Talk:NewLabour Party (New Zealand)

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

New Zealand: Politics Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Party metadata[edit]

This New Zealand article has some associated metadata templates to display political party colours and names in election candidate and results tables.

The table below shows the content of these metadata templates.

NewLabour Party (New Zealand) — political party metadata
Color		Shortname
	#FF4040	NewLabour

Requested move 19 March 2017[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NewLabour Party (New Zealand) → NewLabour Party – Per WP:SMALLDETAILS. --Nevé –selbert 15:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, New Labour Party In ictu oculi (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Neve-selbert and In ictu oculi: Queried move request. Or move to New Labour Party? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: as per WP:SMALLDETAILS. After the move I think the page will need a hatnote to New Labour (disambiguation). Mattlore (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which version of WP:SMALLDETAILS are we following? That guideline used to say that very small details shouldn't disambiguate and weren't recognizable. @Mattlore: please note G Books show many hits for "jim anderton" "new labour" so it isn't consistently recognizable. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The examples given in the policy make it clear that the move would be acceptable here (MAVEN vs. Maven; Airplane vs. Airplane!; Sea-Monkeys vs. SeaMonkey; The Wörld Is Yours vs. other topics listed at The World Is Yours). As you say, we would still need the NewLabour Party mentioned at the New Labour disambiguation page, because of confusion. However it isn't likely that people will type in "NewLabour Party" when they are looking for any of the other articles. Much like how Flo Rida doesn't have to be disambiguated, despite being the same spelling as Florida. Mattlore (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are exceptions where (a) subject is highly notable, and (b) stylism is consistent. These are not typical. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Disambiguation through reliance on a compound isn't a convincing case, especially when the non-compound version frequently shows up in searches. Schwede 66 08:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The vast majority of people looking for the British New Labour would most likely (a) remember the space bar and (b) simply type "New Labour" without "Party". New Labour was never known as the "New Labour Party" in Britain. WP:SMALLDETAILS is clear: When such navigation aids are in place, small details are usually sufficient to distinguish topics, e.g. MAVEN vs. Maven; Airplane vs. Airplane!; Sea-Monkeys vs. SeaMonkey; The Wörld Is Yours vs. other topics listed at The World Is Yours. The Sea-Monkeys example is the best precedent.--Nevé –selbert 09:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Doing so will create for confusion anyway. J 947 17:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And how would it create any confusion, exactly? I'm confused.--Nevé –selbert 06:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Answered below. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've undone my close and relisted per a query on my talk page [1]. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Only use that omits the space. It's a unique name. Disambiguation is utterly unnecessary. People who claim it will cause "confusion" can't seem to explain how, why or who would be confused, thus suggesting they are the confused ones. What is confusing is adding disambiguation to a name that requires no disambiguation, indicating incorrectly to anyone who comes to this article that there is another use for "NewLabour Party". --В²C ☎ 23:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Hatnotes can be added if necessary to other uses to accommodate typos. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please at some point get wider input from article-content contibutors to restore WP:SMALLDETAILS to sanity? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What SMALLDETAILS wording would you support restoring? What it said in 2014? [2] ("Titles of distinct articles may differ only in their detail.") Here's where the section was changed from addressing differences in capitalization to "minor details"[3]. Back in 2011 it said: "Titles of distinct articles may differ only in their detail. Many such differences involve capitalization, separation or non-separation of components, or pluralization: MAVEN and Maven; Red Meat and Red meat; Sea-Monkeys and SeaMonkey."[4]. Back in 2010 it said: "Sometimes titles of separate articles have different forms, but with only minor differences. Examples:/Diacritics: canon vs. cañon/Capitalization: WASP vs. Wasp; Red Meat vs. Red meat" [5]. --В²C ☎ 18:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barely, at best, acceptable but unimportant titlechange, for a defunct and obscure topic that self-titled in poor grammar. This is the sort of RM that is not worth the time to consider, time wasting busywork.
The topic is barely, if, relevant to the New Zealand general election, 1996 and 45th New Zealand Parliament, not currently even mentioned in either article, because before gaining relevance it became subservient to the Alliance (New Zealand political party). Even someone looking for this topic would probably not recognise it without "New Zealand" in the title.
If the rename proceeds, a hatnote to New Labour (disambiguation) will be required to alleviate the extreme astonishment resulting from a small error that count lead someone to here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try the New Zealand general election, 1990 and 43rd New Zealand Parliament. Mattlore (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, relevant in 1990, but it was then dominated by it's sole member, and this article looks like it reached it's zenith later with five members, but it was not really this party then. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I see, Mattlore, that you, unlike most roving RM regulars, are genuinely interested in this topic. If you read what I have written, I promise to to take very seriously what you then say, because subject-interested editors should have the highest respect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) On reflection, swinging Oppose. While not criticising WP:SMALLDETAILS, in general, small details on obscure articles of no broad significance are not enough justification to remove all recognizability. This is less a criticism of SMALLDETAILs than a statement that this topic is not WP-notable and should be merged. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Massively ambiguous with the other titles listed at New Labour (disambiguation). I don't read WP:SMALLDETAILS as supporting thsi move, but if it does support it, it is bonkers. What on earth is the benefit to readers of creating such ambiguity? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"if it does support it, it is bonkers" – we need a public 'like' button on Wikipedia! Schwede 66 08:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like. J 947^{^{^(c)}} 19:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:SMALLDETAILS. It's very unlikely that anyone would type in or click on NewLabour Party, with "New" and "Labour" joined as one word and the L in "Labour" capitalized, intending either of the 2 parties named "New Labour Party", let alone anything else. What's more is that NewLabour Party already redirects here, meaning that anyone who does that ends up here already. I've added a hatnote to the article that will clear up any confusion better than sending all readers to a dead end.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dissolved[edit]

This party was dissolved in 2000. But was is pseudo-dissolved in 1991, when it merged into the Alliance party? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In a word, no. The Alliance was run more like a coalition, with each party keeping its internal structure (party president, delegates etc). This is what allowed the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to easily depart the Alliance in 1999. Under New Zealand law, these are termed as umbrella and component parties. Mattlore (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is "centre-left" the best placement on the spectrum?[edit]

The article says the party was "centre-left", with support from one phrase taken out of context from one book. The book says "Anderton led a centre-left breakaway from the Labour Party", but the next sentence says, "Progressives who had remained outside mainstream political parties joined the NLP, as did [Sue] Bradford". Bradford, for one, was left of centre, not centre-left. The book does not claim that NLP remained just centre-left once the non-Labour people joined it. I think better descriptors would be those used in the Jim Anderton's Progressive Party article, i.e. "left of centre" (in "Policies" section) or "Centre-left to left-wing" in infobox. Nurg (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]