If it is only 7 times as many page hits, that is not "much more likely". --Vclaw (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment but that was for the month. Perth, Western Australia has had 258,480 views in the past 90 days and is ranked at 4,100 but Perth, Scotland has only had 44,995 views in the last 90 days and isn't ranked. Bidgee (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
The 90-day ratio is skewed because there was a big spike in traffic to Perth, Scotland around March 13. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
A ratio of 7 to 1 arguably does qualify as "much more likely". Compare London to London, Ontario with a ratio of "only" about 13 to 1, although London, UK is one of the world's truly major cities, perhaps even in the top ten. Yet how many of you who aren't Canadian had ever heard of London, Ontario? — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree. (For the record, I've been to London, Ontario :P Nice place.) Orderinchaos 01:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Perth, Scotland is an former capital of a once independent country. It was been an important administrative centre since the eighth century. A modern population of 44,000 is not insignificant. It should comfortably win the long term significance test. Perth, Western Australia is an international city which is probably more notable in terms of usage. I still think the current disambiguation page setup is most appropriate here. Moondyne (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support; the city in Australia is both more important globally and far more often sought by readers. Powers T 19:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't see what's wrong with the current disamb system. Perth, Australia has more hits and more traffic, as it's high population and famous city. I don't quite agree that it completely meets the two main criteria in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - I think Perth, Scotland is pretty significant too, and has high educational value. As said, I think the current disamb set up works best. OohBunnies! Leave a message 19:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Close as out of process - this discussion is quite clearly taking place in the wrong place. As another User said above: "Think about how that might look if the nature of a disam page were being conducted on the Perth, Scotland page." Well, quite! --Mais oui! (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Perhaps this discussion should be on the dab page, but coming from the US, the Australian Perth is clearly dominant. I doubt one person in a thousand here has even heard of the Scottish city, but most people know the Australian one. I'd have to say "Perth, Scotland" just as I would "Paris, Texas". If I told people I was "going to Perth", there would be no misunderstanding of where I was going. That pretty much defines primary topic. — kwami (talk) 08:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, Orderinchaos, Hack, et al. Looking at the criteria, the West Australian city is clear primary topic, and I do believe that a 7:1 ratio meets the "much more likely" criterion. Jenks24 (talk) 09:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per the article readership statistics; this is clearly what most readers expect to see when they search for 'Perth' Nick-D (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I'd have to agree with most of the points raised in the above arguements (supporting the request), in that Perth, Western Australia is the primary place when anyone is undertaking a search of Perth.Dan arndt (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Pretty clear-cut case of primary topic here, borne out by page views, links, web searches, etc. Dohn joe (talk) 05:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nothing in the stats has changed appreciably since the last proposed move. Disambiguation is fine. - Mark 12:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support For a number of reasons the Australian city is now primary. PatGallacher (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, with supported stats. Zarcadia (talk) 07:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. By far the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 11:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've taken my time considering this, being Perth, WA born and bred. But I think Moondyne, a fellow local summed it up best (noting that many of the supports are also locals). Long term significance should sometimes take precedence over google hits or number of links. I think the fact that the WA Perth took it's name from the Scottish one makes it a draw in terms of importance, so the current situation of disambiguate all is best. The-Pope (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
    Does the mere fact of being a namesake really satisfy the "long-term significance" criterion? I am not saying there are no other arguments in favour of Perth, Scotland; only that you have not made any, above. In any case, Boston is a counterexample, since Boston USA took its name from Boston, Lincolnshire, yet Boston is not a disambiguation page. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Even after all the arguments are considered (and most of them are special pleading), the fact still remains that by reasonable measure the Western Australian city is quite clearly the primary topic. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Thinking about it over the last few days and looking at the points raised here, it seems clear that "Perth, Western Australia" is the primary topic. Anoldtreeok (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose firstly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC isnt necessarily very good at defining the primary topic where there is dispute hence the compromise of disambiguation. The only way to utilise a google type search to define primary usage would be to enter just Perth then list the 200,000,000 hits and sort by location, even that is skewed by population base, media base, and other usage factors all while ignoring other non web sources. As for WP page hits, bots can skew that, the most reliable would be to find where people go after landing at Perth. No matter what statistical metric you choose there are ways to question its accuracy and challenge its validity. Take for example the most(IMHO) recognisable city of Washington even that has the disambiguation of Washington, D.C.. Personally when you think of cities around the world that are automatically(80-90%) associated with a country just by name Perth isnt one of them, most people will arrive at about 30 cities fairly easily and be able to expand that to 50-60 in a short time even if you set yourself a target of 100 I doubt that Perth would be one of them. The very fact that for the last 10 years a clear consensus of primary usage has never been achieved is enough to demonstrate that Perth, Western Australia couldnot be defined as the primary usage. As a Western Australian Perth, Western Australia is the defining term not Perth to me Perth is the CBD, Perth Western Australia is the City. Gnangarra 10:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Just watched a TV show about Perth, Scotland, clearly a historically significant place, but I was extremely surprised to find Perth, WA was not being treated as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -Oosh (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As someone commented in 2004 on this worn-out emotional debate, "Let's shake hands and move on to more productive work." Long live the separate and distinct glories and prides of Perth, Scotland and Perth, Western Australia! Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 04:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
    Many current users of Wikipedia were not even around in 2004. You do not really present an argument, other than indirectly implying that national pride would be wounded by determination of a primary topic, as though it were some kind of perceived "demotion". I would hope that this current discussion would not be viewed in that light, or in emotional terms. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
    Its something that been discussed many times over the last 10 years, there has never been a definitive resolution to identify the primary topic. This isnt about national pride, even now its clear that many people irregardless of where they live/born/work/sleep have differing opinions given that division the status quo should remain. Gnangarra 11:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Australian city clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Jevansen (talk) 09:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Bjenks (talk) 07:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose (and agree with those calling for closure). The very fact that we keep discussing this demonstrates that there is no consensus as to a primary topic. --Deskford (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
As it seems to be running fairly close to 50/50, I'd tend to agree with this, in spite of the fact that I feel many of the opposes are on grounds which are entirely irrelevant to Wikipedia policy. Orderinchaos 23:17, 8 June 2012 (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.

You have got to be kidding!--SabreBD (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. There's no way that you could look this over and come to the conclusion that Wikipedia editors involved in this topic are generally of the opinion that it should be moved. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup

In the process of the above moves and counter-moves the archive file Talk:Perth/Archive 1, which I think included the previous discussions, appears to have been deleted and replaced with a redirect to Talk:Perth, Western Australia/Archive 1. Can an administrator please restore it? (Or if I'm looking in the wrong place, can someone please point me to the previous discussions?) --Deskford (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Found it: it's at Talk:Perth (disambiguation)/Archive 1, which now appears to be orphaned. Can this be moved to Talk:Perth/Archive 1? I'm relunctant to try in case I create even more of a tangled mess. --Deskford (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Should be fixed now. I was wondering where that had got to, too. - Mark 13:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! --Deskford (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Status Quo

I have return all pages back to the status quo prior to the closure of the RM by JHunterJ this is after waiting for a response from JHUnterJ who in this edit said that because it had been reverse he coudlnt do any more[9] I take that as being JhunterJ isnt interested in discussing the matter and was happy that the reversal had occur. No other discussion has taken place to indicate otherwise an An/I discussion has shown that this isnt an uncommon response to such matters. At this stage I suggest a new discussion over who to ditinguish the primary topic be started rather than another RM. Gnangarra 07:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Disregarding anything else surrounding the move request, the diff you provided doesn't, in my opinion, support your claims that JHunterJ is disinterested in discussing the matter – I took it to mean that he did not need to revert his own actions, as they had already been reverted for him. I don't like the way this move has been handled by either side. In fact, moving the page back to what you call the status quo (not saying that I don't agree with you) smacks of WP:WHEEL-warring. I think establishing a provisional article title, and then WP:MOVProtecting the article subject to further discussion, would be an appropriate course of action (with emphasis on the discussion, through whichever channel that may occur). I♦A 09:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Just as an aside, Talk:Perth now redirects here, when previously it had a long discussion page (edit history is blank). Has this just been deleted, or archived somewhere I haven't noticed, or...? never mind... I♦A 09:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
This was really, really poor judgment on Gnangarra's part. You claim to have waited for a response from JHunterJ, but his user page indicates he's in Ohio, USA. He probably just called it a night. On the basis of that single 12-word sentence (made at 11:08 pm, his local time), you not only claim that "he also question his decision"[10] but you also claim your actions were "per discussion at closing admin talk page"[11]. It was nothing of the sort, not even in a remotely ambiguous way. JHunterJ simply pointed out to you that the course of action you were urging on him had already been preempted by someone else. That's all. Reading anything else into it was at best highly wishful thinking, and at that, only if we accept good faith on your part. This now goes well beyond the initial proposed move, it's a question of how some admins are conducting themselves. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • JhunterJ response was to say his moves were reversed and he had no further interest nor any concern about the reversal, in fact he hasnt at any stage defended his closure nor explained how he could attest to there being any consensus. Gnangarra 11:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I think personalities need to be ignored here - what's done is done, the end result was correct by whatever means it was ultimately reached, and that was a no consensus close. That was the only safe action for a closing admin to take given the above. (A correspondent has suggested privately that 19:13 is not that close - in good faith I will strike but leave my previous assessment.) An actual count of votes narrowly favours moving the article (19 support to 13 oppose, ignoring the one suspicious vote near the end), and this to me suggests that the status quo is on shaky ground, but that more adequate discussion is called for to sort out what to do in the future, otherwise we'll end up with a slow-motion RM war between two established WikiProjects which benefits neither of them nor Wikipedia as a whole. I am grateful to the mover, and to those who voted and commented above, for taking the time to bring this issue closer to resolution. One interesting thing that's come out is that while some wanting to keep it where it is have reasonable grounds for making that judgement, others have not really advanced an argument of any kind at all beyond "it's been there for years". If AfD rules were applied (noting that this is not an AfD), many of those would be able to be ignored by the closing admin in coming to a decision. Orderinchaos 11:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Sad to see who this ended up and makes me feel sick that I had added my support. I think that this is another case of no consensus, therefore disambiguation remains the same. Bidgee (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
As I said on JHunterJ's talk page, I think that for PRIMARYTOPIC argument, if it isn't obvious to virtually everyone that there is a single primary topic then disambiguating all is the obvious answer. And I do feel a bit aggrieved that my (and others) oppose votes are being disregarded as "not per policy", "wanting the status quo" or "it's a namesake" reasons, when it was clearly giving the "long-term significance" section of primary topic guideline equal or greater weighting than the usage section. IMO, Perth, Scotland has similar long-term significance as Perth, WA, or more precisely, Perth WA does not have much more long-term significance than Scotland, which would be required to make it the Primary Topic. If we took usage as the main decision, then you better go and explain that to WP:CRICKET in respect to Talk:Bill O'Reilly. The-Pope (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if my "oppose" vote didn't sufficiently explain my position. I assumed that anyone closing this move discussion would consider it in the context of previous proposed move discussions which have taken place. - Mark 12:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Orderinchaos: you are an admin, yet from your comments above you seem oblivious to WP:NOTVOTE. That is disappointing. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I was just speaking with Gnangarra (we hold opposing views on this discussion but are friends offline) and I think the best way forward is an RfC to look at the various arguments for and against in a less heated way, and hopefully attract the attention of some neutrals so that the end conclusion isn't seen or thought of as based on a national contest. Orderinchaos 12:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Good idea. This really isn't an issue which people should get worked up about, and therefore it's strange to read the above. - Mark 13:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Its weird and such a waste of time - RfC - go get it! (maybe primarytopic could be given the boot as well) SatuSuro 13:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

There certainly is material for an RfC. Gnangarra would normally be sanctioned for wheel-warring for doing what he did. See WP:WHEELWAR, which says: "Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another admin, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action." In his edit summaries, Gnangarra simply invented the existence of a discussion, all based on a single 12-word sentence from JHunterJ. I believe he did so deceptively in order to carry out his action while still escaping sanction for wheelwarring, and I believe he should not escape such sanction.

There are a number of "exceptional circumstances" listed on the WHEELWAR page, but "the end justifies the means" isn't one of them; that is, even if the community consensus in the final analysis were to agree with Gnangarra's position on the issue that triggered the wheel war. Nor is there any clause that justifies the wheelwarring action if the opposing administrator, after the fact, simply throws up his hands in disgust and wants to forget about the whole matter. Based on the available evidence, Gnangarra carried out the third revert by an administrator without any actual discussion at all.

Note that WP:WHEELWAR says "Wheel warring usually results in an immediate Request for Arbitration." So it may be more serious than a mere RfC. Gnangarra needs a rap on the knuckles and a formal reminder that his conduct has fallen short of what would be expected from an administrator. PS, this part is not about the original WP:RM anymore, so if replying to this please avoid rehashing that original issue. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:WHEELWAR also says "Do not repeat a reversed administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it." I'm not sure why you are singling Gnangarra out here when the first wheel warring seems to have been done by User:Kwamikagami. "With very few exceptions, once an administrative action has been reverted, it should not be restored without consensus." Why are we pointing fingers here? Gnangarra's reversion came in the context of ongoing discussions about the appropriateness of the original administrative action. - Mark 14:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs) was the first to revert another administrator with no discussion at all, either at the other administrator's talk page or anywhere else. His very first action was moving the article back [12], followed a few minutes later by his after-the-fact justification at this talk page.[13] But Gnangarra's action was particularly egregious, because it occurred at a late stage when the wheel war should have been cooling down rather than being perpetuated, and because his edit summary deceptively invoked a non-existent discussion with JHunterJ, as JHunterJ himself has now confirmed.[14] The latter point is especially important because the core definition of wheel-warring involves an admin reverting another admin without discussing with him/her first. Gnangarra tried to get away with doing something that he knew he should not have done. Anyways, this will almost certainly go to an Rf-something-or-other, and will be sorted out there. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted. the closure was disputed there was no clear support for the closure and the admin closing had dismissed further discussion by saying You missed the part where someone else reversed my actions for me, by which its clear the admin had no issue with a reversal. Gnangarra 23:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
JHunterJ has already told you some time ago, directly on your talk page, that your (claimed) interpretation of his statement is false. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
From my reading of WP:WHEELWAR, your interpretation above (that User:Deacon of Pndapetzim commenced the wheel warring) is wrong. Reverting a disputed admin action is not wheel warring - it is the person who subsequently reverts back who is wheel warring. - Mark 14:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The most isolated capital city in the world has be reinstated by a single edit IP - it floats in and out of the lead para like... (well the possible metaphors are endless) - I am asking local informed editors - any idea who might have a WP:RS or where or how the reasonable basis for the claim might be verified (or not) ? SatuSuro 10:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The statement really doesn't belong in the article, let alone the lead, without a reliable source and, I'm guessing, a few caveats (the most isolated capital city of a first-level administrative subdivision with a population of over one million people, perhaps?) I'm going to WP:BOLDly remove it. On a slightly related topic, the article's lead is a mess. Two sentences are devoted to an obscure nickname, and the rest hardly does an adequate job of summing up the article (culture, sport, demographics, transport, economy...) I♦A 11:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I beg to differ, and can imagine your reversion will be re-reverted some time - I was asking for any ideas of where it came from - not the squashing it... if it is either a piece of folklore (I know they take on lives of their own) or something that was established - I was hoping if it was a wait and see item (not a bold item) - somebody, in time might remember why or how the claim evolved. As for the article lead para - (nothing related to the Move and Arb com issues) - I would think that cleaning up the article is always on the books... SatuSuro 11:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Auckland, per Extreme_points_of_Earth#Remoteness. Nuke this folklore. Moondyne (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
thanks for the answer - that was all i was originally asking... SatuSuro 13:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review

The Wikipedia:Move review process (formerly titled Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review) now appears ready to be tried, after a flurry of recent refinements and a title change. Does anyone who contests the original requested move closure by JHunterJ wish to step forward and initiate a move review?

Anyone interested can consult the talk page or contact Vegaswikian (talk · contribs) or the other editors who have been putting some finishing touches on the move review procedure.

This move review would take place under the exceptional circumstance that the current status of the move is already reversed, in the wake of a wheel war. The normal procedure would be for the review to take place first. The wheel war itself is likely to be the subject of an RfC or RfArb, but in the meantime we should try to clarify and straighten out the original WP:RM and its closure.

Let's try to get a useful and promising resolution process off to a good start. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

its tagged with {{proposal}} and a note 'After this has been better developed, a straw poll will be used to see if there is consensus to bring this to the wider community for adoption. so its not ready. Gnangarra 02:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
In that case, what's your proposal to resolve the contention over the original move closure? Which forum or which dispute resolution mechanism should be used? — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
The matter was brought to ANI at the time and the it did not get much traction like in past cases where a RM had gone seriously wrong and someone simply corrected it. Agathoclea (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I brought it to ANI already and it was closed there with the suggestion that it was not the right forum. So if Gnangarra, as the creator of the current status quo that resulted from a wheel war, rejects Move review, and ANI has already been ruled out, then what mechanism does he suggest to arrive at a final resolution? — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
You overlook the fact that the wheelwaring began with restoring JHunter's close. The previous was a revert. You can do two things - gauge consensus by re-reading the various discussions to see if JHunters close has the remotest chance of sticking or (an issue that needs addressing anyway) get consensus that the move review process can be applied to moves prior to its inception. From what I have been reading on the various discussions around RM that might even bring a few more of JHunters moves on the table. The interesting thing about this case is that while people depending on which part of the world they are in have a preverence of what they perceive as the primary topic there most have come to accept that there will never be a real consensus. Agathoclea (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not overlooking, I'm just trying to draw out from Gnangarra (who is here, posting in this section) how he proposes to move forward from here. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Creating an ArbCom case proposal seems a rather odd way of "drawing out" communication. The question you are asking was answered 20 hours ago: [15] Orderinchaos 08:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
The ArbCom case is about the wheel-warring that occurred after the original move closure, its scope does not include resolving the contentious move closure situation itself. More importantly, even if we were to let the matter drop, how will things be handled the next time there is a contentious move request closure? It would be useful to have some mechanism like Wikipedia:Move review in place. Or if not that, what alternative do you suggest? That is the only thing I am trying to "draw out" in this talk page section. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm in two minds about reviewing it. Firstly - a fifth admin getting involved is likely to end up part of the ArbCom case, and secondly - we might end up with a slow-burn RM war between two WikiProjects that have no other reason to have animosity with each other. On the other side - we have a process for establishing opinion on these things, people spoke up, and an outcome was judged by the first (neutral) admin to have been reached. Accepting what has happened since risks setting a precedent that closes only need to be abided by if they meet with the approval of individual admins (whether for or against the move) - every admin involved thereafter was in some way non-neutral as to what the outcome should be, even though I believe they all acted in good faith - one to unset what they felt was a wrong close, another to enforce the original move, and another to return to status quo so discussion could be had. I've sought advice off neutral admins who I trust, with no links to either place, but who don't want to get publicly involved in the matter especially now that it's gone to ArbCom, and they are supporting the original close. The difficulty is that Move Review seems to be a new and untested forum and is unlikely to produce an outcome all parties can accept; RfC is slow, drawn out and tends to get buried in words rather quickly; it's not within ArbCom's scope to review content matters; AN/I has already said no; and like I said, a fifth admin opting to enforce the original close would risk coming under the purview of the case. Really don't know what the best way forward is. Orderinchaos 19:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Not all RfCs get buried in words. Maybe we can have a streamlined one. Or another move request, but that might be a bit unproductive. Powers T 20:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Urm WTF! While I supported the move, I can not get over the fact that a process (move review) that does not have community consensus has over turned the status-quo! Sorry but the move was bullshite! There is no consensus! Bidgee (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it really makes much difference that move review doesn't have consensus or is otherwise not "official". What matters is that a robust discussion that was adequately advertised took place. It could have been here in the form of anther RM or RfC, at ANI, WT:RM, etc; I don't think it makes too much difference. The point is it was discussed. You may disagree with the closure of that discussion or how it was closed, or any of a number of other things that happened here, but I don't think Move Review's status has anything to do with anything. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Erm?

What's wrong with ditching the above jargonisms and just letting it go to where it should be at a DAB page? Storm in a teacup, this one's happened countless times on this subject since I joined WP whenever it was. Brendandh (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Too late - the teacup has been totally destroyed and the over-large wheels of bureaucracy have gone beyond what could have been a simple trout slap (imho in all directions) and it has developed into scapegoating and idiocy... what an incredible waste of time and energy SatuSuro 00:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
In firm agreement with Satu here. While I disagreed with the way people acted, it should never have ended at ArbCom within 24 hours - we have a long history of tolerating differences of opinion and working together constructively in spite of them. I would feel differently if actual damage had been done to anything more than a few egos. In reality what we have is the status quo, and something of a stalemate for which a solution needs to be brokered, and bureaucracy only gets in the way of that. Orderinchaos 11:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm rather disappointed that this has ended up at ArbCom and also disappointed with myself for supporting the move since I feel responsible for this mess but in the future it has me opposing such move. Bidgee (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I think if the end result of this situation is people voting strategically rather than what they think, then we've all lost, regardless of the outcome. Orderinchaos 11:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The only reason it ended up at ArbCom is because of wording in policy that indicates wheel warring is grounds for immediate arbitration. Quite frankly, I'm surprised ArbCom is accepting the case. In any case, the only lesson we should take from it is that wheel warring is bad, not that any particular category of move request is bad. Powers T 14:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's a pretty fair assessment. Orderinchaos 14:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, whatever it comes from, and I cannot be arsed looking through the geek-entrails of the chat on about 8 pages so far, this move stinks. Perth is a name used by a city in Scotland that used to be its Capital, and a city in Australia that was named for it, and a few other places too. Some c*** tried to do something similar with Hamilton in Ontario, and Hamilton, Scotland a couple of years ago too. All I have to say is Balls to it. (there's a dab page there too!) This type of absolute twattery is the sort of thing that makes half way useful editors decide to hang their hats and say byebye to the whole thing. Good Show, well done, clap...clap...clap...clap...&c,&c,&c..... Brendandh (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2

This move was placed on three separate pages. The main discussion is being held at Talk:Perth (disambiguation). The IPs comment has already been copied across. AIRcorn (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

– As per rather a lot of the above, and some very hasty recent closures. I'm called John, you're called John, who's the biggest Johnny etc.? Brendandh (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

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.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Perth (disambiguation) - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 05:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Extent of the metro area

The lead section currently says:

Perth's metropolitan area ... extending from Two Rocks in the north to Rockingham in the south, and east inland to The Lakes.

How do we decide where the metro area stops? My 2011 Melway StreetSmart Greater Perth Street Directory shows from Two Rocks down past Mandurah, with no obvious "boundary" at Rockingham. The scope of the map can be seen in the "Metropolitan ..." overview maps at Landgate's web site. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

We do not decide anything, it is already designated and we should not invent anything for wikipedia - the metropolitan area is a specifically identifiable area. Commercially produced road maps are a waste of time for a discussion like this.

  • if you look very close at the Landgate produced publications (ie streetsmart) they designate the boundaries -

the landgate website has the answer - http://www.landgate.wa.gov.au/corporate.nsf/Maps+Promo Metropolitan Local Government Authorities

Suggestion - that the current text should not be changed - so we do not have another Perth issue wasting time on this poor forsaken project. If anyone wishes to eludicate the variants as found above - they simply add it, rather than change the article - there is enough Perth stuff to last a lifetime currently happening on wp - surely its enough by now. SatuSuro 11:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
We've always used the MRS boundary, which also happens to be the old boundary of the Perth top-level region as defined by the ABS, and used by all government agencies (although there seems to be some controversy over the inclusion of Serpentine-Jarrahdale as it's also within the Peel Region). I personally think it's very arbitrary on the southern extent as Singleton is "in" while Madora Bay is "out" (incidentally, that border region and fence is on my list to photograph... if anyone beats me to it, the 558 goes to either end of it while the beach is walkable from the Madora Bay end), but WP:V wins and there are actually relevant planning distinctions etc. The electoral map above is identical to the MRS - which is divided by the Act into the three metropolitan regions. Mandurah is in South-West Region. The only confusing thing now is that this "Greater Perth" region in the 2011 census - which is inconsistent with 1976-2006 - includes the entire City of Mandurah and half of the Shire of Murray. I'm tempted to ignore the ABS's wanderings on this one and stick with the state departments. Orderinchaos 11:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
For alfonso's sake - we need to keep the chatter about this sort of rubbish down to a roar, considering how drawn out the rest of the world is dealing with the word 'Perth' - you mention MRS boundary - clarify is that the same as the LGA boundaries? if it is we stay with it, imho SatuSuro 12:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
MRS stops - north at Two Rocks (City of Wanneroo), east at Gorrie/The Lakes (Shire of Mundaring), south-east at Keysbrook (Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale), south at Singleton (City of Rockingham). It's used by all government departments within WA, and is what we have been using to this point for as long as I can remember. Orderinchaos 03:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of what the actual answer, it would probably be appropriate to add a reference to the article to justify what the article says. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't the logical thing to do be to refer to the MRS as the "metropolitan area", and then make reference to the larger conurbation including Mandurah, along the same lines as Brisbane? - Mark 08:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Not quite sure why a link to a site which gives a slideshow of Perth sculpture and classic architecture (using original photos) keeps getting the chop. It adds to the interest of the Perth site. Artistry9Artistry9 (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a link collection. Articles are about content - you may wish to contribute by uploading photos (with appropriate free licensing) and including them in some articles. Your link appears to be advertising-free, which is a big plus - so on reflection, I'd have no objection to adding it to List of public art in Western Australia. But including it here seems inappropriate. Moondyne (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

IPA change

The IPA should be changed to more accurately reflect local pronunciation. The current one sounds like it came out of America. Australian accents are definitely non-rhotic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.166.150.53 (talk) 06:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Per Help:IPA for English: "In many dialects, /r/ occurs only before a vowel; if you speak such a dialect, simply ignore /r/ in the pronunciation guides where you would not pronounce it, as in cart /ˈkɑrt/." The /ɜr/ indication basically means "pronounce this as if it were in the word 'fern'"; if you would pronounce "fern" non-rhotically, then pronounce "Perth" the same way. Powers T 02:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Population: Perth SD or Greater Perth?

The population of Perth in this article keeps getting changed to about 1.83 million, and then reverted back to 1.74 million per the source. I did a little digging and found that there are actually two June 2011 population figures from the ABS. The current source has

In the year to June 2011, Perth SD had the state's largest population growth, increasing by 42,800 people (or 2.5%) to reach 1.74 million

— http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/3218.0~2010-11~Main+Features~Western+Australia?OpenDocument#PARALINK5

whilst there is also

At June 2011, the population of Greater Perth was 1.83 million people...

— http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3218.0Main%20Features92011?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3218.0&issue=2011

Whichever figure we decide to use, we should leave a HTML comment <!-- like this --> to prevent unnecessary edits back and forth - Evad37 (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The gReater PErth figures cover the area that the article where as the SD figures dont include parts of rockingham/serpentine Jarrahdale LGA Gnangarra 04:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Perth CBD from Mill Point.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Perth CBD from Mill Point.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 27, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-08-27. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Perth
The central business district of Perth, the capital and largest city of Western Australia, as viewed from Mill Point on the Swan River. Perth is the fourth most populous city in Australia, with an estimated population of 1.9 million living in the Perth metropolitan area.Photo: JJ Harrison
Archive – More featured pictures...
Awesome! Metao (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
👍 PantherLeapord likes this. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 05:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/9ba0bb65ce08ccc6ca2570820081db23/75e2fa6ba91d9fb8ca25714c00108197!OpenDocument
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Perth/Archive_3&oldid=1257839303"