Talk:Deniliquin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

why make this a redirect to Deniliquin, New South Wales? There is only one Deniliquin! XmarkX 04:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

___________

I would like to see a section on media from Deni.. i understand that they have a full set of radio stations and local newspapers??

Be bold and add one yourself. Hay, New South Wales provides a bit of a template for you if you need something to get started. Cheers, Mattinbgn/ talk 21:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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: Moved to Deniliquin. WP is WP:NOT#DEM - consensus is determined by evaluating the strength of the arguments. Both of the arguments made by the nom and Kotniski are compelling, none of the three arguments in opposition are compelling at all. Born2cycle (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Deniliquin, New South Wales → Deniliquin — Deniliquin is a unique name and does not require disambiguation. As such, in line with the Wikipedia policy on article titles, this article should be at its common name which is simply "Deniliquin". This name also has the advantages of being more concise without being less precise. Mattinbgn (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Australia refers to the practice of mandatorily disambiguating Australian place names, but this no longer has a wide consensus. see Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#RM -- moving forward. A recent discussion at Talk:Coffs Harbour#Requested move is a further demonstration of the change in community opinion.

  • Where to start ... Your first point is wrong, although I note that you moved Burrandana to try and make it right, bit sneaky don't you think?. To refute your claim, see Coffs Harbour, Wagga Wagga, Uranquinty etc. etc. (A full list is at User:Mattinbgn/Undisambiguated Australian places) Your second point is wrong as well. Just looking at the first 5 names in the category: - Aberdeen, Abermain, Adaminaby, Adelong and Adjungbilly - 4 are unique. A small sample size, yes but an informal look down the list still sees around 75% of town names as unique. When you make a claim such as "most of them have to be", you should actually take a look and not just make it up! Even if your point was correct, it would be irrelevant, unless you want to change WP:AT. Throughout the encyclopedia, some names are disambiguated where needed and others are not and we manage to cope quite well. I would argue it is much more of a mystery for readers to wonder why the article for "Deniliquin" is at "Deniliquin, New South Wales" and unlike you I actually have some evidence for for my claim - see the comment at the top of this talk page from XmarkX! -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, read "many of them have to be"; what you propose is still a patchwork. If there is consensus for this patchwork, fine; but it should be consensus in light of the arguments on both sides. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is "solivitur arguendo" Latin for "I made an exaggerated claim on behalf of my argument and now I want to claim that calling me on it is nit-picking"? Why is a "patchwork" a problem here and not in the rest of the encyclopedia? In many classes of articles, there are some articles that will need disambiguation and some that don't. What do you suggest is your "magic number" when the percentage of articles needing disambiguation in any class becomes a "patchwork" and mandatory disambiguation is required? 25%? 10%? 5%? ... Perhaps you should be seeking to change WP:AT to apply the "patchwork" principle. But, to focus back on topic of this discussion, Deniliquin is a unique name, it does not require disambiguation and in line with WP:AT it should be at its common name - which is not "Deniliquin, New South Wales". Talk of "patchwork" is a smokescreen. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, solivitur is a typo; should be solvitur. As for the rest of this declamation, see WP:AT; the "commonness" of a name is only one criterion of a desirable article title, and not even a primary one. Deniliquin is shorter, but less convenient in several ways; it is for consensus of editors to decide on the balance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have now moved from "patchwork" to "convenience" and again without any support from policy or even objective evidence of benefit. Pray tell, how is the name "Deniliquin" less "convenient" and where in WP:AT is "convenience" mentioned as a primary criteria? I see and conciseness and naturalness, both of which lead to preferring "Deniliquin". "Deniliquin" is just as recognisable and precise as the current name and this move would make the article name consistent with the wider naming protocol for places world wide. For all the talk about "consensus", you have not yet been able to show that the precise and accurate name of the town, Deniliquin is in any way likely to be ambiguous and therefore require disambiguation. From WP:AT "Most articles will have a simple and obvious title that is better than any other in terms of most or all of these ideal criteria. If so, use it, as a straightforward choice". That is quite clearly the case with this article. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All of the examples you have given are derivative from the PRIME name of the town in which they all can be found, Deniliquin. If your argument was to be accepted then every place name, everywhere, would need disambiguation as all of them would have utilities, sports teams, etc with derivative names. We don't consider the name Melbourne to be ambiguous merely because of the existence of Melbourne Football Club and to continue down that path across the encyclopedia would clearly be absurd. And besides, how does the suffix, ", New South Wales" come to mean "town" instead of airport, football club etc. anyway? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Premature at least. We need to first sort out the stalled discussion relating to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Australia (does anyone know where exactly in the talk page archives it ended up?). Andrewa (talk) 03:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It started again at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#RM -- moving forward (There was an invite placed on WP:NC to join in the discussion at WP:AWNB. The discussion at AWNB was as clear as a 50/50 split as I can imagine. Given that there is no consensus to retain the existing idiosyncratic naming protocol, I am not sure why the default WP:AT should not apply, i.e. WP:COMMONNAME. Note that Coffs Harbour was moved after the straw poll at AWNB, see Talk:Coffs Harbour#Requested move. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Thanks for the wikilink. Suggest that more such be placed to make it clear what stage the discussion has reached. But disagree that the lack of consensus should, in effect, be taken to support the change. The convention has been that where they are in conflict, the more detailed conventions override the basic policies in the particular areas to which the detailed conventions apply. And otherwise there would be no point in having them! The existing idiosyncratic naming protocol is still in effect until we get a rough consensus for change. If we have that this needs to be communicated; If we don't, then your opinion that something is idiosyncratic isn't terribly helpful, and IMO it's mistaken as well. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am afraid I don't follow this comment at all. Firstly what do you mean by "Suggest that more such be placed to make it clear what stage the discussion has reached." More what?. Secondly this point seems muddled and quite frankly backward: "The convention has been that where they are in conflict, the more detailed conventions override the basic policies in the particular areas to which the detailed conventions apply." The more detailed convention no longer has even a rough consensus. If the situation was reversed and the request was to move away from the standard WP:AT policy, this level of support for mandatory disambuiguation would not be sufficient to show a rough consensus to allow overruling a overarching guideline. Why is it sufficient now? To summarise, we know WP:AT enjoys widespread support but we also know that the Australian convention no longer enjoys widespread support (50% at the very most). I cannot fathom why the protocol that does not enjoy wide support overrules the protocol that does enjoy wide support. Perhaps you could explain? Lastly I am not sure what your objection to the term "idiosyncratic" is? It is a neutral term and is not meant to be a value judgement. Australia is one of 2 (perhaps 3) nations where mandatory disambiguation of settlement names is applied. That appears pretty idiosyncratic (i.e. peculiar to one class of articles) to me. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • More wikilinks. Make it easy for others to find the relevant discussion. Yes, our consensus policy leads to some strange short term results, but it's the best we have. It's a lot easier to find problems with it than to find a better way, and it works sort of. But we don't generally use figures like 50%, that's against the whole spirit of the policy. I still think that the argument in favour of the move is that we should take action because no consensus exists, and that this would be contrary to policy. Rather, we should build consensus. This can be frustrating, but the instability which is the alternative is even more frustrating. If on the other hand a rough consensus already exists to change the guideline (idiosyncratic or not, that's irrelevant) then please provide wikilinks to support this. Andrewa (talk) 08:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I don't see anything that could possibly be confused with Deniliquin (it doesn't even have a disambiguation page). The convention that says these places have to have the name of the state added has been shown not to enjoy consensus (or even majority) support.--Kotniski (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Deniliquin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Deniliquin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible location of major asteroid impact[edit]

Deniliquin is the possible location of what may be the Earth's largest known impact crater:

<<<In recent research published by myself and my colleague Tony Yeates in the journal Tectonophysics, we investigate what we believe – based on many years of experience in asteroid impact research – is the world’s largest known impact structure, buried deep in the earth in southern New South Wales. The Deniliquin structure, yet to be further tested by drilling, spans up to 520 kilometres in diameter. This exceeds the size of the near-300km-wide Vredefort impact structure in South Africa, which to date has been considered the world’s largest.>>>

[1]https://theconversation.com/new-evidence-suggests-the-worlds-largest-known-asteroid-impact-structure-is-buried-deep-in-southeast-australia-209593 Frunobulax (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intriguing stuff. But an annoying article, with the first two illustrations seeming to go out of their way to avoid showing Deniliquin at all. I would love to see a better map. My first thought was that this might be a little too uncertain to include in this article right now, but there is a section in the referenced article that seems quite certain about something special existing in the Deniliquin area. It's about two thirds of the way through, and begins with the sentence "The Deniliquin structure has all the features that would be expected from a large-scale impact structure." Maybe some words based on that text can be added here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deniliquin&oldid=1201452977"