Talk:Coalition (Australia)

message: It may be worth noting the situation in some states in regard to the coalition - since it has been dissolved in Victorian politics, and the only National in South Australia is a minister in the Rann Labor government. Ambi 03:29, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This article probably ought to acknowledge Bjelke-era Queensland as an exception to some of its content, but I don't know the subject well enough to do it. --Calair 03:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: States

message: This article is a bit of a mess in how it's organised. I think it needs to separately list the situation federally, and for each state, because there is so much variation across the country. Peter Ballard 01:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  state by state 

message: This article needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources.
There. Now it has been re-iterated, and in the process discussed. Timeshift 02:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag added by other users

message: Sounds a bit like opportunistic advertising to me... Timeshift (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The CCC are never called "The Coalition". Peter Ballard (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have we heard if the CCC are going to be around for another election? If they disappear, then the disambiguation would become redundant.Lester 05:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's safe to say... no. —sroc (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not to be confused with climate change coalition? 

message: Before Karlene Maywald, South Australia has only ever had one Nationals MP, Peter Blacker in Electoral district of Flinders from 1973 to 1993. This online biography of Blacker makes no mention of him ever being a minister or shadow minister. That would suggest to me that SA has never had a Lib/Nat Coalition. So I've removed the uncited claim that it has. (Though I haven't said there wasn't either). Peter Ballard (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Australia 

message: A couple of points about the recent edit re. Barnaby Joyce. First, neither of the refs say that the Nationals will sit on the cross benches. So that should be referenced or removed. Second, Joyce isn't breaking the Coalition, so I question whether it needs mentioning at all, unless some refs are saying this is a sign of a major shift in Coalition relations. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: a) Watch question time, they are right next to the Greens. Feel free to add another ref but it's true. b) Joyce has said the National Party in the Senate will vote as an independent bloc. That is completely 110% relevant. Timeshift (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding (a), has this changed since Barnaby's taken over? And if so, had anyone comment on it? (I'm happy for something to go in if it's a significant shift, but I'm not yet convninced it is.) Peter Ballard (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe they used to sit on the end of the Libs, so essentially they have broken off the end of the Libs and moved up to take the next 'block of 5 seats' section next to the greens. The greens use the last crossbench block on the opposition side. Fielding sits in the front corner seat on the government side, with Xenophon in the other corner behind him, in the last block. A clarification from those further aware of the situation would be good, but the seating is not as important as the independent bloc, which is the real news. Timeshift (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barnaby Joyce 

message: The is always part of the name of this entity. I have never heard it referred to as anything else. HiLo48 (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (articles), article (page) names should include an article (a/the) if the article (a/the) is normally capitalised and forms part of the name. As at 2010-08-24, a search for the coalition on google shows that it isn't capitalised when part of the political party name, and is sometimes just presented "Coalition" or "A Coalition" (see particularly http://lnp.org.au/). So I don't think we should change it. twilsonb (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand your response. The specific example you gave - http://lnp.org.au/ - has "The" capitalised. In the Google search, I haven't counted the entries, but a lot of them have "The" capitalised. It is always spoken of with the word "The" in front, admittedly sometimes not capitalised, but my point is more about the word "The" being present, rather than the capitalisation. HiLo48 (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Labor is also referred to as "the ALP", but you would expect to find them referred to as "ALP", not "The ALP".  "Coalition" is preceded by "the" depending on context, e.g., "The mood amongst Coalition MPs..." vs "The mood in the Coalition...".  I agree with Twilsonb that "the" is not essential to the name "Coalition". —sroc (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your examples suggest that the presence of a "The" depends on whether "Coalition" is being used as a noun or an adjective. That would make it easy to clarify in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm puzzled. Why isn't this called "The Coalition (Australia)" 

message: The article is currently incorrect, Queensland is not the only state to have had a national party dominated coalition.  Victoria has country party dominated coalitions from the 1920s to the 1950s  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.176.68 (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  National party dominated coalitions 

message: Why is the NT Parliament not showing in the table of seats held? Welshboyau11 (talk) 08:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Weird. It should, obviously. It might be something to do with the template not being coded to handle going up to eight fields ... I don't have the technical expertise to fix it, though. Maybe drop a note over at Template:Infobox political party? Frickeg (talk) 10:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question - NT Parliament in table 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Coalition (Australia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110511151037/http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24343802-1245,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24343802-1245,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This page still refers to Truss as Deputy PM - I'm not sure how to reword. JennyOz (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed by HangingCurve on 17 April JennyOz (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warren Truss 

message: This article is severely biased towards the Coalition. In some sections it makes them seem god like. This article needs a clean up. Life200BC (talk) 01:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Life200BC what sections would you say are biased? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reconsidering it probably isn't that biased, but I found this "The Coalition was renewed in 1991, and won power under Rob Borbidge from 1996 to 1998." A little Biased. They didn't win power they formed a minority Government. It probably isn't bias though reconsidering. I will be more cautious before using the template again and will remove it now. Life200BC (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you see little things like that, you don't really need to tag the article and start a talk page discussion, you can just edit it yourself and see if anyone objects. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 07:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I'm sorry for wasting your time and will follow your instructions if I see something similar. Life200BC (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: :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 section. 
----
:Coalition (Australia) →  – The principle of article titles is that they are concise, precise and recognizable. It occurs to me that the title Coalition (Australia) is less concise, precise and recognizable than Liberal–National Coalition. A coalition is a mix of political parties/groups governing together, and that is not exclusivley the domain of the Liberal National Coalition in Australia. Saying "the Coalition" in Australian political discourse is reasonably likely to make someone think of the Liberal and National parties, but this is not guaranteed. As we speak there is "a Coalition" in power in the ACT, specifically a Labor-Green one, in fact such a coalition has existed for the last 8+ years. Its also not uncommon for the phrase "Labor-Green coalition" to be pursued during federal and state elections, often by Liberal or National advocates arguing against voting for either Labor or the Greens. Furthermore non-Australian readers would consider the "Coalition" to mean any number of potential political alliances. To sum up, it doesn't make sense to simplify a title to something vaguer and less recognizable than the lede of this article already implies; "The Liberal–National Coalition, commonly known simply as the Coalition..." Global-Cityzen (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 26 February 2021 

message: Article currently reads in part In the other states and the ACT, the Nationals have no sitting MPs and little or no organisational presence.
My State member is Paul Toole. And we're both in one of those other states. Andrewa (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: NSW is mentioned in the paragraph's third sentence; "other states" is intended to refer to Tasmania and SA. I do agree that this is potentially ambiguous, though, and given that it's only two states we're mentioning it seems more sensible to just name them. Frickeg (talk) 07:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  My State member 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :The Coalition and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 23#The Coalition until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Coalition" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: :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: not moved. "The" can be discussed separately.  CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 14:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Coalition (Australia) →  – This has been proposed a few times in the past, however I feel like enough time has passed to restart the discussion. As has been mentioned in previous discussions, while the current title is shorter than the proposed one, it is in fact less WP:CONSICE and much less WP:PRECISE than the proposed title. While use of the lone phrase "the Coalition" is likely to make one think of the LNP, this is not guaranteed, with the concept of "a Coalition" stemming far beyond the one formed by the Liberal and National parties. Labor and the Greens were in a coalition at the federal level from 2010 to 2013, have jointly governed the ACT since 2008, and were previously in coalition in Tasmania in the 90s (with the Greens also governing with the Tasmanian Liberals in the 2010s). Furthermore, with the recent decline in the vote share of major parties, there have frequently been discussions of the possibility of a renewed Labor-Greens coalition, shown here and here. The current title disregards this, however, implying that in Australia, the concept of a coalition solely refers to the Liberals and Nationals. This is confusing and inaccurate to both international and domestic readers. Editors have also previously argued that the title "Liberal-National Coalition" is rarely used, however this is simply false. While the shortened version is commonly used more, the media nevertheless commonly refers to the "Liberal-National Coalition", as shown here, here, and here. Finally, the proposed title creates a nice WP:NATURAL disambiguator. Loytra (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Weak oppose - From what I know about Australian politics, when one is referring to "the Coalition" they are generally referring to the Liberal National Coalition. However, I do  understand the nom's reasoning considering the plausibility of a Labor-Greens coalition (notably, at last year's election). I would support a move to The Coalition (Australia) as I think that it will keep the concision while improving precision. Estar8806 (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Comment The article's lead begins with "The Liberal–National Coalition" thereby probably breaking some Wikipedia rule about the lead describing what's in the title, but presumably pleasing the OP here. The word "The" is important. It is ALWAYS included when the Liberal–National Coalition is being referred to in Australia. The title of this article should probably be The Coalition (Australia) (with the capital C), and the lead should also begin with that expression. HiLo48 (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Lean oppose Not all the other examples given were actually coalitions (2010-2013 was a confidence & supply arrangement and a coalition involves more than one party actually in government, the Liberals and Greens did not form a government in Tasmania) and others were called different things (e.g. the Tasmanian Labor-Green government was called the Accord and the ACT Liberal-Residents' Rally government was the Alliance) and this article covers the whole history including the Liberals' predecessor parties. "The Coalition" still overwhelmingly means the Liberals & Nationals not other combinations. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Oppose. I don't think it's ambiguous in the Australian context and there is precedent in other articles, e.g. Alliance (Sweden) and Alliance (Chile). Additionally, the article covers the full history of the Coalition and the parties have not always had their current names. I'm happy with the suggested move to The Coalition (Australia) although I think it could go both ways (WP:THE is probably against). ITBF (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 9 May 2023 

message: The Electorate section tells me that one of the biggest voting blocs supporting the Coalition is "the Greatest Generation (people born between 1901–1927)". That means people aged 96 and over! I humbly submit that  people aged 96 and over is NOT a big bloc. Would anyone object if I removed that content? HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, and I think the article is incorrect in equating "voting bloc" as just any demographic that favoured a party at a specific election. Would be good to find some sources that look at Australian voting trends over a multi-election period. Not sure someone making $46k a year would agree that they're middle class either! ITBF (talk) 08:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very, VERY old people vote for the Coalition.