New South Wales Liberal Party 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
I have just modified one external link on Liberal Party of Australia (New South Wales Division). 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.
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: Moved per consensus. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 10:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're all in agreement. I'll move the pages tomorrow, because that will mark seven days. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the article moves. Seven articles should not be moved on the basis of this discussion with few participants. The appropriate place for this discussion would be at the Liberal Party of Australia talk page, which I will commence. The broader community of Australian political article editors should also be notified through the relevant noticeboards, as this implicates the name of a major Australian political party. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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: moved. Per consensus. The New South Wales article will be moved to "NSW" format. I would note that User:Onetwothreeip's reversions (to quote Skarmory) "was well out of line of policy..., though the initial move was also out of line of policy (an involved closure". I would further note that the closer of last request is now blocked for sockpuppetry and global abuse, and so is the 110... IP which opined in this discussion. Their opinions have been discarded in reaching this consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X}) 22:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
– Per previous consensus reached both here and at the Victorian Labor Party page. These pages were moved back to their current titles unilaterally and without discussion. Loytra (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - These should never have been moved back, let's just get it over with and return them to their far simpler (and better) titles Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Support - There is absolutely no reason the move should've been reverted. One editor cannot unilaterally move pages against consensus, no matter how few editors that consensus consisted, 3 is still more than 1. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there was not sufficient consensus to move these articles in the first place. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "sufficient consensus". There was no opposition to the above RM. It was moved with consensus of editors, after the standard week-length of an RM. You have no right to single-handedly revert that consensus. If you had a problem, you should've requested a move back, not reverted it. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I would support Liberal Party of Australia (New South Wales) and so on. The current article names are too lengthy and I applaud the desire to change them, but we shouldn't change them to names for parties that don't exist. New South Wales Liberal MPs are elected as Liberal and sit as Liberal Party, they are not affiliated with a "New South Wales Liberal Party". Liberal Party (New South Wales) would also be acceptable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this discussion is to impact multiple articles, it should also be taking place somewhere more visible, such as on the talk page of Liberal Party of Australia. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no proper or improper page for the RM. Every page involved has a banner placed at the top informing readers of the RM. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - 'NSW Liberal Party' is how they brand themselve - it makes logical sense Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 10:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've already made a bolded vote. Nonetheless, we generally don't use self-branding to make objective assessments, we generally use official sources where available. Onetwothreeip (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't use self-branding or official sources, we use WP:COMMONNAME. This, judging by a quick google search, seems to skew towards "NSW Liberal Party" or "NSW Liberals". Loytra (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, and like the reasoning for the ALP moves, it makes so much more sense (plus the article mentions the official name anyway) Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The common name is simply "the Liberals" or "the Liberal Party", which obviously wouldn't fit for articles about the state parties. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like your thinking, but from what I can tell most sources use the adjectival forms. If you can find some examples of the non-adjectival forms being used I think it'd def be worth considering! Loytra (talk) 07:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that these article names with "division" are needlessly long. Reliable sources still refer to these parties as the Liberal Party in their respective states, when discussing them authoritatively. We can keep the encyclopaedic consistency, especially with the article for the party altogether, while making the article titles significantly shorter. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how these are any different from the actual proposed titles, and they are needlessly clunky with the parentheses. Your proposed format doesn't imply that these are divisions of a wider party, and even if it did that would just be a Wikipedia-ism, Democratic Party (United States) exists in that format and obviously that isn't a division of any wider party. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The parenthesis avoids the clunkiness of titles such as "New South Wales Liberal Party", for example, which implies a distinctly separate party to the Liberal Party of Australia. "Liberal Party (New South Wales)" does not imply it is different to the national one, while also describing the article about the Liberal Party as it exists in New South Wales. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It can't create that much confusion, surely, when all the articles do in fact mention the full/official name? Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 09:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you insist that it doesn't imply it is different from the national one? It most certainly does not. Several political parties use the [Party Name] [(Place)] format for their titles.
Need I go on? Are we supposed to assume all of these are divisions of a larger political party because the parentheses around the names imply that they are divisions of a larger party?
In any case, the sources strongly support the original proposed titles:
Google ngrams prefer strongly "New South Wales Liberal Party"[1]. The same title also returns 1,910 results in Google Books[2], compared to 761 for "Liberal Party (New South Wales)" [3] and 337 for "New South Wales Liberals" [4].
"Liberal Party (Victoria)" doesn't even register on ngrams [5] and returns 691 results in Google Books [6], while "Victorian Liberal Party" returns over 4,000 [7].
Ngrams again support "Queensland Liberal Party" over anything else [8] and Google Books again do the same [9]vs[10] and [11]
I'm going to leave out Google Books from here as the prefer the same titles as ngrams- "Tasmanian Liberals" is actually preferred over "Tasmanian Liberal Party" [12]
"South Australian Liberal Party" is preferred [13]
"Western Australian Liberal Party is preferred [14]
Ngrams cannot be found for titles relating to the A.C.T. [15].
the other problem with "Liberal Party (A.C.T.)" for one is no one calls them that, not even themselves outside of party registration - it's Canberra Liberals Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 00:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Liberal Party (New South Wales)" does not imply that it is or isn't a division of a larger party, but "New South Wales Liberal Party" certainly implies it is a separate party. Likewise, "Democratic Party (United States)" doesn't imply that it is or isn't part of a larger party.
Those statistics about these names are misleading, since there is no reason to be searching "Liberal Party (New South Wales)". In New South Wales politics, the relevant party is known as "Liberal Party" or "the Liberals", and not "New South Wales Liberal Party". The title with the parenthesis is the closest to the most common name for the party, while still being distinct. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NATURALDIS establishes that when a non-parenthetical name exists and is commonly used, it should be the page's title. As estar
has displayed, such names do exist and are commonly u. Natural disambiguation is always preferred to parenthesis.es. Loytra (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those non-parenthetical names, as in New South Wales Liberal Party, aren't commonly used. They are commonly referred to as the Liberal Party or the Liberals, when discussing New South Wales politics. Then there are cases where "Victorian Liberal Party" refers to a political party completely distinct from the current Liberal Party. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See, but they are commonly used. These are all from the past few months:
Shouldn't the article title be under NSW Liberal Party, then? Skarmory(talk •contribs) 17:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – this is a case of WP:NATDIS, and the only disagreement I have is that "New South Wales Liberal Party" seems to primarily be "NSW Liberal Party" in sources, and therefore that article should be at NSW Liberal Party. Also, the reversion here was well out of line of policy (start a new RM, don't revert moves made by consensus – if the consensus isn't stable, they'll get reverted to the stable title after the discussion, per WP:TITLECHANGES), though the initial move was also out of line of policy (an involved closure, though the consensus there was clear and that would have been closed as moved anyway). Skarmory(talk •contribs) 17:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree. Consensus seems to be pointing towards restoring the moves but abbreviating New South Wales. I guess we just wait for a closure. Loytra (talk) 06:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Support per nom - the above discussion is something of a WP:TRAINWRECK, without the name of this particular article being given adequate separate consideration. "NSW" may be obvious to an Australian audience (in the way that "DC" is obvious to an American audience), but will not be familiar to most of the Anglophone world. Tevildo (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
