Talk:Public Education Party

Previous names
This article concerns a party previously named "Voluntary Euthanasia Party (NSW)" and "Reason Party (NSW)". I previously argued that the Voluntary Euthanasia Party page should be moved to this name as there is continuity between the VEP and this party despite other branches deregistering. I opened two discussions on the matter. Both were closed without appropriate discussion and the VEP page remains where it was before the discussion. This was disappointing but I will not continue to open these discussions.

Instead, I wrote this article about the branch under its various names. Information on this party before its successive name changes was recently removed. To be clear, this is the same party as the NSW branch of the Voluntary Euthanasia Party and Reason Party NSW. The overall parties, as distinct from the NSW state branches, have their own pages (Reason Party (Australia) and Voluntary Euthanasia Party but this does not mean that the branch information should not be covered here. The obvious parallel is the NSW branches of the Liberal Party and the Labor Party. Both the federal parties and the state parties have their own pages that cover distinct topics despite overlap.

I do not care which resolution is reached (VEP move or distinct page) on this but any article that bears this title should contain information on the party under its previous names and associations. Without that, this article is not notable and should be deleted. User:The Drover's Wife and User:Damien Linnane, please let us know your thoughts on how to resolve this without simple reverts. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I re-added the material. It's plainly relevant as the history of this specific party, as opposed to the national VEP, and I don't really see an argument for excluding it. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you adding your perspective. I appreciate that. However, while I agree with the outcome, I think it would have been appropriate to have completed the discussion before reverting. That has been the problem with this entire process. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:BRD. It's completely acceptable to make bold changes without prior discussion. I'm not going to remove the content again now that another person concurs it should remain.
 * I don't see why you're complaining about the 'two discussions' you opened being 'closed without appropriate discussion'. The first one was closed by a third party after I correctly pointed out we don't change the names of something in advance of the names actually changing. There was nothing left to discuss. And while I did indeed close the second discussion, I only did so after doing exactly what you asked for. As I mentioned on that article's talk page, the reason I didn't wait for additional comments is because we'd already had well over two weeks for people to comment on the previous discussion requesting the same outcome, so I thought if anyone had an issue with your request they would have voiced their concerns in that time. Granted has correctly pointed out that the move was not appropriate after all, though complaining that someone did exactly what you asked for still seems strange. I'm not watching this page so will not reply further unless pinged. Have a nice day. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)