Talk:New South Wales National Party

Tim? Bruxner

Why do you consistently edit to a 'Tim' Bruxner on: Leader of the New South Wales National Party. There is no evidence of any NSW politician by that name. James Bruxner is correct. He served the NSW Parliament for 19 years and was Deputy Leader from 1975-1981: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/members.nsf/1fb6ebed995667c2ca256ea100825164/9281a10237f1f6d5ca256e2100035768?OpenDocument. Please stop making these pointless and silly edits. Regards Siegfried Nugent (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said to you on your talk page, Wikipedia uses common names - the names people actually went by, and Bruxner was known throughout his life as Tim. Do your research, then rant. Rebecca (talk)

• May I suggest (and I have made this edit) that the page says "James ("Tim") Bruxner"? You appear to both be right; his name was verifably James Bruxner, and that being his birth name it's the name he will have formally held his offices under. However it's also correct that he's most commonly known as "Tim". The format "James ("Tim") Bruxner" appears to have sufficient clarity for everyone involved, and the longer argument can wait until someone has the time to start a dedicated article on him. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• And if anyone's really doubting that he was called Tim (at least by friends and party members) the evidence begins here: [1] - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Well, Rebeccas has just reverted to the text "James Bruxner" with the edit summary "It's a factual inaccuracy. This can't rationally be disputed if you do any research at all," so I'm going to assume you're both happy with James now and leave it at that. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

And no, you would be wrong, as that was in error. This is the stupidest edit war I have seen on Wikipedia in a long time. Either someone doesn't understand Wikipedia:Use common names at all, someone is actually too stupid to use Google, or both. Neither reflects terribly well on their editing. Rebecca (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I think (with respect to your generally excellent edits that I've seen elsewhere) that the person who doesn't understand Wikipedia:Use common names might be you, Rebecca. That's a guideline on choosing article titles (in fact it's a subsection of Wikipedia:Article titles). It has nothing to do with article content. The sources above adequately demonstrate that Mr Bruxner formally held his office under the name James Bruxner and while the link might redirect to a (hypothetical) article entitled Tim Bruxner (an argument for another time), the text appearing here should definitely say James. If it's an issue you feel passionately about can I suggest you start an article for Mr Bruxner, as the information that article would contain would probably be enlightening for everyone? - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

With respect, DustFormsWords, that's a complete misreading of WP:UCN. By your argument, Division of Wannon should have "John Fraser" as a member; the List of Prime Ministers of Australia would be listing "Edward Whitlam" and "Joseph Chifley". The man was known as Tim, for goodness' sake, as demonstrated by many, many sources on a simple Google search (since some people don't seem to want to do one for themselves). Frickeg (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Gough Whitlam held office as Gough Whitlam; Tim Bruxner held office as James Bruxner. James Bruxner is the name that was on the voting cards, the advertising, the stationary, and the front door of his office. I agree it's a confusing area that doesn't fall neatly into our existing manual of style which is why I initially suggested the compromise position James "Tim" Bruxner. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Also I've started the article James Caird Bruxner, which I fully understand might need to be renamed as Tim Bruxner or James Bruxner, but before we get into a move war over it I'd appreciate if people could give me time to do research and find sources so we've got something meaningful to base that discussion on. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

How is "holding office" as James Bruxner differ from Whitlam, who would have been sworn in as "Edward Gough Whitlam"? As for sources: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] (p. 142). As for appearing on the ballot paper as James, he actually appeared as "Bruxner, James Caird", but everyone else appeared with their full names back then. It's what was done. Have a look at the listings here, for example. Frickeg (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• WP:MOSBIO says the appropriate name is the one most commonly used by reliable sources. Reliable sources calling him Tim also note his name was James; the reverse is less true. But rather than keep fighting (Rebecca's rather aggressively moved the article to Tim Bruxner, and I'll leave it there for now rather than go to what will end up as a 3RR), how about we just agree they're all good names, improve the article content, and revisit it when the article is fleshed out and full of relevant sources? - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• As someone who lived in regional NSW at the time - I have to say that he was always referred to as Tim, just as Whitlam was always Gough and Fraser was always Malcolm. I had no idea he was born James until I came across this discussion. My understanding is that the common usage name is the one used in WP. Porturology (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
• Of course the Herald always claimed to be a journal of record and here's a picture of him with mum and dad: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/17399601?searchTerm=%22tim+bruxner%22. The free archives stop in 1954 otherwise I'd put in an article using the name Tim during his political career. Porturology (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
• Here is one in 1954 with the missus wearing a green hat! http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/18514197?searchTerm=%22tim+bruxner%22Porturology (talk) 04:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it wasn't a green hat - what it was can no longer be said!!!Porturology (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Party of Australia – NSW. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130425085006/http://www.nationals.org.au/Portals/0/2011/The%20Nationals%20Federal%20Constitution%20WEB.PDF to http://www.nationals.org.au/Portals/0/2011/The%20Nationals%20Federal%20Constitution%20WEB.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Merger (Leader and Deputy Leader)

Merged articles. DilatoryRevolution (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 8 May 2023

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: moved. Just noting that the moves were performed by the nominator before closure, will talk to them about it. (closed by non-admin page mover) The Night Watch (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

---

• National Party of Australia – NSW → New South Wales National Party
• National Party of Australia – Victoria → Victorian National Party
• National Party of Australia – Queensland → Queensland National Party
• National Party of Australia (WA) → Western Australian National Party
• National Party of Australia (SA) → South Australian National Party
• National Party of Australia – Tasmania → Tasmanian National Party

– Per the Labor Party discussion. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

That would be this discussion. WWGB (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support for the most part but I'd suggest replacing NSW, WA and SA with full names for the same reasons I did in the Labor Party discussion. SA can mean South Africa for example. --Killuminator (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  NSW seems okay. They call them selves the NSW Nationals officially. But maybe WA and SA too, even though they officially use those names. I suggest not adding "Party" to these though because they call themselves "The Nationals". Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  Honestly, I agree with NSW being kept an acronym, but feel that it should also be applied to the corresponding Liberal and Labor parties. SA and WA I'm fine with being expanded (to avoid possible confusion with South Africa and Washington, for example). Loytra (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  • I'm opposed to both NSW and dropping Party. Retaining proper names and the word party eliminates ambiguity and keeps consistency. The currently ongoing move proposal for the Liberal party has everyone in agreement for non-shortened names and the recently closed Labour equivalent had a consensus formed with everyone actively involved, so I think it's the better outcome and it shouldn't be treated like a thorny issue. --Killuminator (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

    I'm fine with either. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

    @Killuminator: I've fixed it. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 06:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support per Killuminator RoadSmasher420 (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support per Killuminator 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think we're all in agreement. I'll move the pages tomorrow, because that will mark seven days. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

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.

Requested move 12 October 2023

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. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

---

New South Wales National Party → NSW National Party – Move in line with NSW Liberal Party page title Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - NSW Liberal Party should be moved to New South Wales Liberal Party to be consistent with this article and New South Wales Labor Party. Also per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY as I'm not certain the average reader will understand the meaning of NSW. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per Estar8806. Cadingla (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

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.