Wikipedia

Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)/Archive 2

< Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)
Latest comment: 10 months ago by BilledMammal in topic Requested move 14 January 2024
Archive 1Archive 2

Ordinary citizens?

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

We are told in the article that the party was "started and run by ordinary citizens..." I always have my doubts about "ordinary citizens".

Of the three people named in the article, two have no references associated with them, so we cannot tell how ordinary they are, or even whether they are citizens. The third, John Humphreys, is an academic, author of several books, and is clearly a very politically active person. So, he's not very ordinary.

That whole claim at the top is very POV, clearly trying to give the party a particular image, but hardly justified by the sources, or lack of them.

HiLo48 (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This article's been a problem for a while, but no one's got around to fixing it up. The whole thing has pretty serious POV problems - by all means go right ahead and fix it up. Your point about "ordinary citizens" is quite accurate. Frickeg (talk) 09:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes this article is pretty much an LDP self-promotion page as it currently stands... needs attention. Timeshift (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I can find no secondary sources for this article and will therefore nominate it for deletion. TFD (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
And watch the AfD fail. Timeshift (talk) 07:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Since the AfD started, fans have now provided five secondary sources, whereas before we had nil. TFD (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
And of course we all know that wikipedia is so successful because of manipulation and intimidation through the threat of article deletion rather than talkpage discussion *rolls eyes* Timeshift (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a known fact that a fair proportion of editors have never looked at a Talk page. (Well, bloody obvious to me, anyway.) If the strategy of threatening deletion wakes up and educates a few editors, all the better for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
It is an abuse of the AfD process. You think the ends justify the means. I don't. I suppose that is where we disagree. Personally I think it's a poor reflection and an indictment on wikipedia contributors, when it seems based on a small sample here that we are now prepared to invest time in AfD initiation rather than put that same energy in to article improvement. All the better? We got this far without threatening AfDs and look how far wikipedia has come. Timeshift (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"The paper described the LDP as"

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm not quite sure what part of this the IPs do not understand. The contributions made by the IPs are not cited and as such, WP:OR. Timeshift (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Merged articles about different parties

Latest comment: 8 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

I am not convinced that the recent merge by Orthogonal1 to combine the articles about three distinct political parties into this article is the right choice. Given that the merge was undone by The Drover's Wife but redone by the original editor suggests I am not the only one with concerns. There may be close links between them and either movement of people between them or people holding senior positions in more than one of them, but they still have their own membership and legal identity. The two without parliamentary representation are required to maintain their own set of at least 500 members who are not on any other party's list. For example, we do not merge the articles about BHP Billiton and 21st Century Fox despite Jac Nasser being chairman of one board and member of the other, and we have separate articles for state-level parties as well as national parties for some brands. I would rather see the articles kept separate for each registered party, and document the relationships if they can be verified (the provided reference is marginally better than speculation). --Scott Davis Talk 05:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

It's completely inappropriate to make a controversial merge without discussion and then revert to try to retain it rather than actually getting a consensus for the merge. The Outdoor Recreation Party had a member of parliament before the LDP even existed, and co-existed with them for eight years before the (unsourced) apparent takeover by the LDP: even if they are now run by the same people, they have completely different histories. The Smokers Rights Party and the Republican Party are more arguable, but I agree with ScottDavis there. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I would have been happy to get consensus when you reverted it, but you didn't give a reason, so I didn't know what I had to respond to. But no point arguing about that now, let us move on.
Let's deal with the less disputed Smokers' Rights Party first. I doubt that it meets WP:GNG, but the information would still be good to have in Wikipedia. I thought that the most natural place to include this information would be the LDP article, but could you think of anywhere else? Orthogonal1 (talk) 06:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
TDW didn't need to give a reason. You were bold, she reverted, now the onus is on you to start discussion. In any case, I am opposed to both of these merges. ORP is in my view totally indefensible given its previous history: with an elected member of the NSW parliament, it unquestionably meets GNG and then some. The Republican Party in my view is also not really open to question, given it also has a completely independent previous history and is still a separate, if connected, organisation.
I will concede that Smokers Rights is a more questionable case, but I still think a stand-alone article is warranted. Generally the Australian politics project has taken the view that party registration and contesting an election is the bar for automatic notability; SRP passes both of those. It is a somewhat unusual case in that it is pretty much entirely a front party for the LDP; off the top of my head I can only think of the Curtin Labor Alliance as a similar situation but even that had distinctive qualities. But even if we take that into account, I still think SRP is best dealt with in its own article; despite its very close connections to the LDP, candidates have campaigned as SRP candidates and have appeared at candidate forums, etc., as such. I do not see that it has less coverage than many other registered micro-parties. I also think ScottDavis makes a very good point above - while it is fairly obvious from an OR perspective how closely the SRP and LDP are connected, and many opinion articles have made that point, they still identify formally as separate entities. Frickeg (talk) 07:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I can see where you're coming from with the ORP. According to the article, it had ties to Glenn Druery since its creation, which makes me think that it has always been the same group of people involved. Even if it wasn't, after 2009 it definitely is - the article says "In late-2009, the ORP allied itself with the Liberal Democratic Party in NSW to contest the March 2011 election. This move enables the ORP to participate in federal elections through the LDP's federal registration and, conversely, the LDP can participate in NSW elections using the ORP name." I'd say it deserves both its own article and a mention under the LDP feeder parties section because of these unique circumstances.
While I like the idea of including all parties that have registered and stood candidates, I think that we should make an exception for feeder parties - there's often not much to say about them other than that they are feeder parties. For example, it wouldn't be sensible to have articles on all of the parties which contested the 1999 NSW Legislative Council election. For this reason, I think that the argument for a standalone SRP article can't be made out. Orthogonal1 (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Glenn Druery is not the LDP - the last few elections he seems to have primarily been working for the Shooters Party and briefly popped up as a staffer for Ricky Muir (and last I heard was not even terribly fond of the LDP), so I'm not sure where you get the "same group of people involved". This is the danger in attempting to merge parties based on these kind of claims: unless it's well-documentedgenerally , it's very easy to get the wrong end of the stick and be way off. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why I was hesitant to say that it was certainly the same people pre-2009. I wouldn't have put that claim in the article before (and definitely not now that you've explained it). I'm focussing on the claims beyond doubt. Orthogonal1 (talk) 03:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the "feeder parties" section is likely a great addition to this article, and will help to sort out the jumble of statements in the Emergence section (the History should also be prose instead of bullets). However I don't think that merging the other parties' articles is the right solution, they should be called out with {{further}}, {[tl|main}} or just wikilinked in the prose to their own articles. The focus of the paragraphs here would be the relationships to the LDP, which would only be relatively minor parts of their own articles. --Scott Davis Talk 03:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I think this is a good solution. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
So do I. Orthogonal1 (talk) 04:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Also in agreement. For the record, I also agree that the many feeder groups of NSW 1999 would not be notable, but I think they are a special case rather than the other way around (I can't think of any other elections where this would apply). A list article covering all of them would be a good idea one day, though! Frickeg (talk) 07:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Liberal Democratic Party (Australia). 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:

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) 05:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liberal Democratic Party (Australia). 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:

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) 18:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liberal Democratic Party (Australia). 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:

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) 01:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

How many seats does the Party have in the Australian Senate?

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am new to wikipedia and perhaps researching but from the Australian Parliament website and the Parliamentary Education Office Website the Liberal Democratic Party does not currently have any seats in the Senate. Am I reading things wrong, or should the page show that the Party currently has 0 seats in the Senate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by V.L.Laser (talk • contribs) 07:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Right-wing

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Similar classical liberal parties such as ACT New Zealand and Party of Free Citizens are described as right-wing in their info boxes. Also, there are numerous sources supporting applying the same position to Leyonhjelm and the LDP (and it's ally Family First):

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/samesex-free-vote-becomes-inevitable/story-e6frg6zo-1226990232597 http://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2014/07/12/estranged-bedfellows-bob-day-and-david-leyonhjelm/1405087200 http://m.afr.com/p/national/meet_bob_and_david_our_new_libertarian_LkXOVpa8yOXC0s7ZZJDGHN http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/07/14/elec-j14.html http://junkee.com/senator-david-leyonhjelm-gave-a-surprisingly-awesome-speech-about-marriage-equality/37932 http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/07/01/senator-leyonhjelm-says-some-cultures-incompatible-australian-society --Jay942942 (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I would oppose this in the strongest possible terms. The LDP is the party that shows most clearly why the left-right spectrum is broken; it clearly does not fit onto it in any meaningful way, and it specifically points that out on its own website. Of the sources you provide, we can clearly remove the World Socialist Web Site (obviously not an RS on something like this). I'm not convinced Junkee is an RS either, and the author of that article clearly hasn't the first idea what "small-l liberal" means. The SBS link does not say anything about the LDP being right-wing. I can't read the paywalled Australian piece, but I do know it's opinion so it doesn't count either. The Fin Review says that Leyonhjelm has radical right ideas - a minor distinction, perhaps, but a distinction nonetheless. And Seccombe starts off by calling Leyonhjelm right-wing, but later on calls him libertarian - which is contradictory. In any case, Leyonhjelm describes himself as a classical liberal, which is definitely not the same thing as ring-wing. The stuff about ACT and the PFC is irrelevant as they have nothing to do with the LDP. There is a very good reason that we decided to stop including the left-right terms in party infoboxes, and the LDP would be the worst possible exception to make. Frickeg (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I generally agree. The LDP have economic views that are so right they make the Liberals look like the Communist Party, views on some minority issues that fit within the Liberal mainstream, and views on some other social issues that would fit within the Greens. They're more right than they are left (especially with Leyonjhelm) but "right-wing" is too simplistic a classification. I would prefer "libertarian" than "classical liberal", however; "classical liberals" don't tend to be quite so hellbent on destroying the welfare state as radical libertarians. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
"Position in the political spectrum" should not be used not "because the political spectrum is meaningless concept only used by the Left", but because the ideology field provides sufficient information and there is disagreement over the placement of ideologies in the spectrum. Hence while editors agree that at least 100 parties can be described as "liberal", and agree that it is to the left of conservatism and to the right of socialism, we have arguments whether it should be seen as right-wing, center-right, centrist, center-left or left-wing. The info-box is for straight-forward non-controversial information. So I would delete the field. TFD (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
3rd party sources almost universally refer to LDP as right-wing. It must be further noted that individualism, the stance they take which some claim is left-wing in regards to certain issues e.g. drug-law reform, is not a left-wing stance per se. Not liking what is conveyed by third party sources is not a reasonable position for editing. AlanStalk 23:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Description of political position

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Since this has been the subject of an edit war with no end in sight, we should probably hold a vote on how to describe the LDP's political position. Should it be:

  1. Centre-right to right-wing
  2. Syncretic

Pinging Special:Contributions/124.149.205.42, User:Micmicm, User:HiLo48, User:Moxy, User:Marcnut1996 and User:MarioBayo, all of whom have edited this page within November. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm one who sees the traditional left-right spectrum becoming less and less applicable as time goes on. The Greens, for example, having now become significant players all over the world, don't fit anywhere obvious on it (despite some of their opponents insisting they're communists). The Australian Lib Dems are also hard to stick anywhere on it either with any certainty. Their policies seem to change so dramatically from time to time, perhaps making "fluid" a logical descriptor. Some of their policies are clearly populist, some are crazy (IMHO), and some are weird. Some are leftish, some are blatantly rightist. I can't support syncretic, because I had no idea what it meant until this morning, and I think my literacy level is of at least a little above average level. (Thank you for adding another word to my vocabulary.) If I was forced to stick them somewhere on that increasingly hard to use left-right spectrum, I'd say that, on average, from a very broad range, their position is on the right hand side. But I'd rather we didn't say. Just describe their more important policies. HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


There appears to be somewhat of a consensus in the Australian news-media that the party, however it describes itself, is right-leaning. This is where the source for its position comes from. Whether it be centre-right or right-wing is a more distinct debate. The Australian has described it as centre-right,[1] and indeed, has accrued a following of disaffected Liberal members/voters (a party, despite its large ideological span, acknowledged as being centre-right to right-wing), including former Queensland Premier Campbell Newman,[2] as well as garnering support from Australian COVID-19 protestors. The Spectator, an openly conservative outlet, has also given the Lib Dems very favourable coverage. In fact, a Lib Dem candidate writes at the Spectator (John Ruddick).[3] And if you turn to the more 'left-wing' outlets such as the Guardian Australia and Jacobin, they describe the party as right-wing, or having right-wing supporters/members.[4][5][6]

References

  1. ^ "Lib Dems aim to fill vacuum on centre-right". The Australian. 14 July 2021. Retrieved 4 October 2022.
  2. ^ McKenna, Kate; Loftus, Tobi (16 May 2022). "Queensland's Senate ballot includes several high-profile candidates, but it's unlikely all will secure a spot". ABC News. It's a Saturday afternoon in late April and the former Brisbane lord mayor and one-time premier who is seeking to be senator enters the Liberal Democrats official Queensland federal election campaign launch to applause and calls of "Hello, Newman".
  3. ^ "John Ruddick". spectator.com.au. The Spectator Australia.
  4. ^ Davies, Anne (27 July 2021). "Rightwing Australian politicians use Covid lockdowns to promote challenge to Liberal party". Guardian Australia.
  5. ^ Gillespie, Eden (8 May 2022). "'I am not a Nazi': Liberal Democrats candidate 'deeply regrets' white supremacist Facebook posts". Guardian Australia.
  6. ^ Kelly, Dominic (22 September 2021). "Australia's Right-Wing Libertarians Are Trying to Capitalize on Anti-Lockdown Sentiment". jacobin.com. Jacobin.

Requested move 19 July 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments8 people in discussion
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: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 06:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Liberal Democratic Party (Australia) → Libertarian Party (Australia) – The party is no longer known as the Liberal Democratic Party and has since changed it's name. Catiline52 (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Support: The party members have voted for a name change and the AEC have been notified and so I see no reason why it shouldn't happen. The disambiguation page at Libertarian_Party will need to be updated if this move request is carried. AlanStalk 03:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Support It seems the only logical thing to do. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: No such application has been published on the AEC website. This party will likely change its name to "Libertarian Party" soon, but we need to wait until it actually does so, and not pre-empt it. We should wait until the Australian Electoral Commission actually approves the name change. Speculating - there may well be branch variations, where some states implement the change and some do not, or objection to the name change from other actors in the registration process which are upheld by the AEC as described by the Electoral Act, which would make a name change of this article inappropriate. J2m5 (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
    Support: The name change is inevitable - all branches bar NSW have changed their branding, an application in Victoria has been made but delayed bc of Warrandyte by-election
    I understand why you might want to wait but the party name has changed - just not the registration Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
    No such application exists on the AEC website as the formerly named Liberal Democrats have been de-registered at a federal level. Not sure why we'd need to wait for a party that doesn't exist federally? Catiline52 (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The change to "Libertarian Party" is mired in potential /actual litigation as the trademark IPAustralia Search is registered and is desired by force of want as there are currently two elected party members, Limbrick (VIC) and Ruddick (NSW) - irony is one is from the left and the other from the right, just how far extreme on the spectrum is for the individual to discern. The AEC enacts a stringent process and with the 'libertarian' name held by those other than the potential usurpers then time will tell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.237.236 (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
    Yeah a bloke that has voted in favour of conversion therapy practices is from the left. Good laugh. You libertarians confuse issues which are about individualism as being left-wing too much. AlanStalk 05:16, 25 July 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 28 September 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments7 people in discussion
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. Contributors think it is too soon to make this change. Leaving this move request open indefinitely until something changes seems unnecessary to me. If something materially changes, then this can be renominated in the future. (non-admin closure) Rreagan007 (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Liberal Democratic Party (Australia) → Libertarian Party (Australia) – Obviously we had this discussion just after the new name was announced in July, but it's worth making the change now.

The party is registered in three jurisdictions - Victoria, NSW and the ACT. The registration in Victoria has changed and any candidate (hint hint 2023 Mulgrave state by-election) will appear as 'Libertarian' on the ballot https://www.vec.vic.gov.au/about-us/media/28-september-change-of-registered-political-party-name

The ACT branch has rebranded on its socials and their registered name will likely change soon too https://www.facebook.com/LibDemACT

All other unregistered state branches, as well as the federal branch, have changed their name on social media except for NSW (the party said they aren't changing their NSW name just yet)

Given 'Libertarian' may be on a ballot within weeks as the name is now officially registered - the change is now not premature Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 10:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I've moved the page for the other Libertarian Party, which is now called Liberty Australia. It should soon be possible to move this page to Libertarian Party (Australia)
--MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment a disambiguation page or list page should be created for Libertarian Parties from Australia, the eras that they existed in and eras in which they were called "Libertarian" and regions in which they operated should be indicated in such a page. -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose would still oppose this name change as on the party's website, if you click each state/territory branch under "states," only the Victorian branch refers to itself as "Libertarian Party" and all other branches continue to refer to themselves as "Liberal Democrats"/"Liberal Democratic Party." Moreover, the electoral registration name change has only been done for the Victorian branch. John Ruddick is also still referred to as a Liberal Democratic Party MP in the NSW parliament. I think it would be unwise to pre-empt a federal name change if there is disagreement in the branches as to what the party should be called. The way I organise it in my head is that the Victorian branch of the Liberal Democrats is named the "Libertarian Party," and all other branches, at present, retain the name "Liberal Democratic Party." If the Liberal Democrats attain federal registration under the name "Libertarian Party" by the time of the writs of the next election, then I would support the name change regardless of if the other state and territory branches retain the name "Liberal Democrats." However, at present, I see no reason as to why we should be supporting such a name change - Wikipedia should not predict what will happen in the future. I think the party website is a better source than the social media accounts. J2m5 (talk) 05:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Australia has been notified of this discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Politics has been notified of this discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose given that the party is still federally called Liberal Democrats, the name should be left as is for the time being. Allow redirects from Libertarian Party (Victoria) etc but until a federal name change, I don't think the move should go ahead. Paddleboat4 (talk) 10:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Comment - The federal branch has applied formally to rename itself to the Libertarian Party. Keep discussion open till AEC makes a call?
https://twitter.com/kevinbonham/status/1715858847456457184?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 21:41, 22 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.

Requested move 14 January 2024

Latest comment: 10 months ago5 comments5 people in discussion
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. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Liberal Democratic Party (Australia) → Libertarian Party (Australia) – Third time's the charm?

LDP is now registered as Libertarian Party with the AEC, it'll be their name if they run in Dunkley and other states have also all rebranded and/or re-registered

I see no reason not to move the page now

https://twitter.com/LibertariansAus/status/1745581135730729373 Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Support per reasons above. The previous RM appears to have failed due to most state branches having not yet adopted the new name, but now that they have, I think it's a good time to move. Aydoh8 (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libertarian_Party_(Australia)/Archive_2&oldid=1255938615"