Talk:Toodyay, Western Australia

Australia: Places / Western Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Toodyay, Western Australia 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 Australian places (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (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 Western Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Toodyaypedia

This article is within the scope of WikiTown Toodyaypedia.ToodyaypediaWikipedia:ToodyaypediaTemplate:ToodyaypediaToodyaypedia

On 6 June 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Toodyay. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

source on hold

a few sources worthy of noting for future use; Gnan garra 09:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"TOODYAY". The Western Australian Times (Perth, WA : 1874 - 1879). Perth, WA: National Library of Australia. 12 February 1875. p. 6. Retrieved 26 February 2014. -- Dempster/Monger raod board election, sale of Dmepster horse from Esperance, Alex Furguson death, and flindell leaving the road board.
"Local and Domestic Intelligence". The Inquirer & Commercial News (Perth, WA : 1855 - 1901). Perth, WA: National Library of Australia. 18 March 1857. p. 2. Retrieved 26 February 2014. foundation stone of the first catholic church in Old Toodyay/West Toodyay
"TOODYAY". The Perth Gazette and Independent Journal of Politics and News (WA : 1848 - 1864). WA: National Library of Australia. 13 March 1857. p. 2. Retrieved 26 February 2014. comprehensive includes St Mary's church, toodyay bridge, road repairs etc.

Motor racing

I'm not sure that the Toodyay, Western Australia#Motor racing section belongs under "Transport" - perhaps under History instead? (Given that it was apparently a one-off, I'm not sure it belongs in the article at all.) Thoughts, anyone? Mitch Ames (talk) 06:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Toodyay still holds motorsport events on local roads. Currently yearly, the latest running was 13th August 2016. I agree it should not be under transport but maybe under sport or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.104.89 (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 June 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: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toodyay, Western Australia → Toodyay – If this was in the USA, this title is the correct way even though there is only one article with this exact name. (See WP:USPLACE for more.) But this is Australia, so USPLACE doesn't apply here. JuniperChill (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC) UTC)[reply]

Support. Nom is correct. Current title is unnecessarily disambiguated contrary to WP:PRECISE and WP:D. Proposed name is consistent with WP:NCAUST. —В²C ☎ 05:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it would be wellworth having a closer look at the whole of Australia - just diving in one article seems to ignore 7 states , territories and the fact that there is no consistency across a vast array of articles, just doing one article seems to ignore a complex array of what exists - not with any wp:anything... such a singular move is no long term benefit to anybody really, reader, rule abider or rule ignorer - as there is no consistency at all in actual practice. And there has been no recent discussion at the Australian places project as to the efficacy of random singular changes in the larger framework. JarrahTree 11:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary, broad consensus is tested and demonstrated one article at a time. — В²C ☎ 13:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose / Suggestion The relevant shortcut for this article is WP:NCAUST, and not WP:USPLACE (which concerns another country) or WP:PRECISE (which is expressly stated to be subject to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), of which WP:NCAUST is a part). The statement at WP:NCAUST begins with "Most Australian settlement articles are at Town, State/Territory", and there are literally thousands of articles named in that way. The statement continues: "however, the name of a city or town may be used alone if the place is the primary or only topic for that name (e.g., Sydney rather than [[Sydney, New South Wales]])." But that does not mean that the name of an article about a settlement in Australia must or even should be the base name of the settlement if that settlement is either the primary or even the only place in the world bearing that name.

In my view, the name of the present article should not be changed. There is no particular reason to change it, and the word "Toodyay", viewed in isolation, is not self evidently an unambiguous reference even to a settlement, much less a settlement in Western Australia.

For many years, the standard way articles about an Australian settlement, including the present article, have been named is Town, State/Territory. Although a name in that form is not always necessary for disambiguation, that form of name does have at least one significant advantage over naming the article as no more than the base name.

Specifically, in the case of the present article the name indicates clearly that Toodyay is a settlement in Western Australia, whereas naming the article "Toodyay" would be far less informative, because few people unfamiliar with Western Australia would ever have heard of that word, or be aware that it is even the name of a settlement, much less that the settlement is somewhere in Western Australia. So, eg, a person from, say, Brazil, or China, even if fluent in English, and even if somewhat familiar with Australia, might well ask "what's Toodyay?" as opposed to "where's Toodyay?", if that were the only word used as the name of the present article, Thus, the common form name "Toodyay, Western Australia" has the distinct advantage of being far more informative to the typical reader, even if the ", Western Australia" part of the name may not be strictly necessary to disambiguate Toodyay from some other settlement.

I do not agree that "broad consensus is tested and demonstrated one article at a time". Rather, broad consensus as to the issue of naming of articles like this one, affected as it is by a specific existing written convention, should be obtained by discussion in a more general forum than the talk page of a single article. Ideally, the discussion would also be more about the convention than about any such article. As the present debate is relevant to a great many more articles than merely this one, I also suggest that the name of this article not be changed in isolation, but, rather, discussed in a broader forum, such as Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board, and not further discussed here. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose normally I'd agree to dropping the disambiguation for a place with such a unique name. This is one of a group of article the are part or the QRpedia project Toodyaypedia and has a qr code posted at physical locations which we dont shift because of the uncertainity the redirect process adds to someone accessing via that points. With it creation of a WP:BEANS situation, to actual adjust to this move will require collaborative partners spend many 10's of thousands dollar in signage, effectively harming what has been a 10 year collaborative project. Gnan garra 14:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose per Bahnfrends comments, and also more seriously Gnangarra comments re established usage within the Toodyaypedia project and the established qr project coding - makes any suggestion of a change of this specific item severely problematic. JarrahTree 14:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support it doesn't appear to be ambiguous, the only other uses like the shire and station refer to this place. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Wikipedia:TITLECHANGES, from what I can see, the article name has been stable for almost 20 years. No good reason to change. Calistemon (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:NCAUST. The only common exception to the rule of using the undisambiguated name of a town anywhere in the world (unless disambiguation is needed) is the US, and that probably shouldn't really be an exception. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. While there are not numerous Toodyays, it is helpful to be able to mentally locate this town without reading the article. I support the arguments of Bahnfrend and others that this should not be discussed in terms of naming this article alone. MargaretRDonald (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination; В²C; Crouch, Swale and Necrothesp. The "oppose" arguments also make valid points, reinforced by a glance at the 704 entries listed under Category:Towns in Western Australia, nearly all of which (other than perhaps ten) use the form "Town, Western Australia". Nonetheless, Toodyay does redirect to Toodyay, Western Australia and, to quote from above, "To the contrary, broad consensus is tested and demonstrated one article at a time. — В²C ☎ 13:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:49, 13 June 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.