Talk:Wheatbelt (Western Australia)

Columnization

I just felt it was mind-numbing to read "Shire of" for all of these, so I aaaa (accidentally as an anon) removed the "Shire of" and then columnized it, which I felt added to the readability. If any Aussies find this unacceptable for any reason, I don't care if they revert it. HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

IBRA subdivisions

According to the Ecosystems sections:

In the Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia there are a number of subdivisions such as the Avon Wheatbelt (AVW), and a further breakdown of Avon Wheatbelt P1 (AW1) and Avon Wheatbelt P2 (AW2), Jarrah Forest, Geraldton Sandplain and Mallee regions.

But:

• The IBRA article does not list Avon Wheatbelt P1 (AW1) and Avon Wheatbelt P2 (AW2) - it has Merredin (AVW01) and Katanning (AVW02).
• There's no obvious connection between Avon Wheatbelt and Jarrah Forest, Geraldton Sandplain, Mallee. Possibly the latter are intended as other examples of subregions, but the sentence probably needs to be reworded to be a bit clearer as to what we are trying to say.

Mitch Ames (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Talking about #Regions or sub-regions, as we have been recently, does anyone have any thoughts on IBRA subdivisions? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The text of the main IBRA documentation is needed to be read and quoted from, no arbitrary wikipedian based playing with them please satusuro 15:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

...the main IBRA documentation is needed to be ... quoted from
Agreed. And WP:CITEd please. The Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia (IBRA7) subregions and codes (from Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia#References) includes "AW1 Avon Wheatbelt P1" and "AW2 Avon Wheatbelt P2", but no context to allow me understand what it means. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Wheatbelt vs Central Wheat Belt vs Central Wheatbelt

There is inconsistency across various mediums when referring to the Wheatbelt region in WA

• Bureau of Met refers to a "Central Wheat Belt"
• The ABC refers to the Central Wheatbelt or just the Wheatbelt
• Tourism sites typically refer to the Central Wheatbelt or just the Wheatbelt

Thoughts on the space between wheat and belt, and whether Central should be included? Jim (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The Wheatbelt is a legally defined region under that name - see e.g. [1] - and has been since 1983. One often hears the terms "Central Wheatbelt" and "Eastern Wheatbelt" referring to parts of it, but neither have a precise definition (the WA Government have a functioning definition of Eastern but it's never been gazetted and is not entirely uncontroversial in the area.) Orderinchaos 05:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

There are many versions of what the Wheatbelt constitutes - an addition to the article in a month or two after some research - will attempt to trace the origin of the term and the variants that have existed since the term was first used. requires checking against sources that exist in Battye library... sats 07:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks all, much appreciated. We will run with "Wheatbelt" for any publications. Jim (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Wheatbelt Development Commission

The article currently has this structure:

...
6 Regions within the wheatbelt

6.1 Wheatbelt Development Commission

6.2 Tourism regions

...

but this is probably not right, because the WDC (6.1) is not a "Region within the wheatbelt" (6).

Currently the only meaningful content of the WDC section is "The Wheatbelt Development Commision (WDC) breaks the region up into five ...". The actual list of regions/offices sensibly belongs under the section "Regions within the wheatbelt", the statement that the WDC subdivides the region also fits under "Regions within the wheatbelt", but the WDC heading does not.

So what are we to do?

• Make WDC a heading 2, and add some significant content? Does anyone have enough material on the WDC for that?

or

• Remove the WDC heading, and replace it with a {{Visible anchor}}, so that Wheatbelt Development Commission can continue to redirect to that specific text, and thus we can keep the bold style (per WP:R#PLA).

or

• Change the heading from "Wheatbelt Development Commission" to "As defined by the Wheatbelt Development Commission" - logically correct (given the text under the heading) but clumsy.

Mitch Ames (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Regions or sub-regions

There's a discrepancy in the terminology, as indicated in bold here:

6 Regions within the wheatbelt

There are numerous subdivisions of the wheatbelt, and in most cases the separation is by local government areas.

6.1 Wheatbelt Development Commission

The Wheatbelt Development Commission (WDC) breaks the region up into five sub-regions with five offices:

Given that, from the lead sentence,

The Wheatbelt region is one of the nine regions of Western Australia.

presumably section 6 should be

6 Sub-regions within the wheatbelt

Mitch Ames (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the attention to details:

As yet not added but being researched...

• Electoral divisions exist - which have component LGA's (federal and state)

• BOM and other Federal statutory authorities have ways of delineating areas

I think they have a range of terminologies - forecast district - for instance

• State Development Authority Act has the major regions such as wheatbelt

As a consequence - Sub sounds good

satusuro 14:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course, there's always an exception – Main Roads WA has separate Wheatbelt North and Wheatbelt South regions, but these are top-level regions, not sub-regions. [2] - Evad37 (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I've updated Regions of Western Australia#State government departmental regionalisations to use this ref. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I've updated the article to:

6 Sub-regions within the wheatbelt

but I'm not sure about "6.2 Tourist regions"

Perhaps when #Wheatbelt Development Commission is resolved, what to do about "Rourist regions" might be clearer. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

What about the tyop? one of the better ones I have seen recently satusuro

Source found

• Wheatbelt Regional Profile: Background and context report to support the Wheatbelt Land Use Planning Strategy, April 2011 (archive url)

Looks relatively comprehensive, has sections on diversity, People and population, Settlements and land supply, Regional economy, Natural resources and environment, Heritage and culture, Infrastructure. - Evad37 [talk] 10:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Capital or lower case?

This article did not consistently use a capital initial letter in wheatbelt, nor did it consistently use lower case. So I changed it to lower case except where it was part of a phrase using other capital initial letters. 2601:2:4D00:27B:C46B:FAB4:D02E:D592 (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that Wheatbelt is the proper name of a specific region of Western Australia, hence the capitalisation. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

How many early 20th century references have "wheat belt" as two separate words?

An earlier version of the article said that:

Most early twentieth century references have "wheat belt" as two separate words.

giving two examples. I changed it to "At least some", on the grounds of WP:OR because neither reference mentions the relative usage of the terms "wheatbelt" (1 word) vs "wheat belt" (2 words). JarrahTree changed it to "Many ...", however I still say that is OR. Two (the number of references cited) is not many in any reasonable use of the word, and neither reference appears to mention how many (in absolute or relative terms) publications use the separate words "wheat belt".

JarrahTree's suggestion that I "do a trove search ... do a count" seems perfectly reasonable, and I'd be happy to share his WP:BURDEN when I have some spare time, but I'd like other editors' opinions on how many such references would be sufficient to count as "many" in this context. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm responding here to JarrahTree's post on WT:WA, so as to try to keep the discussion in one place.

The proposed solution of "Check http://trove.nla.gov.au/result?q=wheat+belt+western+australia" returns

• Some results that include "wheatbelt" as one word and not "wheat belt" as two.
• Many results that are dated after 1950 - which is not "early twentieth century".

There's a reason why WP:SET says "Search engines cannot ... Guarantee that the results reflect the uses you mean", and WP:CALC requires consensus among editors that the results of a "routine calculation" (in this case, counting the references that use a particular term to see if there are "many") is "a meaningful reflection of the sources".

I still assert that in the absence of a specific reliable source that actually says "Many early 20th C references have ... two separate words" (or words to that effect), or a specific enumeration of many (if we can agree on a number) such references, the sentence is not supported by the references.

I propose that we revert to my wording of "At least some ..." which verifiably true because there are two ("some") references that use "wheat belt" as two words. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

All this - just for an edit you can do, this style of interrogation died out in most of wikipedia years ago, be WP:BOLD and get on with it, no one else seesm the slightest interested, to have talk trails almost as long as the articles or sections being discussed is a time waster JarrahTree 00:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)