Port Hedland, Western Australia 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 Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Transport 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.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Western Australia Pilbara, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
Pilbara 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.Western Australia PilbaraWikipedia:WikiProject Western Australia PilbaraTemplate:WikiProject Western Australia PilbaraWestern Australia Pilbara articles
Language
Consirable emphasis on 'the biggest', 'largest' and so on is not what an encyc article is about -unless you put a reference or citation that confirms it!
SatuSuro06:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)reply
reads ok those size statements do need something(stats/cite) to support them. This article has an unsupported population of 14500 yet the LGA article has an ABS supported 13000, I realise that this from 2001, but the LGA should have the larger figure and both should have ABS cites.
Gnangarra07:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)reply
I removed the largest claim on 3 Nov (-> "a major") but it appears to have been reinserted. Karratha and Port Hedland are about even as far as I'm aware. As for the 14,500 - it's all very confusing! No two sites agree with regards to Port Hedland's population and the split between Port and South. I'd stick with 13,000 and indicate in both Port and South articles that it's a shared figure.
Orderinchaos78(
t|
c)12:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)reply
I have modified the article - also replaced the Aboriginal bit as an incorrect cite off a non-encyc site was used when the town council website was perfectly clear. Definitely more work needed (and transforming the quote into a third party sentence would probably be good too)
Orderinchaos78(
t|
c)12:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)reply
I think this is a good idea. "Town of Port Hedland" is about the local authority. It is therefore about a topic distinct from the settlement ("Port Hedland"), and the port ("Port of Port Hedland"), which, being the highest tonnage port in Australia, is definitely notable enough to warrant its own article. I would suggest that you base any new article on the section headed "Harbour", which I added to the existing "Port Hedland" article (including the table of cargo statistics that I copied from a document on the Port Authority's website (and which may now need to be updated)). I have been meaning for some time to expand that section, but I just haven't got around to it. I also suggest that you move the photo from the infobox in the existing article to the new article, and then put another photo into the existing article's infobox (I quite like
commons:File:The Esplanade Hotel, Port Hedland, 2012 (1).JPG, but you might have other ideas). There are other images of the port at
commons:Category:Port Hedland Harbour.
Bahnfrend (
talk)
06:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)reply
If you look at Fremantle - the distinction suggested here is the same that has happened there - between the town, port and local authority is a good idea.
sats10:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)reply