Talk:Baird ministry (2014–2015)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 4 April 2015[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move any of the identified titles at this time. Perhaps a broader title convention is needed for naming government administrations in parliamentary systems. bd2412 T 16:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– There is no naming convention for an incumbent NSW state ministry that isn't on its first term. Current conventions are inconsistent in naming of the Deputy Premier in the title (e.g. no O'Farrell-Stoner). Naming them according to their order brings them in line with federal convention. --Relisted.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC) DilatoryRevolution (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undecided as per:
In other political arenas the talk is of "first term of the Xxxxx Xxxxx" and similar. Are there any other terms that might be brought into consideration?
Within the proposed format suggest: Baird ministry (2014–2015) → Baird ministry
Otherwise I also wondered about a format such as:

DilatoryRevolution, what do you think? GregKaye 11:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • Undecided. As the Second Baird ministry has today been created, all of the above are non-current ministries. For the current ministry, there is no closing timeframe, making this proposed naming convention somewhat redundant. Rangasyd (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The organisation of ministries has always been a frustration on Wikipedia, because each state's official records take wildly inconsistent approaches to it, so it's always been hard to come up with a working compromise that isn't completely random according to each state. It's one reason I haven't tackled ministries with gusto, since it's a topic we still need better coverage of.
Specific thoughts on the above:
  • I'm undecided on how to refer to the coalition ministries, because particularly in NSW, IIRC, a lot of sources do refer to e.g. the "Askin Cutler ministry".
  • I like the idea of moving to the "First X ministry" format as in other states for standardisation's sake, but that raises the question of how you're demarcating ministries. Federally, this is done by term of parliament, which is clearly not the case here (see Carr, Wran and Fahey-Murray for recent examples). I think having First Carr Ministry that does not have the same definition of a ministry as First Howard Ministry is a problem, and think that if you're going to go down that line it should probably switch to ministries by term of parliament, as is the case federally. (This does defy the NSW parliament's categorisation, however.) I am open to having my mind changed on that but the inconsistency annoys me.
  • Not a fan of having the years and the numbered ministries - I think it's overkill.
I'm glad this discussion is being had anyway, because it's always a bit of a minefield and it'd be good to sort it once and for all. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As The Drover's Wife says, the format of "Wst X ministry (YYYY-ZZZZ)" doesn't solve the issue of incumbency. I don't think that it's a big issue that they're named differently to federal ministries because they are already inconsistent with each other. While an almost-but-not-quite-alligned format might confuse some users (which is obviously a problem), there would still be a clear distinction between State standards and federal standards, as there is now. Having said that, I do think that ministries in the same parliamentary term should be merged into a single article. I find it rather inconsistent when people refer to Deputy Premiers in the names of Coalition governments but not in the names of Labor governments because I think it implies that DPs are more important for the Coalition than for the ALP which may be true but it's subjective. In my personal opinion, I think we should set higher standards of consistency than our sources but I certainly understand if people disagree. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still undecided, but tending towards against. Siegfried Nugent, you may be interested in this discussion.
Given that I established a large percentage of these ministries, I openly admit to a bias. Yet, I take umbridge that Wikipedia should set a higher or different standard when compared with another parliament, even if it is in the same country.
  • The principal source of the ministries comes from the Parliament of New South Wales. Hence, surely the way the Parliament describes its own ministries should be the way that Wikipedia accepts for them to be described. The source is located in the Parliamentary Handbook here. In the Handbook, the ministries are referred to as "XXX MINISTRY – No. ## (ddmmmYYYY to ddmmmYYYY)".
  • In the cases where a coalition ministry was formed, e.g. STEVENS–BRUXNER MINISTRY (see page 22 of the Handbook), it listed both the Premier and the Deputy Premier; and this naming convention continued right up to the BAIRD–STONER MINISTRY (2014– ). Given that I established the O'Farrell ministry article in 2011, I have no recollection as to why I did not name it the O'Farrell–Stoner ministry, in line with the naming convention for the prior ministries. However, it is worth noting that the only ministries that were completed at that time were the Wills', Rees' and Keneally ministries, and I don't think there was a nav box, that came later. The claim by DilatoryRevolution that by not including the Labor DP in the ministry title affords that ministry or DP in a lesser light is not material to the naming convention. What is at stake here is that Bertram did not have the numbers to govern in his own right and needed to form a coalition with Bruxner; and the same for Greiner and Murray; and Askin and Cutler, etc. O'Farrell, when he came to power did have the numbers to govern without Stoner's Nationals, but chose to form a coalition with them. In Labor's case, there were no coalitions. Hence, the naming convention did not apply. Should Foley form a coalition with another political party and gain power, then it may be appropriate; but not at present.
  • As to use of the "#nd XXX ministry", this is a popular naming convention and not the official naming convention; e.g. look at Carr, Iemma, Askin, Cahill, Stevens, etc...; the popular term is not used in the article name but is always used in the article first line to refer to its popular name. Although the popular title is used in both the succession and infoboxes.
  • Finally, where an election was held and the composition of the ministry did not change from one election to another (e.g. ministry established in 2011, election held in 2015 and no changes to the ministry in the intervening period or following the election) the ministry was not given a new number and continued on, as is. In today's terms, we would not do this, as more often than not the ministry would be sworn in again. (e.g. the 36th ministry of Holman (1916–1920)). Rangasyd (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baird_ministry_(2014–2015)&oldid=1199372485"