Talk:Waroona

City vs. region article
South West (Western Australia) is not currently subdivided into regions, so unless this can be made part of a comprehensive subdivision scheme there, it should probably not be a region article for the shire. If the town of Waroona, the tiny village, and the national park and all that are contained within the shire, it is probably too small to be a candidate for a region article anyway. This article should very likely be changed to a city template, and the village and national parks either covered within it or covered in separate articles directly under South West (Western Australia). If it is felt that a further regional breakdown of South West (Western Australia) is needed, please propose a comprehensive breakdown at Talk:South West (Western Australia). Texugo (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that this should just be a city article, not a region article. (I believe that is your position?)
 * It seems Australia has a lot of such region articles, probably just owing to the great expanses with low populations. It would be good to consolidate them better. Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * difficult one the town of Waroona is the main centre but with a population of 2000 its small by almost any measure except that its on the larger side of average for WA towns... The Shire covers 7 towns with 2/3rds of its populating resides in Waroona, at 853sq km its a large area. The shire itself is part of the Peel region this is part of a the greater area commonly referred to as the Southwest of Western Australia. It breaks down as;
 * Western Australia
 * Southwest
 * Peel region
 * Shire of Waroona
 * Waroona

my thought is that the Shire is probably the lowest level we should work with in this case. This would be the practice I'd use for most towns only creating pages where the town was a destination in and of itself ie Toodyay, Fremantle or Mandurah Gnangarra (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)