Jump to content

Talk:Nhill

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

Nhill is the namesake of a crater on Mars. Anyone know the story? Emmjade (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 March 2017

[edit]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved, consensus is that the town is the primary topic — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nhill, Victoria → Nhill – Recently moved from this name on the basis of ambiguity with Nhill (crater). The locality is clearly the primary topic and is the source of the name of the crater in any case. Any ambiguity is simply addressed via the hatnote that sits on top of the article. Mattinbgn (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Most Australian articles are at "Name, State", and requiring an unsightly hatnote (because there is now ambiguity, or else it wouldn't be needed) for the purpose of being argumentative is pointless. Putting Nhill back in the format of 95% of Australian place name articles solves the need for this. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please assume good faith rather than dismiss me as "pointlessly" "argumentative". There are not 95% of Australian place name articles at "Name, State" - quoting made-up statistics adds little weight to your argument. Secondly, it hasn't removed the need for a hatnote (unsightly or otherwise) as it is still there! Why would we make it harder for users to find the article they are looking for (i.e. having to click though multiple links) for the sake of a minor aesthetic trifle like a hatnote? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per WP:TWODABS the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC gets the base name and a hatlink to the other use. No need for disambiguating this title nor having a dab page, certainly not one at the base name. As to "most Australian articles are at 'Name, State'", there is nothing wrong with fixing this one. --В²C ☎ 23:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Current title is consistent with the general practice, and is also at least minimally descriptive of the topic of the article. There's nothing to "fix" here. Omnedon (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above, and it isn't a TWODABS because Nhill railway station is also known as "Nhill". In ictu oculi (talk) 07:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • So any populated place, anywhere in the world, with a railway station requires disambiguation? That is a massive stretch and certainly isn't "consistent with the general practice". -- Mattinbgn (talk)
  • Comment It may be best if this encyclopedia followed Wikipedia:NCAUST in this case, the result of long discussion and consensus, as opposed to relying on editors' interpretation of "general practice" -- Mattinbgn (talk)
    • "Most Australian settlement articles are at Town, State/Territory; 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). Note cases such as Newcastle, New South Wales, which needs to be disambiguated from its namesake in the UK. State/Territory names should not be abbreviated in article titles." As is plainly obvious, it is not the primary or only topic, hence it needs disambiguation. Your determination, over many years, to almost single-handedly push the boundaries of WP:NCAUST anywhere where you hope enough people won't notice is very tiring. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Disambiguation is not required.--Grahame (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Clearly the primary topic, so no need for the qualifier. Frickeg (talk) 08:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Clear primary topic for the term "Nhill". Even if this article stayed at Nhill, Victoria, Nhill should still redirect to it with the crater linked to via a hatnote. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2017 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nhill. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

>Pronunciation

[edit]

How do you say "Nhill"? Since it is highly unusual to have an initial "nh", the pronunciation ought to be given. Kelisi (talk) 07:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nhill&oldid=1204271072"