Talk:United Australia Party (2013)

Name Change
To avoid possible rejection by the AEC, the name of the party has been changed to "Palmer United Party" http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/uap-renamed-as-palmer-united-party-20130512-2jfml.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flat Out (talk • contribs) 2013-05-12T03:44:02

United Australia Party (2013)?
I know this was discussed in August 2021 but I think this article name is confusing and I ended up editing Ralph Babet to remove him from the category and the party from the info box before self-reverting. Given Palmer keeps doing this every election cycle, de-registering after each election in order to deliberately avoid the party's obligations and then registering again just before elections I think we can safely assume this party is going to last some time. Therefore I would propose renaming the page and the associated category to United Australia Party (2013-). AlanStalk 07:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 11 July 2023

 * 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) EggRoll97 (talk) 05:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

United Australia Party (2013) → United Australia Party (2013-) – It's pretty well established that Palmer re-registers the party just prior to each federal election only to de-registered just after in order to avoid any obligations. I think we should for all intents and purposes treat it as a going concern and the name change would support that. I previously found the current name confusing as being a party that existed for a single campaign. Therefore, I propose the name change. If there hadn't been recent debate in August 2021 I would probably just be bold and change it but there has been previous discussion so I'm putting it up for debate. AlanStalk 06:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. EggRoll97 (talk) 18:13, 18 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.
 * Not with a hyphen; possibly with an en dash, but as far as I know there are no Wikipedia article titles that have an en dash followed immediately by a closing parenthesis character. See MOS:DATERANGE. Suggest or . —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There's discussion above where three editors supported a move with a hyphen, at least that's what the summary of the discussion suggests. I'm easy either way if people preferred an en dash I'd be happy to go with that as I think it would be preferable over the current name. AlanStalk 23:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Many people don't pay attention to the difference between a hyphen and an en dash. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You can probably blame autocorrect fixing everything up for us all the time for that. AlanStalk 06:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I suspect it can be traced back further, at least to typewriter keyboard design and the basic fact that the length of a horizontal line is a pretty subtle difference between characters. There is often some need to limit the character set (IIRC, ASCII doesn't distinguish between hyphen, minus, en dash and em dash). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 08:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You could be correct, but I know personally that I've gotten use to Microsoft Word (at work) doing it for me just by putting a hyphen in, hitting enter and then backspacing because I don't think the en dash exists on the the US International Keyboard (I'm in Australia). AlanStalk 13:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The current title follows WP:NCPP in using date of establishment . If that date is insufficient, I would not object to using the next option, party-leader disambiguation, which would give United Australia Party (Clive Palmer). &#123;&#123;replyto&#124;SilverLocust&#125;&#125; (talk) 07:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Notably WP:NCPP only states that they COULD be differentiated by year of establishment, not that they SHOULD be. The wording leaves it open. I don't object to your suggestion of United Australia Party (Clive Palmer) though. AlanStalk 01:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I too would support a move to United Australia Party (Clive Palmer). I suspect very few Australians could tell you what year the party was created, but most could tell you it's Clive Palmer's party. To me it seems a far more logical name. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as date is typical. Weak oppose on UAP (Clive Palmer)''' inasmuch as I see no reason to change the current title This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 05:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)