Talk:Opposition (Australia)

message: If the former title is "no longer used", then why is it the article title? I think we should have some sort of citation before using "Her Majesty's Loyal. . .", since I certainly have never encountered such a usage anywhere, not even in formal contexts. Lacrimosus 09:45, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: See below @ "Hyper-officialese: Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition".  --  Jack of Oz [Talk] 08:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename?

message: Why does NZ and Canada for instance has a list of Opposition Leaders in this encycylopedia while this article does not for Australia.
:...because we have List of Australian Opposition Leaders. Ambi 06:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List 

message: * Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.
* When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine? 
* (various points about scholarship) but the titles should represent common usage. 
* Use simple titles. Titles should be as simple as possible without being too general. For example, the page about jazz should simply be called "Jazz", not "Jazz music", because "jazz" does not refer to anything other than music, and the simpler title makes linking easier. Adding the word "music" is redundant.
Thus the page move.  Tannin 09:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  From [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)]] 

message: The Liberals and the Nationals in Queensland are now in coalition again, so I presume that together they form the Opposition. I've changed the document to suit.
Black Regent 18:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Coalition Update

message: The last time someone objected to this terminology, the editor who changed it back said  her majesty's most loyal opposition. it's official. if you dont like it please gain consensus.  
Well, I don't like it.  That may be what the UK Opposition is formally known as, but not all Westminster terminology has translated to the Australian context.  I've never come across this wording in any official document, and that includes legislation.  We tend to hear it from traditionalist organisations (monarchists, RSL, etc; John Howard used it in 2009, but that can surely be put down to intentional use of what we might call generous language). 
Loyal opposition says that in Australia the phrase "is also employed in state legislatures".  I'd venture that it's used officially only in those places (if at all), but never in the federal context.  That I've ever heard of. 
Here's an extract from the current (6th) edition of Odgers' House of Representatives Practice.  The only reference to the term "Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition" is at footnote 217 on page 78, which refers to the sentence "The recognition of ‘Her Majesty’s Opposition’ in Britain is believed to have originated in the early 19th century", and says "The term ‘Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition’ was also used" (note the use of past tense).   --  Jack of Oz [Talk] 08:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Jlgx50, again see above. The fact that the UK does something does not automatically extend it to the entire Commonwealth as you seem to think. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Hyper-officialese: Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition