Template talk:Aboriginal peoples of Victoria (state)

Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001
I have removed Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 from this template. There was nothing in the article to suggest an aboriginal connection, and the only reference in the Act itself is the statement in the preamble that "The people of Victoria come from diverse ethnic and Indigenous backgrounds..." StAnselm (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Move suggestion
Hi! I suggest that this template be moved to Aboriginal Victorians. This is to match the more common use of Aboriginal as an adjective, that it is the usage more preferred by the people the template is about, the mainspace article Aboriginal Victorians, and to match the heading of the template as displayed. Please use one of the notifying templates if you reply, otherwise I'll check back in a few weeks to see what everyone's thoughts on it are.

Also, pinging the creator and people who made edits across more than a 24h period. . --Xurizuri (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Shrug; a template's name is not something that readers see, so such a move would be cosmetic. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Xurizuri, Michael is right that our readers will not see the name, but anyone editing or looking at wikitext will see it. Having said that, I have no objection to changing the name if it makes you feel more comfortable. You should then change the name in all pages where it's transcluded, otherwise there's not much point:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Victorian_Aborigines&hidelinks=1&limit=250 (101 transclusions in total, but I'd recommend not changing transclusions in User space, so just under 100).
 * Similarly there are 7 links (not transclusions) in Template space that will need changing:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&limit=250&target=Template%3AVictorian+Aborigines&namespace=10
 * --NSH001 (talk) 05:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Those changes are unnecessary and discouraged by WP:NOTBROKEN. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, not quite. NOTBROKEN is quite explicit that redirects in Navboxes should be fixed. In addition, NOTBROKEN doesn't have the same force for templates as it (righly) does for ordinary redirects, since template redirects create problems for bot and script writers. In general, it is wise to avoid template redirects (there are exceptions). But the main point here, I think, is that we should respect the wishes of the Aboriginal people themselves, and if Xurizuri wishes to do the work, I have no objection. --NSH001 (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not quite. NOTBROKEN rightly recommends avoiding redirects for "links in navigational templates" in order to maintain autobolding behaviour. There are thousands of redirects to the name of templates, some of them much more used than their proper name. But we're getting distracted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I support the move: the template isn't completely outside the reader-facing part of the project (readers can get here from the v-t-e links in the top left corner of the navbox), but regardless of that, templates should have appropriate titles and avoid outdated names that can be seen as non-neutral. There's no need, in principle, to change existing links, and even if they're all changed, the redirect won't be deleted. Still, I agree it's a good idea: if a name is inappropriate in the title of a template, it's inappropriate in wikitext as well. I'd be happy to run a semi-automated task to update those links if there aren't more eager volunteers. – Uanfala (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Having had a look at the template again, I'm thinking it may be better to name it (or similar), as it's not restricted to individuals or ethnic groups, but also includes places, organisations and also topics in law and history. – Uanfala (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point, Uanfala. The same could also be said of Template:Aboriginal South Australians, but I wouldn't want to go to the bother of renaming it. Thee other navboxes seem reasonably named to me. I would slightly prefer Template:Aboriginal peoples of Victoria, since the term "Victorian" (at least in Britain) refers to people and culture from the reign of Queen Victoria ("the Victorians", "Victorian architecture", ...). --NSH001 (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of three years ago noted
Discussion of three years ago noted - nothing apparently happened or resolved The consistency with other states in the broader templating of the subject in other states, and the offensive nature of the term - have put up a speedy delete for the change.

JarrahTree 01:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because it should be renamed instead. --Mitch Ames (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Three years ago - the discussion went no-where, it is an offensive term, and requires renaming - if you have a more appropriate process to apply for renaming, go ahead. DO NOT start a lengthy discussion, it requires a change JarrahTree 01:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Simply reverting a particular process, and doing nothing is the same as the discussion three years ago, not helpful for anyone. JarrahTree 01:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with the process clearly described in the message box you added (Db-reason) - in particular "If this template does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion ... please remove this notice" and "click the button below ... Contest this speedy deletion" - feel free to propose a change to the speedy delete process.
 * You could probably just have renamed this template yourself. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mitch JarrahTree 02:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Does that resolve the offensive language issues? If so, great. If not, is there something else that needs to be done?--Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * One might consider updating all the pages that use Victorian Aborigines (which now redirects) to use Aboriginal peoples of Victoria (state) instead - but the template name is only visible to editors, not readers so the scope of offence is less.
 * Unrelated to offensive language is the issue of consistency. Looking in I see "Aboriginal South Australians", "Aboriginal people in ..." and "Aboriginal peoples of ...". The navbox titles don't always match the names (eg Aboriginal peoples of Victoria (state) has the title "Aboriginal Victorians") or the corresponding categories (eg "Category:Indigenous Australians in Victoria (state)" but "Aboriginal peoples of Victoria (state)". Consistency would be nice, although it is outside of the scope of this talk page section. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)