Talk:Liberal–National party merger

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Conservatism

	Conservatism portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
	This redirect has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Australia: Politics

	Australia portal Liberal–National party merger 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
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
	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.

Proposed merge

I'm not clear on what this article is about: is it about the Coalition, a proposed coalition, a merger between parties, a proposed merger between parties, an event that changed the composition of the Coalition? The inconsistent use of "coalition" and "Coalition" is also confusing (e.g., in the lead, using the word "coalition" in lowercase to link to an article about the "Coalition" with a capital "C").

I suggest that this content would be better served in another article, probably Coalition (Australia), or possibly Liberal National Party? —sroc (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is quiet confusing and can be culled down to fit in the 'parent article' without much disruption. Романов (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The repeated proposals for mergers between the various bits of the Liberals and the Nationals is a subject independent of both the Coalition (Australia) and the individual players, such as the Liberal National Party. I don't think any merger would help. This is just a very poor article. Deleting it would be no real loss. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there's going to be a merger, I think it should be with the Liberal National Party of Queensland article.--Forward Unto Dawn 11:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liberal–National party merger. 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/20080203180456/http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C23599%2C23136822-5007146%2C00.html to http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C23599%2C23136822-5007146%2C00.html

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) 06:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]