Talk:Michael McCormack (Australian politician)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2018

Michael McCormack's portfolio has changed. I am one of his staff members and would like to edit the page to reflect the changes as well as update the photo. I have recently signed up (user name Shane Manning) and will follow protocol but I was hoping to expedite the process if possible. My email address is shane.manning@aph.gov.au. I look forward to hearing from someone.

Many thanks,

Shane Shane Manning (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Further more, the policy on Primary Sources prevents using "I've seen it" as a source. If your change is used in a newspaper or other secondary source, feel free to add that here and send me a message on my talk page. Thanks-- Cocohead781 (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Michael McCormack (Australian politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20110706110227/http://michaelmccormack.com.au/about-michael/michael-s-employment-history/ to http://michaelmccormack.com.au/about-michael/michael-s-employment-history/

• source valid

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304002723/http://www.nationalparty.org/News/Blogs/tabid/103/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/5277/Michael-McCormack-chosen-as-candidate-for-Riverina.aspx to http://www.nationalparty.org/News/Blogs/tabid/103/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/5277/Michael-McCormack-chosen-as-candidate-for-Riverina.aspx

• source invalid – previously removed from article

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110218034425/http://nsw.nationals.org.au/our-team/the-nationals-team/mr-michael-mccormack.html to http://nsw.nationals.org.au/our-team/the-nationals-team/mr-michael-mccormack.html

• source valid

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  20:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

McCormack's 1993 editorial attacking LGBTI people

It reeks of whitewashing that this content was deleted. It is clearly relevant and noteworthy - as can be demonstrated by its return as a news article in 2010 and 2017. The fact that it was 1993 does not make it irrelevant. He was editor of the Wagga newspaper at the time, hardly a child. Garth M (talk) 09:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I did a search for McCormack on Factiva earlier in the week and also found an article from 1995 discussing it. It should definitely be included. However, the article is currently a bit unbalanced, as it doesn't mention his apology. It also somewhat implies that he was dismissed as a result of the column, which isn't true. I'll edit it at some point. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 25 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Do not see general agreement here to rename these pages now nor in the near future. This discussion borders on "not moved" due to the strong oppose arguments. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can strengthen their policy-/guideline-driven rationales and in a few months request these page moves again. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  19:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

---

• Michael McCormack (Australian politician) → Michael McCormack
• Michael McCormack → Michael McCormack (disambiguation)

– As the incoming deputy prime minister this Michael McCormack will have (now and in the future) a far higher profile than the Nebraska state judge, the Gaelic footballer, or the Boston city councillor. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Support The Pageviews analysis shows the Australian politician was the most viewed of these pages even before the Joyce Affair. There appear to be two Mikes that were more widely viewed, but no Michaels. --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

decline I put my brain into gear and rescind my support, on the grounds that with several of the people on the disambig page having over 100 inbound links, it is far easier to spot the errors if they link to a disambiguation page and much faster to fix them using popups, and (almost) never link to a wrong article (the disambiguator "(politician)" can still trip people). I just spotted and fixed one on National Party of Australia--Scott Davis ^Talk 03:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Was only sworn in as Deputy Prime Minister today. Higher searches for his name are to be expected. Would require longer as Deputy PM and/or be notable for more in order to be the primary topic. Shadow007 (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment Perhaps move to Michael McCormack (politician)? The other politicians in the disambig list are Michael J. McCormack and Mike McCormack (politician) who retired in 1991 and 1981, respectively, and would seem to be, at best, no more notable than the subject. The nationality in the title does not accord with WP:PRECISE. Shadow007 (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are eight entries at the Michael McCormack disambiguation page and, while subject may be a well-known political figure in Australia, he does not, as yet, appear to have the status of a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Easily had the most pageviews before he was deputy prime minister and now he has more lasting historical significance due to that role then the others. None of the other people have even a iota of historical notability as this one. GuzzyG (talk) 07:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment He certainly had the most among those named "Michael McCormack" but among the people at the disambig page Mike McCormack (American football) was generally higher. None of the subjects, including the Australian politician, had any widespread notability prior to 2 weeks ago when the present subject began to be mentioned as a possible successor to Barnaby Joyce. Shadow007 (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Michael/Mike are different spellings, and the Aus deputy PM is always referred to as Michael. But as a test let's say what subject would a Chinese encyclopedia cover first, a major trading partners deputy prime minister or a dead (so no more likely publicity) american football (one country sport..) player? GuzzyG (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it's arbitrary, depending which languages you choose: Mike has English, German and Italian articles; Michael has English, French and Chinese articles. The english politician article is longest, followed by all three footballer articles then the other two politician articles. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Highest amount of pageviews and now a very high ranking governmental figure in Australia, and FWIW he is known here in neighboring New Zealand too, not just Australia. Kiwichris (talk) 07:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I really don't like using pageviews as an argument for primary topic and I don't see how that has anything to do with it - we are not a populist entity here and significance does not equal popularity. But in this case, I agree with the point if not the reasoning. The three other Michael McCormacks are, as far as I can tell, very minor figures - just between those four I think the politician had a pretty strong claim to be the primary topic even before he became Deputy PM. I agree that some of the Mike McCormacks might be a different story, but that is irrelevant because none of them have a claim to Michael McCormack as their common name. Frickeg (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. At least four different people from four different countries with this name have been at the top in page views between January 2016 and January 2018. American football is a sport important only in one country, but the person mentioned here is one of the few in its official Hall of Fame. Perhaps worth revisiting in the future, but I don't think one month with high page views is sufficient for this change. Dekimasuよ! 09:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

So the deputy prime minister of a regional power is less important historically then a one nation sport player? Like i said above, who would a Indian or Chinese encyclopedia cover first? GuzzyG (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I, of course, didn't say he was less important. I said he was not so much more important a week after he assumed the office (will he do much of note in that office? who knows) that his page should be moved without regard for other entries on the disambiguation page, and I backed that up with evidence showing he has not been the primary topic in the past (see WP:RECENTISM). Dekimasuよ! 17:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Views of this page have fallen over 95% since the peak last week. Dekimasuよ! 18:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

And yet still has more views then the dead one sport player. Also there's a difference between "Michael" and "Mike" so the football player shouldn't even factor into the discussion really. Ask yourself this way, who would more likely the be listed historically in 500 years, deputy prime minister of a G20 nation or a long dead sports player? GuzzyG (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Now 98%. No reason to move on a one-time spike in views. I think they will both be long dead in 500 years, there will be no American football, there will be no G20, and neither will be the primary topic, just like we have it arranged now. Dekimasuよ! 21:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Even if we ignore the blatant obvious (historical importance takes precedence over page views, not to mention that his pageviews still top the one nation sport player), you keep avoiding the fact that they both are listed under different names "Michael" and "Mike" so the sports player should have no affect on this nomination.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GuzzyG (talk • contribs)

Your argument that the Michaels and Mikes should be dealt with separately requires people looking for information on a topic (a Mike or Michael) to already know which form of that topic's name, shortened or not, is the most common way they are referred to in reliable sources. Right now they can get where they're going easily with help from the disambiguation page. I think you have made your view clear that the notability of just some old, dead, one-nation sport Hall of Fame player pales in comparison to this Very Important politician. I tend to agree with John Adams, who said that “The vice presidency is the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived," but then he wasn't in the G20. Dekimasuよ! 05:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you not agree that politicians are more important historically than athletes? On who there would be more scholarly content written about? I don't think he is very important at all but he clearly is more than the athlete, since the athlete has passed away, his time in the sun is over - likely no more publicity, so if he's only getting 30 views a day, it's only downhill from there. Is someone like that more historically notable and vital to an encyclopedia of ALL LANGUAGES, then a Deputy Prime Minister. Yes, i agree with John Adams, but even more futile in the grand scheme of things is a one nation sport player hall of famer and i disdain the G20.I bet using your own example there's heaps more literature on the vice presidents then any athlete from that time. Who would China or India write about first? It's that simple. GuzzyG (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

We're not required to choose. That's what a dab page is for, and it's doing its job right now. Masaharu Gotōda was Deputy Prime Minister of Japan in 1993. Teruki Tabata played in two second-level Japanese league soccer matches in 1999. Coverage is pretty random. No, I don't think all politicians are more important than all athletes for the purposes of article naming. George Clinton (musician) is more relevant to me than George Clinton (vice president), too. Dekimasuよ! 07:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:RECENTISM, this subject is of no significance internationally, and people looking for the other subjects name "Michael McCormack" would be astonished on downloading this one. Linking maintenance is far easier with the DAB page at the base name. With the flurry of recent activity, title and url stability is even more important. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

There's only two people referred to as "Michael McCormack" the judge and the gaelic footballer, how are these two on any similar level to a deputy leader? The "Mike's" can go in the disambig page, they're separate. GuzzyG (talk) 05:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Mike and Michael are interchangeable, to most people anyway. They belong on the same DAB page, as they are. Mike versus Michael are not sufficient disambiguation. In any case, there will be people who will know the judge, and other people who know the footballer, who would have no reason to care about this Michael McCormack. And all the other reasons. And WP:TITLECHANGES. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Michael McCormack official portrait.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 1 September 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved not moved. Sorry, no. The previous non-admin close was a blatant WP:SUPERVOTE, and I've overturned it as such. Born2cycle's interpretation of PTOPIC may very well be the correct one, but they should have presented it while the discussion was ongoing. PTOPIC is also a guideline, not a policy, and very much subjective. Given the relatively recent previous RM which also failed to achieve consensus for moving, I see no benefit to relisting the discussion. The previous rationale is found directly below. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Reading consensus of the community as reflected in the arguments here, and by not counting !votes, there is consensus to move. As the !vote numbers are so far in the other direction, I should explain. The bottom line is that this person is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this name. None of the opposers even challenges this. Instead, most of the opposition is based on RECENTISM which has dubious application to a current politician (as opposed to, say, someone made briefly famous by a single event). Some of the reasons give to ignore PTOPIC blatantly ignore guidelines. PTOPIC has nothing to do with what you or anyone else you know has heard of. It has nothing to do with avoiding accumulation of bad links (if you think it should take that account, lobby to get PTOPIC to say that). The number of Michael McCormacks is also irrelevant. PTOPIC (the first criteria; historical significance is not relevant here) has to do with whether any one of a number of uses of an ambiguous title "is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term", to be the one being sought by anyone using that title as a search term. This has been shown to be the case, and not refuted. The consensus of the community is therefore to move this article accordingly. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 16:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

---

Michael McCormack (Australian politician) → Michael McCormack – It's been six months since the previous move request, and McCormack is absolutely clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in this case as the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. He has nearly ten times [1] the total and daily pageviews in all of 2018 as the next highest, Mike McCormack (American football). It is obvious that he is by far the most likely subject readers look for, and it is well past time this got moved accordingly. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support per the above and my rationale in the first move request. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 06:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. RECENTISM of a politician of no great long term significance, and of no great international significance. Australian prime ministers change every couple of years, and this is a mere ceremonial deputy from the vassal small coalition party.

It is very realistic that reader looking for any of the the Nebraska judge, the Gaelic footballer, either of the American politicians, the Irish novelist or the unusually notable Toronto police officer could have no knowledge of any other Mike/Micheal McCormack, let alone the only one from the other side of the planet.

There are too many Mike McCormacks for any one of them to be considered known to everyone who knows another, and so the DAB page should remain at the basename. Nothing has changed since last time.

For this one, the parenthetical "(Australian politician)" makes the page much more recognizable, how can making it less recognizable possibly help anyone?

Is it that he is no longer a mere Australian politician? Would it help to move to (Australian Deputy Prime Minister)? No, that too should fail as unabashed RECENTISM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose It's a pretty common forename/surname combination. Even if it were true that the politician is currently the primary topic for the name that's going to be short-lived. Even if he were prime minister I'd still be doubtful. Donama (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:RECENTISM. The politician is a deputy prime minister, not the head of state. Way too many Michael McCormacks, so keeping the name for disambig page is preferable. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. With no fewer than eight entries on the {{hndis}} page, making one of them WP:PTOPIC is a guaranteed way both of accumulating bad links and of annoying and/or puzzling readers who were looking for someone else.

With no PTOPIC, all readers need one extra click. With a PTOPIC, many readers need two.

He also fails, badly, one of my personal PTOPIC tests: Has just about everyone who's heard of a lesser topic also heard of the PTOPIC? Narky Blert (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Policy achievements section reads a bit funny?

It almost sounds like a resumé or an advertisement. I'm not sure if the tone is appropriate for a Wikipedia article. I do think most of the content should be kept, just maybe phrased in a little differently. I'm not an experienced editor though, so could someone take a look at it? Thanks. 115.124.1.167 (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Not Min for Agriculture, merely Acting Minister

We don't update ministers' articles and portfolio articles whenever a minister acts in a portfolio. Ministers act in portfolios all the time, and it just goes through to the keeper. For example, McCormack himself has acted as Prime Minister a few times, but we've said nothing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)