Loading AI tools
This is an archive of past discussions about Emu War. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Some context from Emu, perhaps about changing Australian ecological approaches to Emus would be better. Hard to see why this is separate. --Wetman 07:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
LMAO dumb australians lost to some emus XD[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.125.226 (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
References
I'm not sure is an appropriate source. Emugigs looks like just a web designer, nothing indicating the reliability needed. While it claims to be from GEO (magazine), I think until we have more detail on the exact issue, we shouldn't include the quote (which may be completely ridiculous). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Emu War/Archive 1/GA1
"The machine-gunners' dreams of point blank fire into serried masses of Emus were soon dissipated. The Emu command had evidently ordered guerrilla tactics, and its unwieldy army soon split up into innumerable small units that made use of the military equipment uneconomic. A crestfallen field force therefore withdrew from the combat area after about a month" --142.162.71.149 (talk) 10:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the source "Rain scatters Emus" : the article states that the settlers requested the "post-ponement of the departure of the machine-gun party", which I took to mean that the soldiers were going to retreat from the area due to the rains, but were asked to stay. However, I see since then someone else has interpreted the article in exactly the opposite way, inferring that the settlers asked the miltary to delay the operation. I guess the determining factor here is whether "depart" means "leave on a mission" or "go home". Anyone have thoughts/analysis of the source? Some guy (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
This article suggests that the name "Emu War" is a "satirical name" adopted by the media. Yet Robin et al. write, "He thought the Emu was a scourge to be routed, and that this would make excellent military target practice. Pearce declared an 'emu war'" (2009: 256). It is unclear from the portion of Robin et al. available on Google Books whether Sir George Pearce used the name in 1932 or it was created post-hoc by media commenters. Are other sources clearer on this point? Cnilep (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Dr. Dominic Louis Serventy writes in A Handbook of the Birds of Western Australia (with the exception of the Kimberley Division (page 63):
“ | ...the affected farmers persuaded the Commonwealth and State Governments to become involved in that bizzare and fantastic interlude, the Emu War of November, 1932. This was an attempt at the mass destruction of the birds with machine guns operated by a military unit. The attempt proved an utter failure. In 1935 the Northampton and neighbouring districts suffered another severe Emu invasion and the Government agreed to pay a bonus of 1/- per head without insisting on corresponding subsidies from the local vermin boards. Altogether 57,034 birds were destroyed. | ” |
I feel like the main issue people take with the infobox is that is says "belligerents". That is fairly acceptable in my opinion, however, would it be possible to change it to 'participants' to better suit the article? I feel that it would be very informative and have not a bit tongue-in-cheekness or satirical undertones without the use of the term "belligerents". I think it is acceptable as is, though.
LusitsBotnet (talk) 03:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
As the only IP edits to this page are a slow but steady flow of vandalism, I've just semi-protected it for six months. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
If we're going to avoid phrases like "military action" that suggest this was actually a serious war (and I'm happy to avoid them, I didn't think that wording through when I wrote it) shouldn't we be removing words such as engagement, conflict, and ambush from the article? Some guy (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Considering this is an encyclopaedic article about a war, shouldn't the actual winners be mentioned? I can see a rough indication of casualties, fair enough, but it should be made clear who was the official victor in the conflict. Mr Poo 15:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I was thinking to propose a military-style infobox again for the article. It is copied from the earlier proposal with some tweacks. Here it is, below:
{{Infobox military conflict |conflict=Emu War |image=[[Image:Flickr - aussiegall - Having a bad hair day.jpg|300px|alt=An emu]] |caption=An emu. |date=November 2 – December 10, 1932 |place=Campion district, [[Western Australia]] |result= Tactical emu victory |combatant1={{flag|Australia}} |combatant2=emus |commander1=Sir [[George Pearce]]<br />Major G.P.W. Meredith |commander2=emus |strength1= 2 machine guns <br />[[Royal Australian Artillery]] |strength2= 20,000 emus |casualties1= none |casualties2= 2,500 dead emus }}
I know that people may argue that the infobox both treats the subject as a war and is a magnet for vandalism, but I disagree with those charges. First of all, here on Wikipedia we pride ourselves in NPOV (Neutral point of view), and if the media at the time reffered to it as a serious war, and if soldiers were actually sent with machine guns to fight these emus, then we should acknowledge that it was a war and exersize NPOV (even though Homo sapiens is the only species reading Wikipedia). Secondly, the article is now protected, meaning that only auto-confirmed users can edit, and those that vandalize can be blocked. That is my opinion.
I will add the military infobox in one week if no one objects to the adding of the military infobox. Gug01 (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Gug 01
Thanks for your opinion. I won't add the infobox. Gug01 (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Gug 01
This has become my new favorite article and I don't think there's anyway to improve this article, the opening line is perfect with describing the emu scum as "running amok." — dain- talk 06:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if this article needs to be separate from Emu, to be honest, or if it needs the Infobox- it just strikes me as some kind of awful parody or "Onion" style entry, even though it isn't. The event wasn't really a "War" in the traditional sense, either. Commander Zulu (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it should stay but needs a good rewrite to make it more encyclopaedic and less tongue-in-cheek. Referring to the operation as a war and misplacing it in war categories etc is just being silly. For a start, how about a rename to 1932 Emu cull? –Moondyne 08:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Changed my mind after playing with this for a while in my sandbox Its non-notable. –Moondyne 13:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
(od) I fail to see how this is notable, given that it only appears to have been picked up as a one-time alleged gaffe by the Australian government and/or armed forces. I imagine hunts like these occur all the time, with a variety of animals, and I fail to see why this is notable enough to warrant it's own article. I'd recommend merging it into emu as an example of the need to cull the animal in Australia, or somesuch. Skinny87 (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
As many of you will probably notice, I have substantially rewritten the article based on all newspaper sources I could find through the National Library of Australia web newspaper archive. I feel it is much more encyclopedic (and accurate) now and worth maintaining as its own article. Any comments or additions/corrections/etc are welcome. Some guy (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
May I ask in what way you find the culling of birds Australian Revisionist? Ranger Steve (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
An Administrators' Noticeboard discussion over the recent block and tangentally the infobox content which provoked it has concluded that treating the article as a military campaign is probably too far into silly / humorous for Wikipedia's normal standards.
While this does not overrule other content decisions, I strongly recommend that anyone who feels that treating this incident as a military campaign / war versus as a wildlife management incident (with humorous military aspects) start an article Requests for Comment here on the talk page and generate a consensus prior to re-inserting the infobox or any other blatantly military-campaign-like content.
The current status of the article - discussing the military involvement and media reactions to the humorous aspects - seems like a good balance to me, personally, but that's just my personal opinion.
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay yes some people seem to think this is all good fun, let's laugh at the Australians etc - I really don't care, it's not like we spent billions building a wall with another country and left big holes in it but we don't have that sort of vision or for that matter, a land border. But could we at least not embellish the article with references that imply this was some major operation? Lines like:
Sounds kinda impressive and heavy handed. But how many soldiers? Well that's mentioned once - "a pair of soldiers armed with two Lewis Automatic Machine Guns". Not really as impressive. Could we possibly give some greater prominence to the true scale of the "operation"? A couple of blokes in upstate WA plus a CO shooting at some fast moving birds? The article as it stands is far longer than numerous articles are far more important (okay POV acknowledged!) events.
Now I have no problem with the article name - that seems to be what it was called - but it is a sarcastic title given by the media who obviously thought the whole thing was overblown - a little like this article. Personally I think it is far too long for what is a very, very minor episode of (West) Australian history. Ask the average Australian about it and they won't know what you're talking about.
On the upside I will say it is a very well written article. Tigerman2005 (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
This edit request to Emu War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Bintang Amri (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
{{Infobox military conflict |conflict=The Great Emu War |partof=[[The Great Depression]] |image=[[File:Emu-wild.jpg|Emu-wild|300px]] |caption=An [[Emu]] (Dromaius novaehollandiae) |date=November 2 – December 10, 1932 |place=Campion district, [[Western Australia]] |result= Decisive Emu victory *Bounty system continued. *Annihiliation of 57,034 bounties by civilians. |combatant1={{flagicon|Australia}}[[Commonwealth of Australia]] |combatant2=Emus |commander1={{flagicon|Australia}}Sir [[George Pearce]]<br />{{flagicon|Australia}}Major G.P.W. Meredith |commander2=Emus |units1= {{flagicon|Australia}}7th Heavy Battery of [[Royal Australian Artillery]] |units2= Emus |strength1= 2 [[Lewis Gun]] with 10.000 Ammunition |strength2= 20,000 emus |casualties1= none |casualties2= 2,500 dead emus (claimed) }}
Is it worthwhile to create a section for "cultural references" to include this: Scenes from the Emu War?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
To the user who keeps wrongly capitalizing the word "emu" in this article - stop it. This is the English - not German - Wikipedia. In English nouns are only capitalized when they are proper nouns or the first word of a sentence. --Centauri 23:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I do believe two people were killed in "The Emu War" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.138.181.244 (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Use the Military conflict infobox?
Emu War | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Part of the The Great Depression | |||||||
An emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae). | |||||||
| |||||||
Belligerents | |||||||
Commonwealth of Australia | Emus | ||||||
Commanders and leaders | |||||||
Sir George Pearce | None | ||||||
Units involved | |||||||
Emus | |||||||
Strength | |||||||
Initial: 2 personnel 2 Lewis machine guns 10,000 .303 British rounds |
Initial: 20,000 personnel | ||||||
Casualties and losses | |||||||
None | 3,888 - 4,338 | ||||||
The article never explains why it was (and perhaps is) difficult to manage the emu. The emu article says "Once common on the east coast of Australia, emus are now uncommon there" but does not explain if perhaps while emu may have won the battles of 1932 that humans won the war. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
In the norwegian wiki, they've put a table that basically treats this the same way as any other battle or war on wikipedia. Why can't we have something like that here? "Emu's vs Australia".
https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu-krigen
--2001:4646:18D3:0:8434:303B:C136:D8E1 (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Should the names of the pair of soldiers that Meredith commanded be added to the article? According to this newspaper article their names were Sgt. S. McMurray and gunner J. O'Halloran, both of the R.A.G.A in Fremantle.
There is a possibility that J. O'Halloran is actually John Alexander O'Halloran and S. McMurray is Sam McMurray but I haven't found anything to back this up outside of original research. Lemunz (talk) 10:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
This edit request to Emu War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change Emu victory to decisive Emu victory Jordanirving (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
template. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Can you aussies stop dancing around the subject and just meme yourselves? If we are going to call it a war, there should be a war info box. -Bryce, History nerd (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
This edit request to Emu War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In Outcome, change failure to Emu victory SolFooooo (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
This edit request to Emu War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
109.103.189.242 (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Decisive Emu Victory
it shouldn't say "failure", it should say "decisive Emu Victory". this was a victory for the Emu species in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fm010il (talk • contribs) 18:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mainline421: Regarding your change to the infobox regarding the result of this event, can you please discuss why you believe "Emu victory" is more appropriate than "Failure"? Continuing to revert multiple editors who disagree with you is not constructive, however, if you can provide good reasons for the change you may be able to establish consensus. My concern with your edit is that it is too tongue-in-cheek, and is therefore inappropriate humour. In my opinion, "failure" is more appropriate as it summarises the result of a wildlife management operation. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I oppose changing this to “Emu Victory”. Regardless of the popular name of this event, it was quite obviously in no way a “war”. Even if warfare itself may take a multitude of forms, it inherently involves the interests of human actors. To the best of my knowledge there is no sensible, reliable source that considers this a war in the literal sense of that word. As such changing the outcome of what is clearly stated to be a wildlife management operation to “Emu Victory” is not just “tongue in check” but blatantly false. Whilst Wikipedia has many flaws it strives to be an accurate source of information. No policy has been cited by those that wish to change the outcome to “Emu Victory” to justify such nonsense, while equally no references have been advanced to support this position. As best I can tell this seems to be being suggested as some kind of joke, and at worst it might well be considered deliberate disruption (as evidenced by the repeated edit warring of those that wish to change this ,,,, , , and the refusal to actually attempt to provide a reasoned argument for their stated position and thereby develop consensus in good faith. There are numerous issues with @Mainline421:’s statement above. They write:
That said if you are somehow genuine in your belief that “Emu Victory” is an accurate description of the outcome then you will need to justify it and get other editor's agreement. Perhaps the best way to do that is to get a wider range of editors involved by starting an WP:RFC and advertising it on the relevant Wikiprojects? (Although some might consider even that to be disruptive and a waste of the community’s time). Anotherclown (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Emu War | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
An emu | |||||||
| |||||||
Belligerents | |||||||
Australia | emus | ||||||
Commanders and leaders | |||||||
Sir George Pearce Major G.P.W. Meredith Royal Australian Artillery | emus | ||||||
Strength | |||||||
2 machine guns | 20,000 emus | ||||||
Casualties and losses | |||||||
none | 2,500 dead emus |
So, obviously at this point we need to discuss what would be an acceptable infobox. The last one seemed pretty good to me, as it doesn't suggest this was a legitimate military conflict. Everyone please throw your hat about what you would like to see in an infobox (or lack of infobox) in so we can decisively solve this issue. Some guy (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I designed an alternative version of the infobox (on the right). =) JIP | Talk 10:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I tried to edit the infobox but someone reverted it back. I will revert my edits if no one else complains. I simply added the number of emus they were trying to kill (2000) and the number of emus they managed to kill (~1000) before they left (withdrew) which I think is something that most people would want to know right off the bat when looking at this article. The "results" pointing to "aftermath" is inaccurate because aftermath isnt the same thing as results. In fact in the infobox, the date given for this historical event are not the same as the events discussed in aftermath Absolutezero273 (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
FYI the image is trending on reddit --George Spurlin (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
A conflict between chimpanzees has a relevant infobox but not one that actually involved armed forces? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.117.163 (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
That's a good point. The Linked article even says 'Decisive Kasakela victory', which seems dangerously close to (perhaps inspired by by?) 'decisive Emu victory'. Seems bizarre and vaguely NPOV-violating to treat one as a 'war' but the other as an 'event'. StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 11:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
This edit request to Emu War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article said australia instead of oceania 204.232.80.162 (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
This edit request to Emu War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the infobox and aftermath information on the outcome of the Emu War to how the cull was (at least partly) successful as the source provided explains how "although on the last occasion their destruction by soldiers with machine guns was criticised in many quarters, the method proved effective and saved what remained of the wheat'.
source: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/217998228?searchTerm=emu%20war%20effective&searchLimits= Ytypy (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Please add to the information in the aftermath section regarding the outcome of the operation, that it was reported to have been “effective saved what remained of the wheat” based on the source provided above. Ytypy (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
This edit request to Emu War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please add to the article that the cull was reported to have been of some succes based on the source provided.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/217998228?searchTerm=emu%20war%20effective&searchLimits= Ytypy (talk) 05:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
This edit request to Emu War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Major G. P. W. Meredith" to "Major C. W. P. Meredith". All mentions of him in "The Sunday Herald" newspaper name him as Major C. W. P Meredith. Bungel (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
This page should have a Campaignbox. Grassynoel (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Emu War/Archive 1. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 9#Emu War/Archive 1 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. --Cortex128 17:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
There really needs to be a thread for this. The general consensus seems to be that this wasnt a war or a genuine conflict. Thats highly debatable. Tíocfaidh ár lá, Éire. (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
This edit request to Emu War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, would it be possible to add “Emu victory” or “Emu ‘victory’” to the ‘Outcome’ part of the summary? 2001:8003:857A:6200:885D:2254:50D8:9DF4 (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
In the "second attempt" section, the Coolgardie Miner is mentioned. It's probably worth it to link to the Wiki page for it, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolgardie_Miner. The article is semi-protected, and I don't know enough to do it myself even if I could, so if someone could do that that would be great, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.106.132 (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
This edit request to Emu War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the infobox, please change "Outcome: Failure. See (Aftermath)" to "Result: Emu victory. See (Aftermath)"
This brings it in-line with other war pages like WW2, is obviously a lot more informative, and very very funny Soulus98 (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
This edit request to Emu War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This is fake I have a friend who is historian he has no records about this. 110.174.94.109 (talk) 09:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
This edit request to Emu War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can we please change the infobox to military conflict? Since it appears more proper that way as because this was an actual military conflict as the first line of the article says. There was armed involvement and this particular topic also garnered much international attention and was discussed in the Senate too.
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mccormickct.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the section Aftermath is as follows:
"In November 1950, Hugh Leslie raised the issues of emus in federal parliament and urged Army Minister Josiah Francis to release a quantity of .303 ammunition from the army for the use of farmers. The minister approved the release of 500,000 rounds of ammunition."
This is only the beginning of something. It needs some follow-up editing to say what happened with the 500,000 rounds of ammunition.
I hope someone knowledgeable about this event will fill readers in as to what happened next. 2601:200:C000:1A0:44DE:EE4C:BC1:30D5 (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
The page has flipped back and fourth in the information card at the start of the page regarding the outcome. It once was written that the war was a failure. This was reverted. It was also written that the was was an emu victory. This was reverted.
The outcome currently isn’t descriptive for someone reading the page at a glance. There should be something written in the card. Patate324 (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
the method proved effective and saved what remained of the wheat. If this war was universally deemed as a total unmitigated omnishambles (or as a 'decisive emu victory'), chances are that these requests for further military intervention would have never been made (as the requesters would probably just anticipate further failures if this was the case).
Major GPW Meredith's name is Gwynydd Purves Wynne-Aubrey Meredith AWMWinters (talk) 05:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by AWMWinters (talk • contribs) 12:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
The Emus deserve credit for their efforts. 2605:A601:A0DD:5B00:F9CC:4A76:3294:39E6 (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
This movie keeps getting delayed forward, is it ever gonna release at this point? I can't remember hearing anything about it anywhere at all, I feel like it can be removed at this point, for it also serves no purpose to the article. Perhaps it can be re-added again if it actually releases? 2001:1C07:10E:200:7C14:E314:9EF7:964F (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Polyamorph (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Emu War → Emu culling – Consensus per prior discussions[1][2][3][4][5] is that this was a largely unsuccessful wildlife management campaign, not a bona fide war against the emu population. Despite this, there still remains a vocal contingent of disruptive editors who didn't get the memo and actively refuse to take their shitposting somewhere else.
Various countermeasures have been put in place over the years in an attempt to curb the amount of vandalism this page attracts, from changing the article's infobox template from Template:Infobox military campaign to the less-permissive Template:Infobox military operation, to placing warnings against altering the infobox in the page's source code, to putting this article under indefinite semi-protection. None of them have worked, because all of them fail to address the root cause of the problem: the article's title, which these vandals use as their casus belli.[6][7][8][9][10] (That, and WP:LULZ.)
I hereby propose that this page be moved to Emu culling - they can't vandalize Emu War if there isn't a page with that name to begin with.
While "Emu War" is the most commonly-used title for this campaign by reliable sources, we are not necessarily shackled to it. WP:COMMONNAME states that "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; see § Neutrality in article titles, below."
This would certainly fit the bill - as previously established, this was a wildlife management campaign, not a war.
WP:NPOVNAME further states that "Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:
Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later
Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious"
"Emu War" is a textbook example of the latter case.
Renaming the article to Emu culling will make it WP:CONSISTENT with other articles on wildlife culling (cf. Cormorant culling, Shark culling, Seal culling in South Australia), expand the article's scope to allow for more extensive coverage of other instances of emu culling, and hopefully put the WP:LAME edit warring over how the article's infobox is formatted to rest once and for all.
Summoning @Nick-D, Some guy, Georgewilliamherbert, Anotherclown, and AustralianRupert for comment.
— Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
I can see value in an article about emu culling in general
As acknowledged above, "Emu War" is overwhelmingly the common name
"Emu culling" may be a good description of what actually occurred but that is not the purpose of article titles.
Vandalism can be dealt with through page protection.
"Emu War" is the common name per the many sources listed in the article. And as above, we don't abandon basic naming and sourcing rules
greenbit in my original post.
to appease vandals
As an addendum, this isn't an article about the general topic of emu culling, so renaming this article would simply be inaccurate.
"I think I might be confusing you here. The end goal here isn't to rename the page to Emu culling and change nothing else about it. The end goal would be the creation of a page on emu culling (in the vein of Cormorant culling, Shark culling, etc.) that includes this page as a subsection, and having Emu War redirect to that subsection. A page move, to my knowledge, would be the best way to facilitate that.
Think of it as less like a traditional rename request and more like a merge request - just that the destination page doesn't exist yet."
If we had such an article there might be some validity in a merge proposal. But this would be a discussion for that future time.
Request withdrawn Concede. I can see which way the wind is blowing here. It's not going to go through, and I don't see the point in beating a dead horse, let alone backing one. Might come back to this if a standalone article on emu culling gets written in the future, per @Euryalus:'s comment "If we had such an article there might be some validity in a merge proposal. But this would be a discussion for that future time."
, but consensus right now is opposition to the proposal, and there isn't a point in continuing as is. — Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 01:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.