Talk:Teal independents/Archive 1

Not political staffers, but professional women
One of the cited identifying factors of the teal independents is that they are professional women stepping up, not political staffers making a calculated move.source I have provided a reliable source which supports the inclusion of this in the article, but have been reverted. There are other sources which describe the teals as professional women and having that as being important. One of the reasons given for the revert has been "nonsense because a fair number of these are not "women"" - what the heck? Can we please get some consensus going here? --159.196.100.171 (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @107.190.33.254 and @159.196.100.171, Australia has just had the election. Some may be feeling raw. Please remember that Wikipedia is not the place to come to and fight fierce battles over your particular viewpoint on a micro issue. We are here to write an Encyclopaedia. I expect you both to please continue a discussion here before reverting. If I see you continuing to revert each others edits, I may report the matter to WP:ANI, which may lead to administrative action such as a WP:BLOCK. Take care and please keep it WP:NPOV and develop WP:CONSENSUS. Such-change47 (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Come on, I know nonsense when I see it. Teal_independents lists a fair amount of "Teal independents". Of those, at least two (include one elected one) are not "women"; Andrew Wilkie and Alex Dyson. I don't particularly care about Australia or Australian elections, but it is simply nonsense to say that teals are "professional women" when they are not, in fact, women. It might also be far more encyclopedic to rewrite this in a more professional tone. Is "they are not political staffers" supposed to mean that they are not career politicians? Even if gender is an important characteristic, wouldn't it make more sense to separate the two of these? The fact that most are women isn't even hinted at anywhere until then, and suddenly, out of the blue, we have this statement... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 03:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * On a sidenote, having reviewed the teal candidates, all four teal winners are women as noted here. Hence I believe it is incumbent on @107.190.33.254 to demonstrate why this part ought to be deleted, with evidence that other teal candidates were not women. It is not sufficient to say that sources exist, they must be included. Thanks. Such-change47 (talk) 03:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Andrew Wilkie is not a women; neither is Alex Dyson (didn't win). I also see no reason to group the two unrelated characteristics (gender; and the lack of political career) under this one line. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @107.190.33.254 I only see Wilkie, and to my knowledge he isn't part of the current Teals? I am not really aware of the matter. @159.196.100.171 and @107.190.33.254, would you both see something along the lines of "tends to be" or "mostly" as a qualifier? Chat it out, and I encourage no one to revert further until a consensus is reached. Thanks both. Please just remember the reason we are here, to build the sum of all human knowledge. This is not an edit suggesting Kodos from mars funded the Teals, in order words the claim is not outrageous and neither its inclusion or exclusion harms the article so try not to argue too much over this. Also, if you could both create accounts this would be great, would love to see you both contribute more in future. Such-change47 (talk) 03:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Why is it "nonsense", when I have provided three reliable sources describing them as such? Why does your opinion override these sources?  There are two blokes out of ~20 candidates - as a rule, the teal independents are professional women.  (Crikey goes so far as to say they are professional, white, women.)  Andrew Wilkie, the sole elected male teal, is listed in the article as being an earlier outlier to any 'definitions' of this teal bath of 2022.  As you say you do not particularly care, political staffers are people who work for politicians - secretaries, PR people, etc..  A lot of them later enter politics themselves, which is a fairly expected move.  The sources say it is unusual for professional women in other fields to suddenly step up and put their hat in the ring to become a politician.  Both characteristics are related, because the rise of the teals has been linked by reliable sources to a lack of opportunities for women in the Liberal party. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not want to see anyone referring to each others edits as "nonsense". This dispute came to my attention while I was recent changes patrolling, and most edits I see there are true "nonsense" vandalism. I consider both of you be acting in good faith and it is important you both please do the same. I am assuming one or both of you are Teal supporters - remember, the campaign is over and Wikipedia is not a battleground Such-change47 (talk) 03:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I am not referring to anyone's edits as "nonsense" or "vandalism". It is simply frustrating that I have been relying on reliable sources to add to the article to try to get a more thorough and encyclopedic picture of the teals. While 107.190.33.254 seems to be acting in good faith, they also seem to be relying on their point of view and the idea that because two of this grouping were men, that we can't describe the group by the majority's characteristics, rather than the reliable sources.  If 'The fact that most are women isn't even hinted at anywhere until then, and suddenly, out of the blue, we have this statement...' is jarring, then the lead can be fixed to include the teals being professional women as part of the normal editing process.  --159.196.100.171 (talk) 04:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I know you weren't, was just noting. Anyway, it seems @107.190.33.254 has disengaged now. I believe that in this matter (and keep in mind I carry no more weight than anyone else here) is that there is the line about Teals being professional women appears relevant and accurate, and so it should stay and not be removed without consensus to remove, possibly seek a fourth opinion. While discussions on Wikipedia between editors are not "votes" I believe that with my thought the line should stay that is the current consensus and we hopefully can end this chat. Thanks to both for your edits. Again, consider making accounts! We need you. Such-change47 (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have altered the first sentence to read "a loosely-defined group of mostly centrist, female independent candidates for House of Representatives seats", in response to the criticism that 'professional women' was coming out of nowhere in the article. Hope this helps.  -159.196.100.171 (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Great compromise. Such-change47 (talk) 05:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Party Names
Registered Parties can have the party name printed on the ballot paper.
 * Having the party name on the ballot is an advantage.
 * There are a few conditions:
 * The name is not allowed to include the word "independent".
 * The group (i.e. party) requires at least 1000 members for registration.
 * Many independents do not allocate preferences on their "How-to-vote cards, since they are of course Independent, though they can if they want to.
 * Members of the Teal Group (Party) cannot by law be members of other parties.
 * Only one Teal candidate per seat (division). Law changed in about 2019.
 * Registered parties can have a small logo printed on the ballot paper which is generally considered an advantage. MountVic127 (talk)
 * In South Australia a combined How-to-vote card is displayed in the polling booths. MountVic127 (talk) 06:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Potential Npov edit war in future regarding "fake independents" accusation
This page will inevitably be visited frequently in the next three years due to the political climate in Australia, and may be subjected to edit wars that violate the neutral point of view standards of this wiki. In particular, there is debate as to whether this collection of independents are "true" independent or not. I'm not confident enough to weigh in either way here without making this talk page my soap box, but I think others should be wary that people with strong opinions may edit this page in the future in order to misrepresent those being discussed.

Furthermore, is it relevant to have a politician's opinion of other politicians in the lead paragraphs of the article? Maybe that discussion could be put further down in the page in a more appropriate or dedicated section.

StrongPencil (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I believe it is worth mentioning the criticism of the Teal independents as a pseudo political part considering how widespread the accusation was during the 2022 election. I agree it should be in a criticism section lower in the page. VeryBoredAnalyser (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @StrongPencil@VeryBoredAnalyser,
 * I'd back this, criticism is notable but shouldn't be included in lead. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Colors used
Kylea Tink, Division of North Sydney (background and font colors for website, campaign placards and team clothing)
 * New members of Parliament

Sophie Scamps, Division of Mackellar (primary and secondary colors for website, campaign placards and team clothing)

Allegra Spender, Division of Wentworth (background colors for website and campaign placards)

Monique Ryan, Division of Kooyong (primary and secondary background colors and font color for website, campaign placards and team clothing )

Kate Chaney, Division of Curtin (primary and secondary background colors and campaign, primary and secondary font colors for website, campaign placards and clothing)

Zoe Daniel, Division of Goldstein (background color and primary and secondary font colors for website, campaign placards and clothing)

Climate 200 (logo background color)

David Pocock, Australian Capital Territory Senate Seat (background colors and font color)


 * Incumbent Independents (elected in 2019 or before):

Rebekha Sharkie, Division of Mayo (background and font colors of website and placards)

Andrew Wilkie, Division of Clark (background colors and font color of website)

Helen Haines, Division of Indi (background color and font color of website, campaign placard and clothing)

Zali Steggall, Division of Warringah (background color and font color of website, campaign placard and clothing ; secondary background color)

Anyone: feel free to add the colors on the main page. I'm not sure about the choice of words (such as placard or clothing). Kahlores (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Are teal independents the same thing as community independents?
While many teal independents may be associated with the community independents movement, I'm not sure that when the media refer to the teals that they are referring to the community independents movement.

I would suggest that @Playlet's edits (21/06/2022), while excellent, are describing a completely different topic to teal independents. Micmicm (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * It seems like much of this edit is a mix of Teal independents and Voices groups in Australia
 * Micmicm (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

That is the problem here, we are trying to separate out Climate 200 recipients, Voices groups and community independents. However on a discussion about possible deletion of this page people felt that we should keep this page. So I will try to explain how I understand this movement from having followed it for the last few months:
 * Climate 200, as described in my edits are not connected to the movement, they are merely a fund to disperse money. So to use their activities to describe this movement both removes people from the movement that should be inside (Priestly and Steggall 2022) and makes this article redundant (if it is about people getting money from Climate 200 this article should be merged into that one)
 * While the Voices movements were a foundation for the communities involved in selecting and running the candidates they are in almost every instance separate entities from the candidate. There are also numerous instances of Voices groups not running candidates.
 * So to the main point, the community independents is the name used by the candidates, the media has taken to calling the same group of independents the 'teals'. They are the same, and most of the candidates will a) call themselves community independents rather than teal and b) try not to reference themselves as a group since they are independent of each other.
 * The community independent is also a different beast from other independents that have run in the past, because
 * They generally do not unilaterally decide to run, but are rather selected by a group in the local community, almost like a pre-selection from one of the major parties
 * They do not come from one of the 2 categories where independents have been successful in the past (by-election candidate, former or current elected official in the local area)

Therefore I would say that teal independent is the colloquial term for the community independents I appreciate calling the page 'Community independents' is possibly too broad, perhaps 'Community independent candidates in Australia' I am open to suggestions, but I think it requires a different title to the page that better reflects the movement as a whole Playlet (talk) 06:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The way I see it the reason the public and media use the term "teal independents" is that it describes a group of candidates with similar policy positions, notably ambitious climate action and the introduction of a federal anti-corruption commission.
 * This is notable because if elected they are likely to push policy on these issues, so grouping them together illiterates how the views of the Australian electorate may have shifted.
 * This has little to do with how they are chosen (even though they were chosen by voices groups), how they are funded (despite all of them receiving funding from the Climate 200 group), or whether they refer to themselves as "Community independents".
 * A better table (if we indeed decide to include one) would probably have the title of "Candidates which have been described as Teal Independents", and would include references to news sources where the candidate has been described as a teal independent.
 * I would like the article to keep the name "Teal Independents" as it's what people see in the news and consequently look up, and the term "Community independents" doesn't have any connection to the policy positions they share. Micmicm (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Your comment gets to the fundamental problem with this article.
 * 1. There is no way of knowing who belongs to this group or not. Zali Steggall (2022) and Rob Priestly did not take Climate 200 money, so that is not a qualification, we are adding members of political parties (Sharkie, Local Party) even though we are talking about independents.
 * 2. It seems like we are creating a page about an ill defined concept. For that reason we should maintain the ambiguity within the article and definitely not have a table.
 * 3. The community independents is definitely what the group calls themselves. The media calls them Teals. Which ever way we decide there should be a redirect from the other page
 * 4. I personally think that the name of the page should be the name of the group rather than the nickname, however there is a difficulty here that there is no official organisation, even though the people that make up this group reject the name.
 * 5. Just having a similar policy does not make them notable enough for a page, and it is not their similar policies that has caught the eye of the media. It is the way that communities have built structures to support independent candidates and using those structures they have been more successful than any group of independents in Australia's history.
 * Playlet (talk) 07:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * What is this page showing exactly?
 * Why should an encyclopedia maintain ambiguity?
 * Why should we decide between two names if there are two? For the title, WP:TITLE is clear: the first principle is recognizability (which means the name recognized by most people, induced from media references)
 * There is an official organization, Climate200. However, if the said teals reject the label teal then that viewpoint must be included.
 * That's your opinion, what matters are sources. There is an objective set provided by Climate200 themselves. This can be extended or reduced to subsets if we go by specific policy proposals.
 * Kahlores (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Kahlores (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * So it appears that User:Playlet was banned indefinitely for sockpuppetry just a few days after his intervention here. When pressed by the investigators, he said that he supports Zoe Daniel and volunteered for her.
 * It seems to be a recurring scenario on the pages regarding Australian politics: those who support the teals will deny their very existence as a group.
 * That's a very new phenomenon. On Wikipedia I have seen many right-leaning editors trying to edit out the label "far-right", calling their preferred party "centrist", nonpartisan or even left-wing, for obvious reasons. But I don't quite understand why teals, who are generally labeled as centrist and moderate, are objecting to their very own existence. Can anyone help here? Is this a kind of postmodern interpretation of political existence?
 * Kahlores (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Candidates?
As currently written the article (and particularly the lead) makes it out as if the teal label only applies to candidates (specifically, candidates in the 2022 Federal election). However in the sources, 'teal independent' is also used to refer to the successful candidates now they are MPs - the label doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

Does the article need to be changed to reflect this? Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Adding an infobox
I have tried implementing an info box (like such) with the revision being reverted immediately. The reason for the revision being reverted was "The Teal Independents aren't a party, and most of the don't even use teal as a colour in the political advertising."- @Micmicm.

I believe the such a page warrants an infobox and my reasons are as follows– • The teal independents are clearly a faction/ de facto party/ force within Australian Politics, 'teal' MPs and senators all have close to identical policy platforms, donors, and backers (ie. climate200). I cite the following as evidence: • I note they don't all use the colour teal, however, "teal independents" is one of the many names the given to this political force and is the most popular term used to describe this group of people. • There are other unofficial political forces within Australia that have an infobox (ie. Moderates (Liberal Party of Australia)). Just because the 'teal independents' aren't an official party, the links between the candidates, MPs, and senators are clear and the wikipedia article is deserving of an infobox that outlines relevant the info. GA Melbourne (talk) 06:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @GA Melbourne, I agree that them simply not being a party doesn't mean they can't have an infobox. That said, I don't think that a info box is needed, as it doesn't add much clarity for the reader. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, what I think an info box provides to the reader is a quick overview of the seats head by the teal independents in Australian Parliament (10 in HoR and 1 in the Senate). Such an overview isn't available on Wikipedia for the Teal Independents however is available for Liberal, Labor, Greens, etc. - Yours Faithfully, GA Melbourne ( T | C ) 08:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @GA Melbourne, thank you for clarifying your position. My issues with having an info box to list the amount is teals are as follow:
 * The teals are loosely defined, with MPs such as Rebekha Sharkie sometimes being considered teal and otherwise not. This means the info box will only serve to confuse more through any count.
 * Unlike Moderates (Liberal Party of Australia), they are far less defined and this is shown in your proposed infobox - while the Moderates infobox lists a leader, a HQ and it's affiliations to the Liberals, your proposal just has a headcount + some info on ideology which is already available in the first sentence of lead + "mainly teal" for colour. I don't this this serves the purpose of an infobox in quickly displaying info from the body.
 * Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Tomorrow and tomorrow Thank you for your response, I accept the points that you have raised and can see how the info box could lead to confusion; albeit, Moderates (Liberal Party of Australia) are similar to the teals where membership in the faction is speculation. There is no leader or HQ (or sources to prove it) so perhaps that infobox should also be removed. - Yours Faithfully, GA Melbourne ( T | C ) 09:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The Liberal Party Moderates are far less defined than the Teal independents. If we have reliable sources that consistently associate Rebekha Sharkie, Andrew Wilkie and David Pocock as "Teal independents", then the infobox would assist the readers without causing confusion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Onetwothreeip Agreed, I know that @Tomorrow and tomorrow only used Rebekha Sharkie as an example but if there is enough indicators and sources to show that an MP is a member of the "teal" movement than this test can be used on every crossbencher in parliament. To use the example of Rebekha Sharkie, she is listed on the C200 webpage and is linked with the teal movement and other teal independents by a number of articles  - Yours Faithfully, GA Melbourne ( T | C ) 10:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it would assist discussion if you could provide quotes from the sources that demonstrate Sharkie and others are considered Teal. Climate 200 is decidedly not a neutral source. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Onetwothreeip As requested, quotes from independent & reliable sources that corroborate an MP's alignment to the Teals...
 * {| class="wikitable"

!MP !Source !Quote
 * rowspan="2" |Andrew Wilkie
 * 9 News
 * "climate-focused independents include Andrew Wilkie"
 * The New Daily
 * Wilkie referred to as a "climate independent"
 * Kate Chaney
 * 9 News
 * "Teal independents have gained... Curtin"
 * Zoe Daniel
 * 9 News
 * "Teal independents have gained... Goldstein"
 * Helen Haines
 * Sydney Morning Herald
 * "new teal candidates will join... Helen Haines"
 * Monique Ryan
 * 9 News
 * "Teal independents have gained... Kooyong"
 * Sophie Scamps
 * 9 News
 * "Teal independents have gained... Mackellar"
 * rowspan="2" |Rebekha Sharkie
 * Womens Agenda
 * Zali Steggall showing support for Sharkie
 * Sydney Morning Herald
 * Ian Smith groups Haines, Sharkie, & Spender together
 * Kylea Tink
 * 9 News
 * "Teal independents have gained... North Sydney"
 * Zali Steggall
 * Sky News
 * "Zali Steggall says her fellow teal independents..."
 * Allegra Spender
 * 9 News
 * "Teal independents have gained... Wentworth"
 * David Pocock
 * The Conversation
 * "teal candidate David Pocock"
 * }
 * Note: Bold names indicate MPs who are not explicitly named as "teals" but have significant evidence to suggest they are apart of the "loosely-aligned group"/ movement.
 * P.S. although Climate 200 (C200) is not a neutral source, all the successful Teal MPs are contained on this webpage. - Yours Faithfully, GA Melbourne ( T | C ) 11:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your research @GA Melbourne! Clear evidence showing MPs as teal definitely helps, though again I think those bold names show how some MPs might beconsidered teal but aren't necessarily described as such. Maybe a count with a list of who we're counting?
 * Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 12:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. There is no dispute that Cheney, Daniel, Ryan, Scamps, Tink, Zeggall and Spender are Teal independents. There seems to be enough evidence that Haines and Pocock are as well. All that remains now is Wilkie and Sharkie. If they can be considered Teal, the infobox can easily proceed. If not, we have to consider an infobox showing 8 MPs, or no infobox at all. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that, as the lead section has established, not all "teals" used the colour teal for their advertising so therefore, as is the case for Wilkie and Sharkie, sources will not explicitly define them as teal independents, rather, they subtlety link them with the "loosely-aligned group".
 * The lead section sets out that "Teal independents" are Independent/ minor party politicians that advocate for "increased action to mitigate climate change... as well improved political integrity and accountability". This is definitely the case for Wilkie and Sharkie.
 * It is also worth mentioning that Wilkie and Sharkie are mentioned already throughout the article and particularly in this section. - Yours Faithfully, GA Melbourne ( T | C ) 00:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It may be the case that they fit the definition but as editors we aren't allowed deduce this for ourselves per WP:OR. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The colours used in their campaigns aren't important. If reliable sources describe Sharkie or Wilkie as "Teal" then we can consider them Teal for Wikipedia. We can get away with including them in articles and sections about Teal independents without labelling them as such by discussing them in the context of Climate 200, but calling them Teal independents requires evidence. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The Conversation
 * "teal candidate David Pocock"
 * }
 * Note: Bold names indicate MPs who are not explicitly named as "teals" but have significant evidence to suggest they are apart of the "loosely-aligned group"/ movement.
 * P.S. although Climate 200 (C200) is not a neutral source, all the successful Teal MPs are contained on this webpage. - Yours Faithfully, GA Melbourne ( T | C ) 11:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your research @GA Melbourne! Clear evidence showing MPs as teal definitely helps, though again I think those bold names show how some MPs might beconsidered teal but aren't necessarily described as such. Maybe a count with a list of who we're counting?
 * Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 12:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. There is no dispute that Cheney, Daniel, Ryan, Scamps, Tink, Zeggall and Spender are Teal independents. There seems to be enough evidence that Haines and Pocock are as well. All that remains now is Wilkie and Sharkie. If they can be considered Teal, the infobox can easily proceed. If not, we have to consider an infobox showing 8 MPs, or no infobox at all. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that, as the lead section has established, not all "teals" used the colour teal for their advertising so therefore, as is the case for Wilkie and Sharkie, sources will not explicitly define them as teal independents, rather, they subtlety link them with the "loosely-aligned group".
 * The lead section sets out that "Teal independents" are Independent/ minor party politicians that advocate for "increased action to mitigate climate change... as well improved political integrity and accountability". This is definitely the case for Wilkie and Sharkie.
 * It is also worth mentioning that Wilkie and Sharkie are mentioned already throughout the article and particularly in this section. - Yours Faithfully, GA Melbourne ( T | C ) 00:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It may be the case that they fit the definition but as editors we aren't allowed deduce this for ourselves per WP:OR. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The colours used in their campaigns aren't important. If reliable sources describe Sharkie or Wilkie as "Teal" then we can consider them Teal for Wikipedia. We can get away with including them in articles and sections about Teal independents without labelling them as such by discussing them in the context of Climate 200, but calling them Teal independents requires evidence. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Candidates Table - How to order candidates?
How should we order the candidates in the table? Alphabetically?

And do we want to make the table sortable? Micmicm (talk) 09:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, the table should be sortable. I think we should order them based on electorate. Steelkamp (talk) 10:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've reordered it now. Steelkamp (talk) 06:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Voices endorsed candidate for Flinders was Dr Sarah Russell, not Despi O'Connor 115.69.60.201 (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Change "wikitable" to "wikitable sortable".
 * Names sorted by first names, not sur names.   09:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Add state.

Capitalisation
I propose that 'Teals' be changed to 'teals', to recognise:


 * The lack of affiliation between candidates (which capitalisation seems to imply)
 * The use in media of lowercase t in teals
 * The seeming consensus on Articles for deletion/Teal independents regarding the capitalisation.

Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree. We should conform to how it's used in media. Micmicm (talk) 06:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

'''I propose a little star and a plant emojii added to the name as a reminder this is an astroturf project and they've only existed a couple of years now pushed out mostly by enviromentalist PR firms and journalists because the greens party wasn't woke enough. 2001:8003:3631:7400:50FD:2CD8:8930:2A5B (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)'''