Talk:Model Farms

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. After substantially extended time for discussion, it is clear that consensus has coalesced against the proposed move. There is no reason to expect that further relisting would lead to a different outcome. BD2412 T 03:20, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Model Farms → Model Farms, New South WalesModel Farms, New South Wales – This page was recently moved from the target on the grounds that it was WP:PRIMARYTOPIC with no prior discussion. However, there is already a page called Model farms (lower case "f") that redirects to Demonstration farm. This has created an issue where the search result will differ depending on whether the term is input with uppercase or lowercase letters. There are also no hat notes on either page to account for this. The lifetime pageviews for Demonstration farm is over 39,000. The lead at Demonstration farm includes "model farm" as a bolded alternative name in the first sentence (although the redirect from "model farms" itself has only a bit over 100 pageviews). Model Farms, New South Wales had only 4766 lifetime pageviews at the time of the move. Determining WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is generally determined by consensus and requires us to consider a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. Based on the page view numbers, it is difficult to conclude that a reader searching the term "model farms" is seeking information on a relatively obscure locality within the Sydney suburb of Winston Hills as opposed to the much more likely alternative term for demostration farms. In the absence of a consensus around primary topic, disambiguation is required per WP:NCAUST. Dfadden (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 14:11, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Comment: Whatever the outcome of this RM, a hatnote should exist as either we have an ambiguous redirect or an ambiguous title, which I have added. Fork99 (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

  Should there be a hatnote on Demonstration farm as well, since that's where Model farms (lower case "f") redirects to? Jimmyjrg (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

  I don't see why not, one might use the search bar and type in lowercase ("Model farms" or "model farms") and be looking for the suburb. Fork99 (talk) 05:02, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Support per nom and redirect Model Farms to Demonstration farm. Clearly not the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:02, 24 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
• Maybe this title should be a DAB? Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose Obvious WP:DIFFCAPS situation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:30, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Support per nom, and Crouch Swale Suggestion, the title should be a DAB. Destinyokhiria _{(talk / cont)} 18:00, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose. The capitalised version is by this capitalisation marked as a proper noun, and is therefore unambiguous. There is currently no other article that could be named Model Farm. The existing hatnote provides the required navigation aid for those whose English is not up to appreciating this, and this is important as English Wikipedia is for all English speakers, not just native speakers. Andrewa (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose per DIFFCAPS.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Comment please note the guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sydney/Suburbs. So unless those opposed are arguing that the suburb is the WP:PTOPIC which would satisfy WP:NCAUST, the default name should be Model Farms, New South Wales, regardless of WP:DIFFCAPS. Dfadden (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

  • Comment: That Wikiproject subpage Wikipedia:WikiProject Sydney/Suburbs is not a Wikipedia naming convention. So the policy at WP:DIFFCAPS takes precedence over the guidance of the Wikiproject. Andrewa (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    Thanks Andrewa. Given the page I linked has a subheading of "Naming conventions", I hope you can understand why I interpreted it as such? I also note that very similar guidance is provided at Wikipedia:WikiProject Melbourne/Suburbs, again with a sub-heading "Naming convention". Its potentially quite problematic that the wikiprojects the two largest cities in Australia have guidance on naming conventions for their suburbs that are not aligned with the current interpretation of WP:NCAUST, would you agree? I will raise this on the appropriate discussion boards for further consideration. Dfadden (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    I expect there are many Wikiproject subpages that mention naming conventions but that do not have the authority of Wikipedia naming conventions. Note the link I gave above is to Category:Wikipedia naming conventions. The members of this category are Wikipedia naming conventions. And that page says in part Category:Wikipedia naming conventions is for pages that have received consensus as English Wikipedia guidelines to supplement and explain the Wikipedia:Article titles policy. (my emphasis). The Wikiproject subpage to which you linked and to which you appealed for guidance does not have the authority level of a Wikipedia naming convention, and even less does it have the authority level of a Wikipedia policy such as DIFFCAPS.

    Please keep us posted here about the appropriate discussion boards on which this is raised for further consideration, and also provide links to here from these further discussions, to avoid any suggestion of forum shopping. Andrewa (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

    I was only suggesting that those wikiprojects should consider clarifing that their guidance on "naming conventions" is subordinate to WP:NCAUST may need to be changed to align with the current consensus that PTOPIC is the reason for making an exception to the placename, state format. I believe the appropriate place to raise it for consideration would be on the Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board, unless you know of a more appropriate venue?

    To reassure you that I am engaging with this discussion in good faith, you will see on that notice board here [1] that I have already explained why I brought this article to an RM. That reason was solely based on a belief that the page mover's rationale of PTOPIC was untested. While I presented evidence on why I believe it may not be PTOPIC, I brought it here because the title is nuanced and I am not comfortable in moving it back without consensus either way. I concede my words did not make it clear enough - Thanking you for the correction was intended to acknowledge my interpretation of the guidance on the wikiproject subpage was incorrect, and suggest that there is a separate discussion to be had to close the loop on those pages to prevent others from making similar errors.

    To be absolutely transparent, I suggested raising it at another venue (eg. WP:AWNB) to avoid a WP:TALKFORK here - I have already mentioned there that some undiscussed moves were carried out with rationales that seem to be equating the existence of a redirect with a consensus on PTOPIC when there is no evidence a discussion has ever been had. The guidance at WP:SYD If the name is unique then you can add a redirect, e.g. Bondi Beach, which redirects to the article at Bondi Beach, New South Wales. This is an especially good idea if the suburb is well known internationally and locally may be contributing to this confusion and should instead point to WP:PTOPIC to clarify when to use a redirect. Thanks. Dfadden (talk) 05:27, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. Humontroup (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose. As ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ and others have pointed out WP:DIFFCAPS covers this. If there is a lack of hatnotes, then address that rather than jumping straight to a RM. TarnishedPath^talk 11:58, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

  I am not "jumping straight to a RM", I am following guidelines to gain consensus in response to a bold undiscussed move that I disagreed with. My other option was to revert the previous move and then add the hatnotes, but that would be unwise. See WP:RMUM and WP:TITLECHANGES. Regardless of the eventual outcome, the fact more than one other editor has indicated Support for this RM suggests it was appropriate to bring it here for discussion. Dfadden (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply