Talk:Frontbench of Ben Chifley

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 September 2022. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

	Australia portal Frontbench of Ben Chifley 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

On 29 September 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Caucus Executive of Ben Chifley. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Requested move 29 September 2022[edit]

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: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– As per discussion here. DilatoryRevolution (talk) 10:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - no evidence supplied that the terms suggested are in use, particularly as a proper name, and I can't find much in the way of sourcing myself. Plus it's not a generally understood term. Conversely, "frontbench" is a generally understood term, at least in Westminster style parliaments, and the current article titles seem fitting. — Amakuru (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. I'd be happy to leave them as they are but the consensus on this discussion was that "Frontbench" was inappropriate. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't see a whole lot of consensus myself. One editor proposed the change, for reasons that aren't clear to me, and it seems like you agreed. Well here we are at a requested move discussion, and I definitely don't agree. The proposed titles don't seem to meet our naming policies, particularly WP:COMMONNAME. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 07:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Premise of previously-affirmed consensus in favour of the proposed naming has been contested by Amakuru. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have never heard the term Caucus Executive used to describe the frontbench of an Australian Government or Opposition. It looks like the term is being proposed as the term ALP Caucus Executive is used in the text but that appears to refer to the Australian Labor Party Caucus rather than describing the opposition Frontbench.

I would also note that it might be better to wait until the articles have more references before suggesting something like this so that there are supporting texts to help determine consensus. Gusfriend (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2022 (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.