Talk:Liberals for Forests

Page move
I can't find the discussion regarding the page move, so I'll just kick in here.


 * I've reopened this move proposal as I just found this article and it seems to me that the previous vote was clouded by a merge issue.-- Ian ≡ talk 16:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Voting

 * Support Note that merging will have to take place. The second article is more detailed (and yes, authored by me.) - matturn 16:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but it's also flagrantly wrong. I made a serious effort to merge this, and found so many factual errors that I gave up. Ambi 23:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The material from Liberals for forests should be merged into this article, Liberals for Forests. &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-04-17 16:54 Z 
 * Oppose the move to a lower-case naming.
 * 1) Wikipedia can't have a page title in all lower-case; it's a technical limitation.  The first letter is always capitalized.
 * 2) I'm not familiar with this organization or its literature, but I would say that the all lower-cased name is a styling issue; a treatment created by a graphic designer, and perpetuated in a style guide for the people writing brochures and press releases.  But when marketing style guides don't override the rules of English orthography, a proper noun still has major words capitalized: Liberals for Forests.


 * Support as correct name is liberals for forests. See and . -- Ian ≡ talk 04:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It's hardly ever referred to with the lowercase name - maybe on the ballot paper, but never in the media. Use common names. Ambi 23:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Just because the media has largely decided on a certain form doesn't make it correct. I think the AEC and WAEC evidence is more than enough. I've read somewhere that the lowercase is used to increase percieved separateness from the Liberal Party of Australia. matturn 08:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion
Matturn, since you own the entire edit history for "liberals for forests", we can probably get around merging the histories. Just incorporate or replace the text of that article into this one, or replacing this one, and everybody has credit.

Then we'll still have to vote on moving from this name to that name, since the move will require an admin (because the page liberals for forests has a history).

This will simplify the task for an admin, and will leave us in a situation with one article, instead of two. &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-04-17 19:03 Z 

Article names can't begin with a lowercase letter (see Naming conventions (technical restrictions). I suggest merging the articles at Liberals for forests, adding at the beginning of the article, and making Liberals for Forests redirect to Liberals for forests. &mdash;tregoweth 01:44, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Merger issues
I just came along to do the merge but found a few issues:
 * Which is correct:
 * Liberals for forests: Liberal Party
 * Liberals for Forests: Liberals for Forests is an Australian political minor party, an offshoot of the Liberal Party of Australia.
 * Should Politics of Australia be included when the party itself is not listed?

violet/riga (t) 21:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm genuinely not sure which of those leads is right, but please don't merge the lowercase one into this one unless you're prepared to do some serious fact-checking. I tried quite hard to merge the lowercase article when I found it, but I found so many factual errors that I gave up in frustration. Ambi 23:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * IIRC I had copious links to various reputable newspaper articles supporting everything I'd put in the article. Unlike false statements like lff is an offshoot of the Liberal Party which somehow has managed to remain, and unsourced at that. matturn 08:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Result
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved.

I've contacted a few editors involved here and I guess it's going to remain a stalemate...

Also, to propose a merger you should probably use Proposed mergers.

WhiteNight T 03:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Requested move 25 March 2017

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Liberals for Forests → liberals for forests – This was improperly moved as uncontroversial to the uncapitalised version several years ago, but unfortunately none of us noticed. The party's name, rather infamously, was not capitalised. Frickeg (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's evidently a proper noun, a name. It may have been stylized ungrammatically, but that should cut no ice here. and WP:RS use normal caps. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I tend to think the current page location is correct. One might use  to show it lower case, or are there not enough reliable secondary sources to justify that? Reidgreg (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MOS:TM. This is definitely a proper name. The article already explains how and why the name was sometimes stylized in lower case. Station1 (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Move. It was always referred to as in lowercase. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per book sources. The claim about "always referred to as in lowercase" appears to be nonsense. Dicklyon (talk) 04:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.