Greater Perth is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
Australia and
Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
So, articles should be removed. Greater Perth does not meet the encyclopedic requirements. Besides, in the main article of
Perth we can create mention about Greater Perth and Perth metropolitan region (what is it, what area it covers), simply.
Subtropical-man(
✉ | en-2)13:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Why should we remove them? One is for metropolitan land planning, another one is for statistics, they all have different purposes. If we remove them, how would we link
Greater Perth to a statistical article in the future? Should we link it to a portion of the text in the main
Perth article? I don't think it's appropriate to combine everything into one big article.
Xindeho (
talk)
13:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)reply
It is not necessary to integrate entire articles. It is enough to add a mention to the main article of Perth (a brief description that there is such a thing, what it does, about four sentences are enough).
Subtropical-man(
✉ | en-2)13:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)reply
My description above is already more than four sentences, but for people from outside of Perth, they probably still don't know the differences between them.
Xindeho (
talk)
13:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)reply
This is just speculation. A trivial topics, not suitable for separate articles. Mention to the main article of Perth is enough. Even if someone suggested creating a small section \ sub-section about this in Perth, with a brief description of these two things - I would support the idea, however, keeping two separate articles (not counting the main article) is nonsense.
Subtropical-man(
✉ | en-2)14:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)reply
To call topics trivial, and nonsense requires some perspective as to where this perspective comes from - I fail to see where or how such criterion would even be allowed at discussions in other parts of wikipedia. Some good arguments usually have examples, and explanations and precedents. Otherwise such comments fall flat with experienced editors who have had to suffer the harsh criticisms of arguments at Afd say.
JarrahTree15:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose, I cannot understand the rationale behind this merger/removal request.
JarrahTree and
Xindeho are both respectable geography editors, especially in regard to Western Australian geography contents. I reckon they have made some good points here, while the editor who started the proposal did not provide any solid supporting statements to back up his proposal, instead, he just took an "oppose for the sake of opposing" attitude towards people who had disagreed with his proposal, which further weakens his position. I for one will not support this bizarre proposal.
Kenwick (
talk)
09:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)reply
... and
Metropolitan Region Scheme - another gem. In the future new urban/lands programs may arise, and what? we need to create separate articles?!?!?!?! Lands planning like Metropolitan Region Scheme and Perth metropolitan region - heir encyclopedic character is very debatable. All of these examples was created by one user: Moondyne. Especially since all three articles (Greater Perth, Perth metropolitan region, Metropolitan Region Scheme) can be integrated into one section in the main article of
Perth.
Subtropical-man(
✉ | en-2)15:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Disagree. The Metropolitan Region Scheme is notable and worthy of a separate article. It’s an important element in the urban development of Perth. I’ve recently improved the article significantly.
Adondai (
talk)
04:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes, we can also combine all the information in the
universe into one big article:
black hole. lol
Greater Perth is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
Australia and
Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
So, articles should be removed. Greater Perth does not meet the encyclopedic requirements. Besides, in the main article of
Perth we can create mention about Greater Perth and Perth metropolitan region (what is it, what area it covers), simply.
Subtropical-man(
✉ | en-2)13:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Why should we remove them? One is for metropolitan land planning, another one is for statistics, they all have different purposes. If we remove them, how would we link
Greater Perth to a statistical article in the future? Should we link it to a portion of the text in the main
Perth article? I don't think it's appropriate to combine everything into one big article.
Xindeho (
talk)
13:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)reply
It is not necessary to integrate entire articles. It is enough to add a mention to the main article of Perth (a brief description that there is such a thing, what it does, about four sentences are enough).
Subtropical-man(
✉ | en-2)13:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)reply
My description above is already more than four sentences, but for people from outside of Perth, they probably still don't know the differences between them.
Xindeho (
talk)
13:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)reply
This is just speculation. A trivial topics, not suitable for separate articles. Mention to the main article of Perth is enough. Even if someone suggested creating a small section \ sub-section about this in Perth, with a brief description of these two things - I would support the idea, however, keeping two separate articles (not counting the main article) is nonsense.
Subtropical-man(
✉ | en-2)14:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)reply
To call topics trivial, and nonsense requires some perspective as to where this perspective comes from - I fail to see where or how such criterion would even be allowed at discussions in other parts of wikipedia. Some good arguments usually have examples, and explanations and precedents. Otherwise such comments fall flat with experienced editors who have had to suffer the harsh criticisms of arguments at Afd say.
JarrahTree15:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose, I cannot understand the rationale behind this merger/removal request.
JarrahTree and
Xindeho are both respectable geography editors, especially in regard to Western Australian geography contents. I reckon they have made some good points here, while the editor who started the proposal did not provide any solid supporting statements to back up his proposal, instead, he just took an "oppose for the sake of opposing" attitude towards people who had disagreed with his proposal, which further weakens his position. I for one will not support this bizarre proposal.
Kenwick (
talk)
09:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)reply
... and
Metropolitan Region Scheme - another gem. In the future new urban/lands programs may arise, and what? we need to create separate articles?!?!?!?! Lands planning like Metropolitan Region Scheme and Perth metropolitan region - heir encyclopedic character is very debatable. All of these examples was created by one user: Moondyne. Especially since all three articles (Greater Perth, Perth metropolitan region, Metropolitan Region Scheme) can be integrated into one section in the main article of
Perth.
Subtropical-man(
✉ | en-2)15:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Disagree. The Metropolitan Region Scheme is notable and worthy of a separate article. It’s an important element in the urban development of Perth. I’ve recently improved the article significantly.
Adondai (
talk)
04:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes, we can also combine all the information in the
universe into one big article:
black hole. lol