Talk:Jindabyne

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗

Map is wrong!

The dot points to Broken Hill, not jindabyne!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.25.141 (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed! I couldn't see how to change it, hopefully no one drives out that far west looking for Jindabyne... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.178.10 (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

History

The history section could be expanded a little, see

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-19/50th-anniversary-of-opening-of-new-jindabyne-township/5975138

http://alldownunder.com/aus/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=137

http://aso.gov.au/titles/sponsored-films/snowy-hydro-jindabyne-story/clip2/

for a start.

Also the function of Jindabyne Dam isn't very clearly described... it gathers water for hydro power, yes, and also for irrigation, but that's also part of a pump storage system involving Lake Eucumbene, to which the water is pumped. There's no hydro station at Jindabyne. The water needs to be raised to Lake Eucumbene because the diversion tunnels are at a high level, high level and low level diversions both having been considered during the project planning stages and the high level ones chosen. The power used in pumping is recovered and more generated by the power stations on the Tumut and upper Murray rivers after diversion. These are peak load stations, and the pumping station runs only off-peak, that's the pump storage aspect. Andrewa (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jindabyne, New South Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 26 June 2026

Jindabyne → Jindabyne, New South WalesJindabyne, New South Wales – This page was moved from the target on 29 April as an uncontroversial technical request with the rationale that it is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. However, the claim of primary topic is dubious - Jindabyne (film) has accumulated 330,955 all time page views, while this article only has 29,626. In addition there are several other pages that include Jindabyne in the name, including Jindabyne Dam (60,455 all time page views). To satisfy WP:PT1 it would have to be demonstrated that a reader is more likely to be searching for the town instead of the film or the dam, which is not supported by page views that suggest the film is 10x more likely to be the intended target. As it is unclear that the town is the primary topic, using placename, state to disambiguate is required per WP:NCAUST. Additionally, if the page is moved, then Jindabyne should be re-targetted to Jindabyne (disambiguation). Dfadden (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I did the technical move on April 29, resulting in the current article title. I merely did that in response to someone else's technical request, meaning that I found the original request reasonable but with no strong personal opinion on the matter. I find this latest request to be reasonable, except for the claim that the film is the most likely primary topic. That requires a more convincing argument than page view numbers. At any rate, if the consensus is to agree with this proposal, that might require some complex rearranging of article titles, which can be requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:40, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: There's a possibility that the film might not be the primary topic either as a Google Trends search between the two topics between 2004 and now worldwide and in Australia has always had the town have significantly more searches than the film, with the film only having a small spike in searches near the time of its release, but never surpassing the town. Fork99 (talk) 04:00, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
    the film only having a small spike in searches near the time of its release
    Which is not an uncommon occurrence for films. TarnishedPathtalk 04:05, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on a number of grounds. All of the entries found at the Jindabyne (disambiguation) page get their name from the town. If the town didn't have the name it does, those other articles wouldn't have the name they do. To me that weighs into an argument for the town being the WP:PTOPIC. Additionally, a pageview analysis indicates that the town gets more views than the movie. Perhaps the movie was getting more views previously; however, that seems to have reversed. It's not uncommon that a new movie will get plenty of views closer to its release. I think the town should stay at its current title per WP:CONCISE and I'd suggest we update the hatnote at teh top of it to also point to the disamb page (which also looks like it might need some updating). TarnishedPathtalk 04:04, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
If I may clarify, I do not necessarily claim the film is the primary topic either, but that there is enough doubt here to conclude that there is no clear primary topic. While your theory about the spike in views occuring around the date of release sounds logical, the analysis you posted only takes into account the past 3 months. If we consider the all time view, it looks like this . Given the film's release date was in 2006, a news spike or similar coinciding with that does not account for the recent spikes in pageviews in early 2021, twice in 2022, and early 2023. This suggests the file has some level of enduring notability. Its better to disambiguate here to avoid any doubt. Dfadden (talk) 04:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
My argument wasn't solely based on pageviews. Additionally, see Fork99's comment. TarnishedPathtalk 07:49, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per rationale made by TarnishedPath. Servite et contribuere (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2026 (UTC)