Talk:Coolangatta

wikipicks the Hotel Grande in 1943

File:StateLibQld 2 108604 American Service Band playing in the grounds of the Hotel Grande, Coolangatta, Gold Coast, 1943.jpg Coolangatta, Gold Coast, 1943 A United States Army servicemen's band ... Category:World War II home front in Australia Category:Military ... (1,000 × 765 (94 KB)) - 20:24, 30 May 2013 --Andys'edtits 15:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andys'edtits (talk • contribs)

it woud seem suitable but it woud be better if there was a mention of either the hotel or what the US army were doing there. For example, if they were stationed there, the photo is more relevant than if they just passed through for a concert. Kerry (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 12 June 2015

Coolangatta, Queensland → Coolangatta – The suburb of the Gold Coast is the clear primary topic and should have the plain name - to minimise links required for a reader to get to their preferred article. The existing disambiguation page could either be deleted (my preference) or moved to Coolangatta (disambiguation). Mattinbgn (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - On the topic of the disambiguation page: It currently links to Coolangatta, Queensland, Coolangatta, New South Wales (an subject of relatively low significance) and the former Coolangatta Airport. The NSW area could be linked to by a hatnote on the primary topic article. The airport does not need (and should not have) a direct link from a page titled "Coolangatta" anyway. Tullamarine - the former name of Melbourne Airport - redirects to the locality article but Tullamarine Airport redirects to Melbourne Airport. Since Coolangatta Airport redirects to Gold Coast Airport anyway, the disambiguation page is superfluous. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm tempted to support, but there is a direct parallel here with Port Stephens, which was recently moved to Port Stephens, New South Wales. That move has received some support from other editors at WP:AWNB#Another move today as appropriate disambiguation, even though I disagree. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I've just discovered that somebody made the decision to open a similar discussion to this in my name at Talk:Port Stephens, New South Wales, even though I didn't ask for it to be opened. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• I oppose the move. While there are currently no inbound links from article space to the disambiguation page, it is very difficult to discover how often they arise. It is much easier to detect and correct them than incorrect links to the page for the wrong meaning. Starting from Adelaide, I "fly to Coolangatta" or "fly to Brisbane" if my intended destination is the Gold Coast area, so I don't think it's valid to say that the airport now known as Gold Coast Airport but still formally Coolangatta Airport should not have a direct link from the name Coolangatta. Outside of a 200km radius, do people think of the suburb or the airport first under the name "Coolangatta"? --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

(addendum) My second choice would be to return to the arrangement that existed up to a week ago where Coolangatta was a redirect to Coolangatta, Queensland as the most likely topic, with the relatively new disambig page at Coolangatta (disambiguation) referenced by a hatnote {{other uses}} (rather than the original {{redirect}}) --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are objecting to the move. The Gold Coast suburb is clearly the primary topic. The link for the airport is a secondary consideration after the article is moved (if it is moved). -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment make mine a jar of "Coolangatta". I wouldn't have a clue what this was. The ", Queensland", I think, really helps. GregKaye 17:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support: No need for disambiguation and obviously the primary topic. I thought this issue had been well and truly settled years ago and this business of moving pages like Maroubra to Maroubra, New South Wales strikes me as particularly pointless.--Grahame (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It was settled years ago, with the convention that articles about Australian populated places would always be at <name>, <state> with either a disambig or redirect at <name>, and weakened a few years later to allow for new articles to be at <name> if there was no competing use for the name (and have a redirect from <name>, <state>). Since your Maroubra example was moved over seven years ago, I'd say that it is an example of the issue having been settled. The redirect was replaced by a disambig page last week, which could be an example of why it's helpful to have the redirect in that direction for when other things with similar names have articles written or referenced. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment: you are right. It was Yagoona that I was thinking of. I still think that Maroubra is wrong, because the suburb is clearly the primary topic, the others are just derived uses.--Grahame (talk) 08:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
      • It looks like I was the one who put Yagoona town article back to Yagoona, New South Wales after it was one of the 50 or so articles that were moved by TT1245 without the consultation that this proposed move is receiving. It had been at that name since 2005, which I think may even have been before the <town>, <state> convention was formalised. I appreciate Mattinbgn giving us the courtesy of a move request discussion and expect he will clean up any following consequences if the move ultimately goes ahead. If "derived uses" indicate the primary topic, then I think Coolangatta Mountain (or maybe Coolangatta Estate) gets the name "Coolangatta", which is far more ridiculous than a disambig page. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current is massively more recognizable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support, after a bit of thought. The suburb is clearly the most likely topic, the others can be dealt with using a hatnote to the disambig page. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC).
• Support - After checking page views and Google searches I believe that the suburb is the primary topic so it seems most logical to move the article to Coolangatta. As Lankiveil has suggested, the others can be dealt with using a hatnote to the disambig page. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Given that the Queensland suburb adjoins the New South Wales border, there is scope for confusion. For those living outside the immediate area, I believe Coolangatta is best known for its airport, otherwise it would be just another Gold Coast suburb. Being really anal, the runway actually crosses the state border, although the terminal is only accessible from Queensland.

The surrounding suburbs of Tweed Heads, New South Wales, Bilinga, Queensland, Tugun, Queensland all have dabs even though there are no conflicting articles, that would prevent their removal, so in the interests of consistency, think the status quo should be retained. While not sure if a policy exists, it does seem that only towns and cities in Queensland are named without a dab, with suburbs (as Coolangatta is) having a dab irrespective of the need. Coomera81 (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

All of these places need ", Region" to achieve minimal recognition outside their local area. This applies especially to suburbs, suburbs that even if they had significance as historic towns, are now losing independent significance as they merge as suburban sprawl. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

"I believe Coolangatta is best known for its airport" - Are you suggesting that the airport is the primary topic? Even if it were, it's not a candidate to be moved to Coolangatta so it's not relevant to this move proposal. People who know about the airport would only know about it because of the town, so the town would still seem to be the primary topic. I couldn't find a dab for Tweed Heads, New South Wales. That article was moved from Tweed Heads back in 2005 because that was the naming convention. Bilingahas a dab but that suburb is fairly non-notable so it seems appropriate. Tugun is a redirect to Tugun, Queensland, created in 2008. Tugun, Queensland was created at its present location in 2006. Consistency no longer exists, many articles exist at "Name" while others are at "Name, state".

@SmokeyJoe: ", Region" is not part of the naming convention and would only add confusion. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

", Region" in the case is ", Queensland". ", Gold Coast" could have been an option except that "Gold Coast" is quite horribly ambiguous. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support - the town is the primary topic and is allowed by the relevant naming convention. Hack (talk) 05:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)