Talk:Lang Labor Party (South Australia)

Australia: South Australia / Politics Low‑importance

	Australia portal Lang Labor Party (South Australia) 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 South Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	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, or the State Library of South Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Fixes

The ongoing redlinks at Electoral district of Adelaide and Members of the South Australian House of Assembly, 1933–1938 was a long-term annoyance, I vaguely recall a previous convo somewhere about a previous attempt where I incorrectly disambiguated the SALLP (SA Lang Labor) to the SA Lang Labor Party (Lang Labor) and was informed they were two separate parties, which along with the Parliamentary Labor Party/Premiers Plan and the official ALP, made a total of four post-1933 election Labor parties. As the SALLP was formed by two SA Lang Labor Party MPs from the seat of Adelaide and only lasted for a year, sparked over a leadership falling out, I thought the best way to tackle the SALLP was to add another section to the existing SA Lang Labor Party article and direct the few SALLP redlinks directly to that section. Also noticed quite a few links over various articles to just Lang Labor rather than the SA Lang Labor Party which i've disambiguated along tbe way. Any concerns? I hope i've sorted this satisfactorily, four parties including two Lang Labor parties borders on insane. Timeshift (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. In general, I don't like merging parties in with parties-that-are-not-that-party, but I don't think it's unreasonable in this case, and though it could definitely be broken back out in future if I got off my arse, it's not high on my to-do list at the moment. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I agree RE not merging generally but in this particular case is acceptable, if nothing more than a temporary better-than-nothing stop-gap measure. Timeshift (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]