Talk:List of premiers of Victoria

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

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

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• LindsayHamiltonSimpsonThompson.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• LindsayHamiltonSimpsonThompson.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Daniel Andrews 2022.jpg

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

The request to rename this article to List of premiers of Victoria has been carried out. If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

• Premier of Victoria → List of premiers of Victoria
• Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory → List of chief ministers of the Australian Capital Territory
• Premier of New South Wales → List of premiers of New South Wales
• Premier of Queensland → List of premiers of Queensland
• Premier of Tasmania → List of premiers of Tasmania

– 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

• Support in principle. The other ones (Premier of Western Australia, Premier of South Australia, Chief Minister of the Northern Territory) should be moved as well IMO and the contents split to the original page. That would be a good course of action (rather than a split in the other direction) due to those page's page history, which is mostly focused on the list of premiers. This move would be inline with the Premiers of Canada articles or the Governors of the United States articles, as well as the Prime minister of Australia article and many other heads of government around the world. Steelkamp (talk) 07:23, 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

• Comment I am working on a article to replace Premiers of Victoria for if the move were to take place (see here).––– GMH MELBOURNE 23:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply