Talk:Bunbury, Western Australia

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

Early comment[edit]

Syd Jackson is from Bunbury, but not born there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etakistan (talk • contribs) 04:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rail line?[edit]

The introduction to the article reads ...originally connected via an extensive rail network. Is this relevant considering it still is connected by rail? FourDimensionalHyperSphere (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Agree, reference deleted. Rund717 (talk) 04:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge content and create Greater Bunbury[edit]

The article includes information relevant to:

The article refers to itself as the city of Bunbury, but imho should only relate to the suburb.

It is proposed to tidy the relevant articles by moving the City of Bunbury information to the City of Bunbury article, consolidate the suburb-specific information in this article, and to create a new article relating to the Greater Bunbury region.

Rund717 (talk) 08:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We generally do it the other way around - create a suburb-specific article for the CBD and leave the main article as the urban area. See i.e. Cairns City, Queensland, Toowoomba City, Queensland, Geelong city centre, etc. Otherwise, yes, better delineation between the urban area, the municipality and the CBD would be great (but shouldn't involve merging any articles - it should be demerging them! The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Drovers Wife - inverted logic. De-merging, and keeping separate. See Perth - we have Perth and the Perth (Suburb) as separate articles. JarrahTree 12:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Merger' was perhaps the wrong word (maybe 'sort' is better), but yes, the idea was replicate the articles Perth (suburb) (i.e. city centre), City of Perth, Perth (metro area). Rund717 (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no objections at all if it's that structure you've got in mind. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused - you just said you were going to roll out "'Merger' was perhaps the wrong word (maybe 'sort' is better), but yes, the idea was replicate the articles Perth (suburb) (i.e. city centre), City of Perth, Perth (metro area). Rund717 (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)" - and then you started turning Bunbury, Western Australia (the equivalent of Perth) into the suburb. As we said, everywhere else does it the other way around. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using the same format as other places, for instance:

Using the same format for bunbury:

A draft Greater Bunbury article has been submitted for review. Once accepted I'll delete the duplicated info from Bunbury, Western Australia.

The changes you reverted related to content move to City of Bunbury. Can you undo the revert. The information doesn't need to be on two pages. Cheers, Rund717 (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not getting it: JarrahTree and I support this on the basis that it is the other way around. The only reason this is at Bunbury, Western Australia is because it's not the primary topic for Bunbury - to use another example, Perth was at Perth, Western Australia until very recently, and the CBD was still at Perth (suburb). This article is currently, and should stay, an article on Greater Bunbury, while the CBD needs a new article. In no other case is the main article for a large regional city (as in the Townsville, Cairns, and Ballarat examples you cited yourself) turned into one about the CBD and the actual city put at Greater Townsville, Greater Cairns or Greater Ballarat for the metro area. There is no consensus for the latter step. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't get it. I proceeded based on the support you gave me. Twice. You said create a suburb-specific article for the CBD and leave the main article as the urban area. See i.e. Cairns City, Queensland, Toowoomba City, Queensland, Geelong city centre, etc. This is exactly what I am proposing with Bunbury, Western Australia which as a suburb follows exactly the same naming convention as Cairns City, Toowoomba City, and every single suburb in WA with the sole exception of Perth. The idea was to provide a consistent approach. Perth is a poor example simply because of its name change meaning it didn't follow the same naming convention as other places. I might also add that I sought consensus before spending several hours of my time to go proceed. In terms of the metro area and your latest comments, I don't know if Bunbury is notable enough to have be its own page i.e. not a disambiguation page but if there is consensus I propose to rename Geater Bunbury to Bunbury, and put the suburb content into Bunbury, Western Australia.
But in any case the changes you reverted had absolutely nothing to do with the naming convention issue. Can you please clarify why the changes to City of Bunbury were reverted (i.e. add and improve sister cities, add pictures, add references, add suburbs) - it has not yet been explained to me what was wrong with the content. Rund717 (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we agreed to "create a suburb-specific article for the CBD and leave the main article as the urban area" - and you went and created a new article for the urban area and started rewriting the main article to be about the suburb, which was exactly the opposite of that. It doesn't follow the same examples as above: it's the equivalent of having Geelong about the CBD and writing a new Greater Geelong article, which is done nowhere else in Australian Wikipedia. I know you sought consensus and I know this was a misunderstanding, but you did exactly the opposite of what you had a consensus for. I did mostly self-revert at City of Bunbury, however, because, going over it, the only issue there was the hatnote. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks, here's what I'm thinking-
It seems the best way to me. Not sure if there's an easier way? Rund717 (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a front on two different fronts, since it would require a second, unlikely consensus at Bunbury that this is the primary topic, while basically trying to do a cut-and-paste-move of the existing content as well. This, right here, is the main article for the city; it is already about "Greater Bunbury" and has been for years and years. Even worse, Greater Bunbury is basically a cut-and-paste move of this article as it is - see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Repairing cut-and-paste moves of a page for some of why this is a problem. You've got a so far unanimous consensus to create Bunbury (suburb) as the missing link in the chain - why do this the most roundabout and controversial way possible? The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, Greater Bunbury needs to be redirected here and there needs to be a consensus for the changes made on top of what had been the cut-and-paste-move: the amount of content cut-and-paste moved sets up a total nightmare of a history merge situation. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I'll edit Bunbury, Western Australia as the metro area. Once done we can turn Greater Bunbury into a redirect. Cheers, Rund717 (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Bunbury, Western Australia → Bunbury, in line with the WP:NCAUST guidelines. Other supporting arguments:

Rund717 (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per above rationale. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems to be the primary topic when compared to the others listed at the disambiguation page. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome I've allowed a month and there's no opposition to the move, so I'll get on with it.Rund717 (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bunbury which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Population[edit]

The Article says: "At June 2015 the estimated urban population of Bunbury was 75,628".

I do not find this figure within the given source! I've downloaded the Excel-file: "3218.0 Regional Population Growth, Australia, released at 11:30am (Canberra time) 30 March 2016" from ABS (same as the given source). Cell Q293 says: 107,065 (Population est. 2015 for "Total Bunbury" including 12 districts from "Australind" to "Waroona").

So why 75,628 ??? Rennboot (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the best responder who can get it right straight off is no longer active on wikipedia - the issue with bunbury is the city and immediate suburbs - australind and waroona are separate and away from the city and immediate suburbs JarrahTree 10:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The larger number of 107,065 applies to the wider area, far beyond city boundaries. 75,628 for the urban population is the number that should be used. The current figure in the article is 74,363, which is the most recent available statistic (2018).Gregorytopov (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bunbury,_Western_Australia&oldid=1205954149"