Talk:NT Greens

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 September 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Politics: Political parties Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Green Politics (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Green Politics, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Green PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject Green PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Green PoliticsGreen Politics articles

Australia: Northern Territory / Politics Low‑importance

	Australia portal NT Greens is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Northern Territory (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the Northern Territory Library.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Untitled

Does this mean the nominated for deletion message can be removed now? Djapa Owen 06:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs)

Yep, once it's closed, the notice should be removed. I've gone ahead and done it. Orderinchaos 13:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

discussion of the article

If Niblock is the party's leader, then what is the status of Ilana Eldridge? She was widely referred to during the NT election campaign as being the leader of the Greens. Ambi 10:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

She was the lead candidate, which, if incumbent, would be referred to as Parliamentary Leader. We are limited here by the political party template, which does not allow for a 'convenor'. The convenor acts much like a political party's president, whereas the lead candidate only has their job during the campaign. --Zzymurgy 00:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But as far as I know, she's always been this since the creation of the party. If convenor is equivalent to party president, wouldn't then Eldridge be leader for the purposes of the template? Ambi 08:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what the party thinks, really. Eldridge may appear to be the leader through being the perennial candidate, but she would have to enter into a preselection process each time - unlike, say, the ALP, whose leader always holds office first. For most of the time, she's not in any formal position at all. I think it would be worth noting this on the page, in line with other states' Greens pages. I've added it now. --Zzymurgy 00:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks; that is much clearer. Would it be possible to do the same for the other states? Ambi 05:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, although this will require a bit of local savvy in each state. Some state simply don't have a regular candidate as the face of the party. --Zzymurgy 03:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has arisen time and time again on Wikipedia with the various state party pages for the Greens. There is no comparison between Leader and Convenor. They have little in common, and Convenor is in no way a substitute for a Leader. In some states there are Leaders (Tasmania, Federal), and in others there is a single figure in Parliament or outside who stands out (WA, ACT, SA, Qld, NT). But it is misleading to say "instead opting for the term convenor". It indicates that it is simply an issue of vocabulary, rather than party structure. Braue 10:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]