Talk:List of premiers of Victoria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured listList of premiers of Victoria is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 11, 2024Peer reviewReviewed
April 24, 2024Featured list candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured list

How is the Premier chosen????[edit]

A brief description of how the premier is appointed/removed would be helpful. Appointed by the legislative assembly after election I think. But what if there is no clear majority? I know that independents were responsible for electing Steve Bracks in 1999. Can they change their mind mid-term? Vote of no confidence?

Premiers are appointed by the Governor (under convention, according to the advice of an ougoing Premier who has lost the election, and resigns his commission as a result. This is an aspect of the Westminster System).--Grahamec 10:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More to add, later, though writing biographies for the earlier ones will be pretty tough . . . --Robert Merkel

Middle names[edit]

Is it necessary to have the middle names of all of the Premies in this article? Some of the first names listed are not even in consistent of those for what they were known as as Premier. Wikistar (Place order here) 09:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Premiers of Victoria → Premier of Victoria — In Category:Lists of heads of government of Australian states and territories, all of the Deputy Premier/Chief Minister articles are singular; so are the Chief Minister articles and Premier of Western Australia. Miracle Pen (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. A no-brainer, really. The articles are not just lists of the respective premiers, they're descriptions of the offices and histories of the offices. The same protocol should apply to whichever of the Governor articles are not "Governor of <name of state>". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I didn't notice the Governor articles were out of alignment too. Thanks for mentioning it. Moved one and listed the other at RM. Miracle Pen (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move since it is about the office rather than the collection. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support agree with above statements. Jenks24 (talk) 10:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The articles are about the role, they merely happen to contain a list of the holders of it. Orderinchaos 16:40, 17 January 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

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) 08:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 04:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 05:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 October 2023[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 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: NOMINATOR WITHDRAWAL. (non-admin closure) ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 06:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Premier of Victoria → List of premiers of Victoria – To make consistent with List of prime ministers of Australia. This article is more of a list rather than an article with the majority of the page being a table rather than prose. The page 'Premiers of Victoria' should be reserved for a prose dominant article (as is the case for Prime Minister of Australia). ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 02:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. This is clearly a list article and the title should reflect that. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. All the other articles in Category:Lists of heads of government of Australian states and territories follow the same naming convention. If one has to be moved, all of them have to be moved for consistency. I would reconsider my oppose if a requested move with all the state's premier articles was made. Steelkamp (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would reconsider my oppose if a requested move with all the state's premier articles was made – I will withdraw this request and initiate another request encompassing all the states who's articles have the same issue. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 04:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move 1 October 2023[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 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: not moved. (non-admin closure) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– To make consistent with List of prime ministers of Australia. The articles are lists rather than an articles with the majority of the page in each article consisting of tables rather than prose. The page's current titles should be reserved for a prose dominant article (as is the case for Prime Minister of Australia). (Note: I have omitted a few States from the move as they contain a considerable amount of prose and a split would be more appropriate). ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 07:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rreagan007 @Steelkamp – FYI ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 07:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Instead of rename and moved because the articles is more about of list of premier. Why don't you create a new page "List of Premiers of Victoria" and remove the list from this page and try to expand this page like Prime Minister of Australia I am sure we can write more about roles and authority of premier, and can write history as it was a colony before 1901, privileges, Style of address, etc. Look at the Premier of Ontario. Muzi (talk) 13:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a bad idea, however I would still prefer to move the articles as:
    a) it will allow for exactly what you have described;
    b) the articles in their current form don't contain much prose to expand on (only a lead section); and
    c) it will allow for the lists to retain their edit history. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 14:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose retain the articles as the highest elected position in each state it is notable in its own right and its a significantly logical link from many other articles where people expect to find information about the role, responsibilities, how one comes to hold that office, and any notable high/low lights. By all means break out the list portion as a list article as that will grow in perpetuity but dont break the 1,000's of existing links which arent looking for a list. Gnangarra 13:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would expect the wikipedia community will develop the articles to include the information about the role, responsibilities, how one comes to hold that office, and any notable high/low lights that doesn't actually exist in the articles in their current form. As they stand the articles are predominately the list with a short lead. This move will allow the lists to keep their edit history and for the subsequent redirects that will be created to become prose articles (as can be seen with Prime Minister of Australia and List of prime ministers of Australia). ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 14:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The format "premier of X" is the more natural title. Although the bulk of the articles currently may be devoted to a list of officeholders, they're certainly expandable to include more detail on the history and role of the office. This is also in line with articles like Attorney-General of Australia and Minister for Defence (Australia). With regard to the U.S. governor articles, I think there has been a fair bit of to-ing and fro-ing around article titles, but it's currently a mixture of titles like Governor of Colorado (includes a list) vs. List of governors of Delaware vs. separate office/list articles. I wouldn't be in favour of separating out lists of premiers as I think that's what most readers are looking for. ITBF (talk) 08:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: the articles are about the positions, one element of which is the list of office-holders, but other elements of the office are, and should be, included. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Article fine as is
Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 06:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft oppose for now. If these articles were large and unwieldy, then moving the list to its own page would be justified, but we're not at that stage yet. I can see an argument for being proactive but unless anyone is planning to do some serious editing in the near future, I think it would look rather awkward to have each "premier of [insert state]" article as short, even stub-length, pieces. Coincidentally, I visited the premier of Alberta page just this morning and was surprised both by its brevity and by having to click through to another article for a list of premiers. It felt like an unnecessary extra step. Axver (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. On the basis of Axver's comments above. I can see in the future, if the pages have been appropriately fleshed out and expanded, that a separate list page could be needed. However, it is too soon for that. Moving the pages confuses the issue further. The current arrangement at least allows for future expansion and then subdivision should the main page become too unwieldy.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per original rationale. Milkk7 (talk) 02:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Postscript: Premier of Victoria was moved against the above consensus, discussion ensued at WP:RM/TR, and the article returned to its original longstanding title. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Legend for political parties[edit]

Does the Legend for political parties need to be there (at the top of the 'List of premiers of Victoria' section) when it states the political party in the 8th column? ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the legend needs to be there. Steelkamp (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
my take is most lists have it so lets leave there Friendlyhistorian (talk) 05:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the Monarch and Governor columns[edit]

Are the Monarch and Governor columns necessary when we have Governor of Victoria and Monarch of Australia articles as well as this information in the infoboxes of most of the premiers. To me is seems like clutter. Thoughts? ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally i am ok with with keeping Governor columns but removing the monarch column that being said i would not mind removing both i think keeping only the Governor column would be the best solution Friendlyhistorian (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment: By removing the two columns, the list will be able to become sortable. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GMH Melbourne I've tried playing around with it and I don't think it's possible. This is because some premiers have served more than once but split up by another term. Bolte is an example of this occurring. HoHo3143 (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to split, to improve consistency with similar articles and overall length. GraziePrego (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the article be split in two: List of premiers of Victoria and Premier of Victoria. The split has been suggested in the peer review for this article by HoHo3143 and JML1148. The split will be consistent with articles Prime Minister of Australia and List of prime ministers of Australia, and will also allow for the merging of List of premiers of Victoria by time in office into the List of premiers of Victoria aritcle. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree it should be split just like the prime ministers of Australia article its also good for consistency as mentioned Friendlyhistorian (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging users that may be interested: @Totallynotarandomalt69, Steelkamp, and Axver: ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I agree with the reasons stated above. In addition, we have also had 49 premiers since the positions creation, so the list is getting quite long. 1 side note is that I think the list by time in office needs to be kept as the table can't be sorted due to some premiers serving split terms. This is unless both are put on the same List of premiers of Victoria article. HoHo3143 (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, obviously. The existing article, Premiers of Victoria, is getting very long and can easily be a standalone article. Removing the list brings it in line with Prime Minister of Australia and President of the United States of America. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, if as appears to be the case, although not explicitly stated, the proposal is not just to split but to move Premier of Victoria to Premiers of Victoria. If so this will require a WP:RM. While I am assuming good faith, there has been trouble before with this article having been moved before despite a consensus not to. Premiers of Victoria would be inconsistent with all other members of Category:Lists of heads of government of Australian states and territories that are named in the singular.
@GMH Melbourne: can you please clarify whether your proposal is that Premier of Victoria be renamed Premiers of Victoria?
Rather than creating List of premiers of Victoria, would suggest incorporating the relevant text into the existing List of premiers of Victoria by time in office article. If that article is then be renamed will also require a WP:RM. Nibraa (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, 'Premiers of Victoria' rather than 'Premier of Victoria' was a typo which I have now fixed in the proposal. GMH Melbourne (talk) 05:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nibraa (forgot to ping) GMH Melbourne (talk) 05:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GMH Melbourne thanks for the fix HoHo3143 (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer of split discussion: If the result of the discussion is 'split', in order to best retain the contribution history of the two pages, I suggest moving this article to 'List of premiers of Victoria' as the majority of this article's history pertains to the list of premiers section. I also suggest moving User:GMH Melbourne/Premier of Victoria into this title ('Premier of Victoria') as that page has already had the prose copied over and has in its history has the contributions of all the users that helped form the prose that exists now. GMH Melbourne (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_premiers_of_Victoria&oldid=1220819409"