Talk:Victoria State Government/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Fair use rationale for Image:Vicgovlogo.jpg
Image:Vicgovlogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Add the image of the logo please....
such as that
--58.38.44.209 (talk) 08:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Requested move 31 May 2020
- 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.
 | It was proposed in this section that Government of Victoria be renamed and moved to Victorian State Government.
result: Links: current log • target log
This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}} |
Government of Victoria → Victorian State Government – The State Government refers to itself as the Victorian Government and has done so for a substantial amount of time. It's the WP:COMMONNAME for the government, and moreover, is the official name (WP:NCGAL). The government is also called the Victorian Government in legislation and has done so for a while now: legislation.vic.gov.au search for "Victorian Government". You can also see this on Google Trends. This move is in-line with recent changes to Queensland Government and Australian Government. ItsPugle (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC) —Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 18:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Previous closure
|
|---|
|
No consensus. See no agreement below to make any change at this time. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can strengthen their arguments and try again in a few months to garner consensus for a page rename. (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 03:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
|
- This was previously Victorian Government, however such title was too ambiguous. There does appear to be a consensus for moving this article to the Government's proper noun though. ItsPugle (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: This is a bit more ambiguous than the other Australian states, because of the other meanings of "Victorian". O.N.R. (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Would Victorian State Government be better? I agree that Victorian Government is a bit ambiguous without either a qualifier or additional word, and the government logo says "State Government". ItsPugle (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Use Victorian state government. "Victorian government" (which would not have a capital g in it, being a descriptive phrase not a proper name) is obviously ambiguous with Queen Victoria's government; many more people have heard of her than of the state in Australia named after her. "Victorian Government" is only the most common name for this subject among Australians (in the same way that "London" means a place in Ontario to people who live in Ontario and who call the original by "London, England" or "London, UK"). Given that the original title also actually has this Queen Victoria ambiguity problem to an extent, "Victorian state government" is the best bet for WP:PRECISE and WP:RECOGNIZABLE purposes, and is not so long that WP:CONCISE is a problem. It will also be WP:CONSISTENT with similar disambiguations, e.g. List of Washington state symbols, and List of New York state parks. If the exact phrase "Victorian State Government" appears capitalised as a proper name in most reliable sources that use the three-word phrase, then I'd be okay with Victorian State Government, capitalised. If "Victorian Government" has actually become an official, formal name, then "Victorian Government (Australia)" might work. I remain skeptical, though. The same nominator makes the same kind of claim at Talk:Government of New South Wales: "The NSW Government refers to itself as the NSW Government". But that is not its official name, and WP doesn't care what shorthand Australian bureaucrats and journalists prefer to use. We have to be much more clear for our own audience.
PS: There are various New York and Washington state article titles that need to be moved to lower-case "state"; "Washington state" and "New York state" are not themselves proper names, though either string may appear in one (e.g. New York State Police and Washington State Guard are proper names). A number of articles are also unnecessarily using parenthetical disambiguators, and should be moved from things like List of mountains of New York (state) to List of mountains of New York state per WP:NATURALDIS and WP:CONCISE, since the added punctuation serves no purpose. (And the fact that the better names are often red links is a clear sign that someone just named them as they liked without much thought going into it.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think using Victorian State Government is appropriate here - as far as I've been taught etc, you use a capital G for the actual authority (the Australian Government), and a lowercase g when talking about general governance (the government). I'm not too involved when it comes to the US' articles, as I have some personal qualms about American English. Not to mention that the US' government isn't exactly consistent (or organised) when it comes to how it refers to various nouns and phrases. WikiProject US Government or even WikiProject USA might be able to help though. ItsPugle (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: Are you okay with Victoria State Government (minus the n) since that matches with the state logo? ItsPugle (talk) 04:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- I would be okay with Victoria state government, since the phrase isn't really a proper name (nor is Victoria state). Going the shortest route, Victoria government, still has a whiff of ambiguity. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: Are you okay with Victoria State Government (minus the n) since that matches with the state logo? ItsPugle (talk) 04:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think using Victorian State Government is appropriate here - as far as I've been taught etc, you use a capital G for the actual authority (the Australian Government), and a lowercase g when talking about general governance (the government). I'm not too involved when it comes to the US' articles, as I have some personal qualms about American English. Not to mention that the US' government isn't exactly consistent (or organised) when it comes to how it refers to various nouns and phrases. WikiProject US Government or even WikiProject USA might be able to help though. ItsPugle (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. The current name is the clearest one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- The current name fails to meet WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCGAL as per the tabled evidence. ItsPugle (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Sometimes we have to do things for consistency. See Talk:Government of New Zealand#Requested move 29 May 2020. And given its website calls it the Victorian Government, neither Victorian State Government nor Victorian state government meet WP:COMMONNAME or WP:NCGAL either! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- The current consistency has no consensus behind it and is broken in a lot of places where policy and consensus has been established (Australian Government, Federal government of the United States etc). As per the above discussion, the Victorian (State) Government refers to itself as both the Victorian Government and Victorian State Government in various locations. The use of Victorian Government is too ambiguous with Victorian-era governance, unlike the latter of the two which is common (it's the text used on the government logo!) and recognisable. As an effect of having two commonly used official terms, WP:NCGAL supports either, defaulting the policy to the latter of the above. In respect to the RM for Government of New Zealand, it just got totally out of hand with all the pages being discussed. As a result, no consensus (neither for nor against) was reached for the NZ Government. I'm probably going to list just the New Zealand Government to be moved, and not the other pages, as in my opinion, there was a significant consensus to move NZ Government, but was just lost in the discussion of others. ItsPugle (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- WP:CONSISTENT is toward the bottom of the WP:CRITERIA priority stack; WP:PRECISE is much more important, and "government of Victoria" can still easily be misunderstood as the governance of Queen Victoria, or the British government (in the parliament-controlled sense) under HM. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: Just as an observer's comment, I don't think WP:CRITERIA was written, nor is it meant to be read, as a priority list. Moreover, the paragraph immediately after clarifies that "...in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others. This is done by consensus." (which is essentially the crux of this discussion). – Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 03:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with the quoted material, of course, and your reason for quoting it. However, the WP:CRITERIA order is actually quite specific and treated as intentional (because it is, as the product of long and vociferous debates). The order has not changed in over a decade, for good reasons. If you went to go alphabetize them or whatever, you would be reverted. The core of what is presently named WP:Article titles developed organically over WP's early years, and was a jumble of crucial to just good-but-optional points, many of the latter of which have since been moved to split-off guideline pages on various naming-conventions topics, or shunted to WP:AT end-material subsections. The key points were identified and put in the present order in 2009, and after a month or so of debate and editwarring settled into the order, based on priority not on whim. I've researched this in considerable detail, though it is too long to post here. I've put it in WP:Article titles/Criteria order, which is something I meant to write up years ago but kept forgetting to get around to. I was active at WP for all of that history, though I mostly avoided direct involvement in those discussion due to other fish to fry, and due to an already over-long history of conflict with two of the loudest participants in those CRITERIA-formation debates. In retrospect, I would have been more involved, but I don't think any of us in 2009 would have predicted either a habit of one-liner "shortcut !votes" (e.g. just "per WP:PRECISE" as one's entire rationale), nor any eventual confusion about the criteria list being random and equal rather than in a very hard-won priority order. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: With all due respect, WP:CRITERIAORDER isn't policy and hasn't received nor was established through any community consensus. The page's history shows that you created it just less than 24h ago and you are the only contributor to it, indicating no widespread adoption, support, or development from the broader Wikipedia community. I also cannot see any consensus or even a discussion about the order of WP:CRITERIA and if the order denotes any significance. Could you provide a link to this discussion? On the contrary, MOS:LIST actually says that a numbered list should be used to signal when the order of items is relevant, yet WP:CRITERIA uses a bulleted list, suggesting that a decision was made that order is in fact not important. WP:CRITERIA even enables editors to not follow the guidelines it sets: "These should be seen as goals, not as rules." WP:UCRN, underneath WP:CRITERIA, directly supports using the commonly recognisable name (i.e. Victorian State Government) as well. WP:SOURCES also is of relevance here, and as I explained initially, the vast majority of reputable sources refer to the government as the Victoria State Government. ItsPugle (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see what point you're trying to make. When I do the background research on the history of the wording in the policy and tell you I've put it at a page, I am telling you I've done background research on the history of the wording in the policy and have put it at a page. I have not made an assertion that I've written a new policy or anything else for people to "establish... through ... community consensus [for] widespread adoption, support or development". It's simply diff-digging to provide editorial history. I.e., it is evidence and analysis, not instruction or prohibition. When I tell you that I did this yesterday and that it was too long to post here so I put it in a separate page, I'm bewildered that you would think it important to note that I'm the one who did it, and that I did it yesterday. Are you even paying any attention to the content of this material, or just doing some kind of WP:WINNING-style "argument for sport" thing? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- I still can't actually see any consensus on user or article talk pages. With all respect, and I truly mean that, verifiability extends beyond just facts in the article, so it's really hard for me to agree with WP:CRITERIAORDER. Fundamentally, from my perspective, WP:CRITERIAORDER hasn't demonstrated and support and hence has no authority until there's a clearly established and discussed consensus that can be demonstrated. Quite litterally, as the prepended note on the page says, the principles of WP:CRITERIAORDER "have not been thoroughly vetted by the community" and "is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines", and as such, should not be used as basis for this, or any, RM. I really appreciate your perspective here, but I feel that we're starting to go around in circles and aren't making any progress on the core topic here, which is the RM, so I won't be trying to convey/justify my perspective any further along this specific line of thought. Simply put, I just disagree with what you're saying here. Please don't take this as being passive aggressive or me not respecting your opinion, because I truly do respect you and your intentions and perspective, I just don't really feel like we're making any progress. ItsPugle (talk)
- Well, "it's really hard for me to agree" isn't an argument. I've provided a boatload of evidence, and you're giving me WP:IDONTLIKEIT (or maybe it's a WP-internal variant of WP:IDONTKNOWIT). I don't mean this disrespectfully either, and agree that circular argument isn't useful. I just don't see that your position has anything backing it up, just a preference or wish that the criteria had no prioritization. But we regularly – every single day, at RM – apply them prioritized. COMMONNAME (essentially a restatement of RECOGNIZABLE) is always the first principle, and we routinely sacrifice CONSISTENT and/or CONCISE in the interests of COMMONNAME/RECOGNIZABLE, NATURAL, and PRECISE. We also sacrifice PRECISE for NATURAL; it's better to use something readers can relate to and will expect, and disambiguate it as necessary, than to use a geeky, jargonistic title only specialists will get. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- I still can't actually see any consensus on user or article talk pages. With all respect, and I truly mean that, verifiability extends beyond just facts in the article, so it's really hard for me to agree with WP:CRITERIAORDER. Fundamentally, from my perspective, WP:CRITERIAORDER hasn't demonstrated and support and hence has no authority until there's a clearly established and discussed consensus that can be demonstrated. Quite litterally, as the prepended note on the page says, the principles of WP:CRITERIAORDER "have not been thoroughly vetted by the community" and "is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines", and as such, should not be used as basis for this, or any, RM. I really appreciate your perspective here, but I feel that we're starting to go around in circles and aren't making any progress on the core topic here, which is the RM, so I won't be trying to convey/justify my perspective any further along this specific line of thought. Simply put, I just disagree with what you're saying here. Please don't take this as being passive aggressive or me not respecting your opinion, because I truly do respect you and your intentions and perspective, I just don't really feel like we're making any progress. ItsPugle (talk)
- I don't see what point you're trying to make. When I do the background research on the history of the wording in the policy and tell you I've put it at a page, I am telling you I've done background research on the history of the wording in the policy and have put it at a page. I have not made an assertion that I've written a new policy or anything else for people to "establish... through ... community consensus [for] widespread adoption, support or development". It's simply diff-digging to provide editorial history. I.e., it is evidence and analysis, not instruction or prohibition. When I tell you that I did this yesterday and that it was too long to post here so I put it in a separate page, I'm bewildered that you would think it important to note that I'm the one who did it, and that I did it yesterday. Are you even paying any attention to the content of this material, or just doing some kind of WP:WINNING-style "argument for sport" thing? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: With all due respect, WP:CRITERIAORDER isn't policy and hasn't received nor was established through any community consensus. The page's history shows that you created it just less than 24h ago and you are the only contributor to it, indicating no widespread adoption, support, or development from the broader Wikipedia community. I also cannot see any consensus or even a discussion about the order of WP:CRITERIA and if the order denotes any significance. Could you provide a link to this discussion? On the contrary, MOS:LIST actually says that a numbered list should be used to signal when the order of items is relevant, yet WP:CRITERIA uses a bulleted list, suggesting that a decision was made that order is in fact not important. WP:CRITERIA even enables editors to not follow the guidelines it sets: "These should be seen as goals, not as rules." WP:UCRN, underneath WP:CRITERIA, directly supports using the commonly recognisable name (i.e. Victorian State Government) as well. WP:SOURCES also is of relevance here, and as I explained initially, the vast majority of reputable sources refer to the government as the Victoria State Government. ItsPugle (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with the quoted material, of course, and your reason for quoting it. However, the WP:CRITERIA order is actually quite specific and treated as intentional (because it is, as the product of long and vociferous debates). The order has not changed in over a decade, for good reasons. If you went to go alphabetize them or whatever, you would be reverted. The core of what is presently named WP:Article titles developed organically over WP's early years, and was a jumble of crucial to just good-but-optional points, many of the latter of which have since been moved to split-off guideline pages on various naming-conventions topics, or shunted to WP:AT end-material subsections. The key points were identified and put in the present order in 2009, and after a month or so of debate and editwarring settled into the order, based on priority not on whim. I've researched this in considerable detail, though it is too long to post here. I've put it in WP:Article titles/Criteria order, which is something I meant to write up years ago but kept forgetting to get around to. I was active at WP for all of that history, though I mostly avoided direct involvement in those discussion due to other fish to fry, and due to an already over-long history of conflict with two of the loudest participants in those CRITERIA-formation debates. In retrospect, I would have been more involved, but I don't think any of us in 2009 would have predicted either a habit of one-liner "shortcut !votes" (e.g. just "per WP:PRECISE" as one's entire rationale), nor any eventual confusion about the criteria list being random and equal rather than in a very hard-won priority order. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: Just as an observer's comment, I don't think WP:CRITERIA was written, nor is it meant to be read, as a priority list. Moreover, the paragraph immediately after clarifies that "...in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others. This is done by consensus." (which is essentially the crux of this discussion). – Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 03:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- WP:CONSISTENT is toward the bottom of the WP:CRITERIA priority stack; WP:PRECISE is much more important, and "government of Victoria" can still easily be misunderstood as the governance of Queen Victoria, or the British government (in the parliament-controlled sense) under HM. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- The current consistency has no consensus behind it and is broken in a lot of places where policy and consensus has been established (Australian Government, Federal government of the United States etc). As per the above discussion, the Victorian (State) Government refers to itself as both the Victorian Government and Victorian State Government in various locations. The use of Victorian Government is too ambiguous with Victorian-era governance, unlike the latter of the two which is common (it's the text used on the government logo!) and recognisable. As an effect of having two commonly used official terms, WP:NCGAL supports either, defaulting the policy to the latter of the above. In respect to the RM for Government of New Zealand, it just got totally out of hand with all the pages being discussed. As a result, no consensus (neither for nor against) was reached for the NZ Government. I'm probably going to list just the New Zealand Government to be moved, and not the other pages, as in my opinion, there was a significant consensus to move NZ Government, but was just lost in the discussion of others. ItsPugle (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Sometimes we have to do things for consistency. See Talk:Government of New Zealand#Requested move 29 May 2020. And given its website calls it the Victorian Government, neither Victorian State Government nor Victorian state government meet WP:COMMONNAME or WP:NCGAL either! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- The current name fails to meet WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCGAL as per the tabled evidence. ItsPugle (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with Victorian state government. StormcrowMithrandir 06:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Looks like there is a consensus for change, but no clear consensus on what to change it to, with the main disagreement being on capitalisation. "Victoria State Government" appears to be a proper name, and alongside "Victorian Government", appears to be the two main titles the government uses to describe itself. Amongst reliable sources, there is a discrepancy in capitalisation too. The Guardian, for example, does not capitalise, whilst some Australian media sources and ABC do. I think it will ultimately come down to the proper name status of the government, and what their official name is per WP:NCGAL. I would suggest you seek comment from the appropriate WikiProjects to resolve the matter. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- I would prefer Victoria State Government as that as the proper noun as per the logo. Generally, lower case "government" refers to broad governance, rather than an entity or organisation (or at least, that's what I've been taught!). ItsPugle (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- I agree; "Victoria State Government" would also avoid any potential confusion that "Victorian" might cause. I don't have an opinion about whether to move the article or not, but if we do end up moving it then I'd rather have it be to this. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- I would prefer Victoria State Government as that as the proper noun as per the logo. Generally, lower case "government" refers to broad governance, rather than an entity or organisation (or at least, that's what I've been taught!). ItsPugle (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose: Current name is clear and unambiguous, renaming will make it inconsistent with the standard naming convention used for all other Australian government articles and seemingly most globally. Fecotank (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hey! Other significant Australian government articles such as Queensland Government and Australian Government use their WP:COMMONNAME/official name, based off actual policy. Internationally, other governments such as the Scottish Government use this more accurate and appropriate title :) ItsPugle (talk) 12:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@Old Naval Rooftops, SMcCandlish, Necrothesp, StormcrowMithrandir, ProcrastinatingReader, 3 kids in a trenchcoat, and Fecotank:
Hi everyone! Sorry for the ping if you're not interested, but I just wanted to jump in and use the next few days before this is closed to form a bit more of a formal consensus. As far as I (and ProcrastinatingReader, I think) can see, there appears to be some consensus to move, with just a little bit of fuzziness around the target article title - particularly, the capitalisation. Starting somewhat anew, how do we feel about Victoria State Government as the target? ItsPugle (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- This appears to be the capitalization they use for their logo, so I'm fine with it. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- I can live with it. I don't think WP:OFFICIALNAME is a good basis for arguing in favor of this, but it'll be WP:RECOGNIZABLE, and it doesn't have any ambiguity problems caused by the word "Victorian" or by the name "Victoria" without a contexual label like "[s|S]tate". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think 'Victorian State Government' or 'Victoria State Government' would both be equally fine.--StormcrowMithrandir 04:36, 4 July 2020 (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.
Name
The official website of the government says the Victorian Government why in the article it says the Victoria State government instead victorian government. I know in the logo its says Victoria State Government but official its Victorian Government. Below is the webpage of the victorian government website. In every single page, it's written as the victorian government only
- https://www.vic.gov.au/
- https://www.vic.gov.au/victorian-government-directory
- https://www.vic.gov.au/about-victorian-government
- https://w.www.vic.gov.au/contactsandservices/directory/
That why I change the first sentence from "The Victoria state government" to "The Victorian government". Thomasmax911 (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)