Template talk:VicCurrentMLCs
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Nationals
[edit]While Nationals only have 1 MLC, Bath is still a member of the opposition and should not be listed under "Other". Marcnut1996 (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, and I would further add that Ratnam (as leader of a party with lower house representation) should probably be separated out as well. Frickeg (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Ivar the Boneful: it seems you have a different view, would you care to explain why? It seems to me that the heading should be changed from Liberal to coalition & Bath included. --Find bruce (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
- Not that fussed with Bath, would be worth checking if we're being consistent across other state templates. Not sure about Ratnam, is she recognised in the council differently to any of the other crossbenchers? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Ivar the Boneful: it seems you have a different view, would you care to explain why? It seems to me that the heading should be changed from Liberal to coalition & Bath included. --Find bruce (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
- Well, this is the only state template that currently manufactures an "Others" grouping - understandably given the great variety currently found in the crossbench. But I think it is self-evident that the Nationals and the Greens are entirely different from parties like Sustainable Australia and Transport Matters, and that neither really fits into the "Others" category. I do not think Parliament's treatment of either is particularly relevant. Frickeg (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)