Talk:Rob Mitchell (Victorian politician)

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. A number of alternatives have been proposed, but the current title appears to have the most support and there is little demonstrable risk of ambiguity. Mkativerata (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Rob Mitchell (Victorian politician) → ? — Relisted. Rob Mitchell (Australian Labor politician)??? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Victorian" is ambiguous: here in Britain "Victorian" usually means "living in Britain in the time of Queen Victoria". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really think there is an alternative. As already established, it can't go to Rob Mitchell (Australian politician) because there is also a Queensland politician of the same name (who doesn't yet have an article). "Victorian" has been used before (as in Tony Smith (Victorian politician)), and the possibility of confusion is surely very slight. Frickeg (talk) 08:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought the convention was to describe federal politicians as Australian in cases where there has been only one at the national level. e.g. Peter Walsh (Australian politician). Sanananda (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Not knowing anything about the Queensland politician, would it be possible to use the disambiguation "(Australian Labor Party politician)" 84.92.117.93 (talk) 10:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Queensland politician was a National, so that is an option. "(Australian Labor politician)" is probably adequate, though (this has been used on Bob Brown (Australian Labor politician), who could just as easily be at "(New South Wales politician)", on reflection). Frickeg (talk) 10:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless there was a politician named Rob Mitchell during the British Victorian era, I don't see the problem. Powers T 11:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Same here. In every case such as this, we break it down by state - it makes it a lot less confusing, and a lot less of a mess. If there was a notable politician in Victorian England by the name of Rob Mitchell that he could be confused with, then there might be a point - otherwise, ignorance of geography is not an argument. Rebecca (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The Robert Mitchell dab page seems to have 3 similarly named politicians that arguably overlap the Victorian era, so "(Australian Labor politician)" (or the longer version) seems like a good idea. 76.121.3.85 (talk) 06:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, none of them do. Two are Americans and the other was active in the 1920s. Frickeg (talk) 06:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * the only reason that a move would be necessary would be if there was a politician from the Victorian era called Rob Mitchell with an article. There isn't so there is no actual ambiguity. Disambiguation is designed to allow readers to find the appropriate article, not provide additional information on the topic. Use of the term "Victorian" allows the reader looking for this specific article to find it. Besides, do we ever really use the term "Victorian" meaning the era as a disambiguation term anyway. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Australian Labor (Party) politician" sounds good to me, but if the state were to be used, perhaps "Victoria politician" to avoid the ambiguity? (Although I agree the ambiguity is not a huge problem anyway.) --Kotniski (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.