Talk:Albanese ministry
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Albanese ministry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=small} | This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Proposal to separate interim and full ministries
[edit]I propose that the full ministry due to be sworn in tomorrow be considered a second Albanese ministry. There is precedent for this is in that Gough Whitlam's interim two-man ministry with Lance Barnard following their election in 1972 is considered separate to the second Whitlam ministry, which was appointed 2 weeks later, after the Caucus had elected the full frontbench. The current circumstances seem to me to be quite similar, hence this proposal. TheTimMan (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- The two circumstances are very very similar. I would agree with this proposal, but I would like to know how the numbering of ministries is determined to being with. Changes in individual ministers doesn't change produce a new ministry, so what exactly does? 5225C (talk • contributions) 11:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- I would suggest that the election of a new frontbench by the Caucus would qualify as the installation of a new ministry. Theoretically, it would have been possible for all personnel in the pre-existing ministry to have been thrown out and replaced had the Caucus wanted to. Obviously that wasn't the case, but given the possibility for a full rotation of ministerial personnel, I think that the Caucus formally electing the frontbench earlier today would be a good enough reason. TheTimMan (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
The Honorable
[edit]One editor persists in adding the honorific "Hon" (The Honorable) in front of the name of every minister. That practice has not been used for any ministry since 2010 and is archaic. I seek the input of other editors whether this honorific should be re-introduced. WWGB (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- A discussion about that is ongoing in Template talk:Cabinet of Australia. Marcnut1996 (talk) 03:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Special envoys
[edit]Are these actually part of the ministry? My understanding is not, and if that's the case we should be a bit careful in including them alongside actual ministers and assistant ministers. Not saying they should be stripped from the article but it would be good to find a source clarifying. ITBF (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Done I added the transcript of the PM's press conference as a source, along with a sentence clarifying that it is not part of the ministry. Marcnut1996 (talk) 03:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
.jpg){kind=link}
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Statement of factional alignment
[edit]Is the factional alignment relevant to this article? They aren't included for Liberal people on Coalition ministry lists. The obvious argument is that Coalition lists show party distinction but that's quite a different piece of information. The factions don't have the same degree of formality. -DilatoryRevolution (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's an interesting question. You are correct that factions are less formal than a party, but Labor's factions are far more formal than those in the Liberal party (e.g. Labor factions have organisational structures, convenors, caucuses, internal election manifestos, etc). I could go either way on it. PresidentBartlet (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Reshuffle
[edit]Does the upcoming reshuffle need a totally separate table from the previous cabinet? In the past we have just included them in the same table with the date of change noted, e.g. First Rudd ministry. I T B F 💬 08:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- @ITBF: If there are only a few changes (about 1 or 2 MPs impacted at a time), then it would be in the same table. If it is a more major reshuffle which impacts more than that, then it would be a separate table. This is the typical way to do it for previous ministries (within the same term of parliament). Marcnut1996 (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)