Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tasmania
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Tasmania and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
WP:TAS Noticeboard
Article alerts Did you know
Featured list candidates
Articles to be split
|
Hobart meetup
[edit]Hi everyone, just letting you know there will be a Hobart meetup on Saturday, 3 June 2023. Details are on Wikipedia:Meetup/Hobart/4. Hopefully you can join us. Sorry for the late notice! Jimmyjrg (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Another update request for Template:WikiProject Australia
[edit]See discussion for linking both needs-photo and state parameters: Template talk:WikiProject Australia#Both needs-photo and state parameters --ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Localities that are not
[edit]About four years ago or more - 'state suburbs' some 'localities' were sourced from government documentation were either created, or included in existing articles. They were challenged at an AFD discussion, and they were not removed. The 'state suburb' is neither a reality in the geographic sense, nor were they specifically of any 'use' - in that they were simply allocating names to land otherwise 'not allocated' to existing localities. In most cases there not even road signs or indications on current or earlier road maps. They exist as 'named' spaces that in human reality are neither suburb or locality or with any signs to their existence - but a way of 'tidying up' land not otherwise specified in the Tasmanian landscape. As this is one of the lowest visited/looked at state noticeboards, this is stage one of trying to separate the 'localities' that in effect do not exist, to place them in a separate list, and remove the material from existing articles, as running past local resident tasmanians abut the subject show a particular disdain for the specifications.
In the past to get a response here is slow and drawn out. The process of change will be tedious, but it is needed, as such localities are in fact not localities, but paper creations for some very bizarre purpose that does not constitute encyclopediac standards.
JarrahTree 09:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
There is the possibility that part of the argument for the unusual locality designations come from - https://www.thelist.tas.gov.au/app/content/data/geo-meta-data-record?detailRecordUID=852d4844-2692-4273-8689-6e61ff2d72d3 JarrahTree 09:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- example one: - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/West_Coast,_Tasmania#Locality
There is no way that it is actually a locality in any sense of the word - it needs to be identified as what it is - a 'construct' of otherwise unallocated land. JarrahTree 09:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)