Talk:New South Wales National Party

Australia: New South Wales / Politics Stub‑class

	Australia portal New South Wales National Party 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
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Tim? Bruxner

Why do you consistently edit to a 'Tim' Bruxner on: Leader of the New South Wales National Party. There is no evidence of any NSW politician by that name. James Bruxner is correct. He served the NSW Parliament for 19 years and was Deputy Leader from 1975-1981: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/members.nsf/1fb6ebed995667c2ca256ea100825164/9281a10237f1f6d5ca256e2100035768?OpenDocument. Please stop making these pointless and silly edits. Regards Siegfried Nugent (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said to you on your talk page, Wikipedia uses common names - the names people actually went by, and Bruxner was known throughout his life as Tim. Do your research, then rant. Rebecca (talk)

May I suggest (and I have made this edit) that the page says "James ("Tim") Bruxner"? You appear to both be right; his name was verifably James Bruxner, and that being his birth name it's the name he will have formally held his offices under. However it's also correct that he's most commonly known as "Tim". The format "James ("Tim") Bruxner" appears to have sufficient clarity for everyone involved, and the longer argument can wait until someone has the time to start a dedicated article on him. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if anyone's really doubting that he was called Tim (at least by friends and party members) the evidence begins here: [1] - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Rebeccas has just reverted to the text "James Bruxner" with the edit summary "It's a factual inaccuracy. This can't rationally be disputed if you do any research at all," so I'm going to assume you're both happy with James now and leave it at that. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And no, you would be wrong, as that was in error. This is the stupidest edit war I have seen on Wikipedia in a long time. Either someone doesn't understand Wikipedia:Use common names at all, someone is actually too stupid to use Google, or both. Neither reflects terribly well on their editing. Rebecca (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think (with respect to your generally excellent edits that I've seen elsewhere) that the person who doesn't understand Wikipedia:Use common names might be you, Rebecca. That's a guideline on choosing article titles (in fact it's a subsection of Wikipedia:Article titles). It has nothing to do with article content. The sources above adequately demonstrate that Mr Bruxner formally held his office under the name James Bruxner and while the link might redirect to a (hypothetical) article entitled Tim Bruxner (an argument for another time), the text appearing here should definitely say James. If it's an issue you feel passionately about can I suggest you start an article for Mr Bruxner, as the information that article would contain would probably be enlightening for everyone? - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, DustFormsWords, that's a complete misreading of WP:UCN. By your argument, Division of Wannon should have "John Fraser" as a member; the List of Prime Ministers of Australia would be listing "Edward Whitlam" and "Joseph Chifley". The man was known as Tim, for goodness' sake, as demonstrated by many, many sources on a simple Google search (since some people don't seem to want to do one for themselves). Frickeg (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gough Whitlam held office as Gough Whitlam; Tim Bruxner held office as James Bruxner. James Bruxner is the name that was on the voting cards, the advertising, the stationary, and the front door of his office. I agree it's a confusing area that doesn't fall neatly into our existing manual of style which is why I initially suggested the compromise position James "Tim" Bruxner. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also I've started the article James Caird Bruxner, which I fully understand might need to be renamed as Tim Bruxner or James Bruxner, but before we get into a move war over it I'd appreciate if people could give me time to do research and find sources so we've got something meaningful to base that discussion on. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is "holding office" as James Bruxner differ from Whitlam, who would have been sworn in as "Edward Gough Whitlam"? As for sources: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] (p. 142). As for appearing on the ballot paper as James, he actually appeared as "Bruxner, James Caird", but everyone else appeared with their full names back then. It's what was done. Have a look at the listings here, for example. Frickeg (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSBIO says the appropriate name is the one most commonly used by reliable sources. Reliable sources calling him Tim also note his name was James; the reverse is less true. But rather than keep fighting (Rebecca's rather aggressively moved the article to Tim Bruxner, and I'll leave it there for now rather than go to what will end up as a 3RR), how about we just agree they're all good names, improve the article content, and revisit it when the article is fleshed out and full of relevant sources? - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who lived in regional NSW at the time - I have to say that he was always referred to as Tim, just as Whitlam was always Gough and Fraser was always Malcolm. I had no idea he was born James until I came across this discussion. My understanding is that the common usage name is the one used in WP. Porturology (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the Herald always claimed to be a journal of record and here's a picture of him with mum and dad: http://newspapers.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/17399601?searchTerm=%22tim+bruxner%22. The free archives stop in 1954 otherwise I'd put in an article using the name Tim during his political career. Porturology (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Porturology. It may be that you're correct and Tim is the name most commonly used by reliable sources; feel free to contribute to the Tim Bruxner article as well, while you're digging up sources anyway. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]