Talk:Panitya, Victoria#Requested move 27 October 2025

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia: Places / Victoria Low‑importance Panitya, Victoria 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian places (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Victoria. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Adelaide Lead, Victoria which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

• Panitya, Victoria → PanityaPanitya
• Panton Hill, Victoria → Panton HillPanton Hill
• Parkers Corner, Victoria → Parkers CornerParkers Corner
• Pimpinio, Victoria → PimpinioPimpinio
• Pirlta, Victoria → PirltaPirlta
• Pirron Yallock, Victoria → Pirron YallockPirron Yallock
• Point Leo, Victoria → Point LeoPoint Leo
• Pomonal, Victoria → PomonalPomonal
• Poowong, Victoria → PoowongPoowong
• Port Franklin, Victoria → Port FranklinPort Franklin
• Port Welshpool, Victoria → Port WelshpoolPort Welshpool
• Powelltown, Victoria → PowelltownPowelltown
• Red Hill South, Victoria → Red Hill SouthRed Hill South
• Ripplebrook, Victoria → RipplebrookRipplebrook
• Rokewood Junction, Victoria → Rokewood JunctionRokewood Junction
• Rokewood, Victoria → RokewoodRokewood
• Rosewhite, Victoria → RosewhiteRosewhite
• Rythdale, Victoria → RythdaleRythdale
• Sailors Falls, Victoria → Sailors FallsSailors Falls
• Scotchmans Lead, Victoria → Scotchmans LeadScotchmans Lead
• Serviceton, Victoria → ServicetonServiceton
• She Oaks, Victoria → She OaksShe Oaks
• Skenes Creek, Victoria → Skenes CreekSkenes Creek
• Smiths Gully, Victoria → Smiths GullySmiths Gully
• Staughton Vale, Victoria → Staughton ValeStaughton Vale
• Strath Creek, Victoria → Strath CreekStrath Creek
• Strathewen, Victoria → StrathewenStrathewen
• Suggan Buggan, Victoria → Suggan BugganSuggan Buggan
• Sunnycliffs, Victoria → SunnycliffsSunnycliffs
• Sutherlands Creek, Victoria → Sutherlands CreekSutherlands Creek

– These appear to be the only places with this names, which would make them the WP:PTOPIC. Disambiguation is not required per WP:NCAUS. Therefore per WP:CONCISE we should lose the disambiguation. Any places with similar names can be dealt with by hatnotes or disamb pages per WP:SMALLDETAILS. TarnishedPath^talk 11:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Australian places and WikiProject Victoria have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 03:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This appears quite straightforward and reasonable. CitadelRelay (talk) 07:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting that this is reasonable - see the outcome of an RFC on this matter. This RM seems to disregard the closing comments entirely. Dfadden (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC closed as nil outcome. NCAUST states the proposed moves may occur and there is policy reason for them to occur. If you are going to contest bring policy arguments. TarnishedPath^talk 23:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and request Speedy Close on the grounds that the RFC was closed with No Consensus, and noting the closer's remarks that most editors opposed dropping the state/territory from Australian place names in article titles and The default titling convention of "City, State/Territory" remains unchanged. Dfadden (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the RFC has zero bearing on this discussion as it was a no consensus outcome, meaning that WP:NCAUS is in place unaltered. There is exactly zero grounds for a speedy close of this. TarnishedPath^talk 23:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nominator's rationale. Benratta (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]