Talk:Agent-General
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Contradiction
"By the 1990s, many Australian state governments regarded the office of their Agent General in London as a costly anachronism, even for promoting tourism and investment, and have since been closed and subsumed into the Australian High Commission. Only Queensland now has a separate government office in London.
The majority of Australian States continue to have Agents General in London as of 2006."
These two paragraphs contradict each other. Can someone confirm which is correct? -- Necrothesp 16:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Both are correct. The seperate offices were closed, and the Agents-General moved into the 'Australia Centre' within the High Commission. The post of Agent-General for each state still exists, and is still filled, and they also continue to have support staff working on trade and tourism. They just don't maintain distinct central London premises. 136.8.152.13 14:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- That needs to be made clear then. -- Necrothesp 17:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pluralisation and hyphenation
Titles of the form [officer]-general are usually pluralised as [officers]-general, but this article use(d) Agent Generals as its plural throughout (and note the lack of hyphen). I did a bit of research, and found several governmental and academic documents from Queensland and New South Wales that use "agents-general", and one each from South Australia and South Africa using "agent-generals". (Note the hyphen in all cases.) As such, I've gone through and added hyphens, and changed all plurals to "agents-general". (I haven't added a note about the pluralisation differences, figuring it would be a bit too dictionary-ish.) And I've moved the page from Agent General to Agent-General, which formerly existed only as a redirect. (One could have made a case for Agent-general, but I based the change on usage at Governor-General.) It's a pretty big set of changes, so: any concerns? -- Perey (talk) 04:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)