Talk:Keep Sydney Open

Requested move 9 December 2022

The Open Party → Elizabeth Farrelly Independents – The party has applied to change its name. DilatoryRevolution (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment: What we have to decide is whether Wikipedia recognises KSO and Farrelly Independents as the same party (de jure what is happening), or whether Wikipedia recognises Farrelly Independents as piggybacking the existing registration of KSO to have the party registered (de facto what is happening) and has two different articles for the two parties. Is Elizabeth Farrelly Independents a succession of the Keep Sydney Open party & movement - a clean break? Or are they a continuation of the KSO party? If we find the former to be the case (that EFI is should be a different article), then there would also be a case to rename this article back to "Keep Sydney Open," as coverage of parties which have ended on Wikipedia should use their name when the party was most notable. In the opposite case, a singular article named "Elizabeth Farrelly Independents" could read with sections "Keep Sydney Open (2014–2022)" and "Elizabeth Farrelly Independents (2022–)". I'm interested and keen to see what others think, and I think that we should wait for more sources to come out which describe the relationship between KSO and EFI before a name change occurs. J2m5 (talk) 12:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Further comment (oppose for now): In any case, the name change has not yet been approved so this move would preempt the NSWEC's decision. J2m5 (talk) 12:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

It is the role of the Electoral Commission to determine whether it is a continuation of the old party. It is not for us to decide. If the Electoral Commission had found it to be a different party, they would have rejected the name change application and asked EFI to complete a fresh party application. As I said below, Tyson Koh is still one of the driving forces behind the party so it is not a new party. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 06:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence that the Commission has grounds to deny a party name change on the basis that it appears to be a different political party? I could not find anything in that regard. If so then I'd tend to agree. J2m5 (talk) J2m5 (talk) 07:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Australia has been notified of this discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Australian politics has been notified of this discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. (This is on the basis that the formal name change does in fact get accepted and formalised, as Jm25 notes; if it does not, or while it is still pending, this is a WP:CRYSTALBALL situation in any case.) While in general I agree with renaming parties when formally renamed (and would support, for example, the PEP move when it occurs), this is a complete shift away from the original party's entire reason for existence, is highly unlikely to involve many of the same people or be seen by the public as the same organisation, and I think just gets confusing. I would be inclined to move this back to Keep Sydney Open (as Jm25 said, the name when they were most notable) and create a new article for ESI which acknowledges the link. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Ideological shift does not indicate that a party is no longer the same entity. The most obvious example of this is the United States Democratic Party, which no longer stands for the values of Jacksonian democracy. What matters is continuity. Tyson Koh is still one of the driving forces behind the party. The Electoral Commission would have rejected the name change if it considered it a completely new party. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 07:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
    • That the most that could be said for any suppose continuity is that one figure in it has decided to personally run the campaign of a previously unrelated independent is an argument against there being any continuity, not for it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Please note that the name change has now proceeded.--DilatoryRevolution (talk) 07:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. KSO was a very different party. Agreed with Drover that this page should be changed back to Keep Sydney Open as they never contested as The Open Party. There should be a section mentioning it's renaming, but disagree with new article for ESI, there should just be a link to Elizabeth Farrelly rather than a party. Wikipedia generally doesn't make dedicated party pages for independents, even though they often run within "parties" just to get their name on the ballot. Catiline52 (talk) 08:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)