Talk:Digital Transformation Agency

Proposed merge of Digital Transformation Office into Digital Transformation Agency

There's not really enough unique content to be said, and considering it existed for less than two years, the entire thing can be covered in the DTA article. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I kept the subjects separate to keep in line with similar articles about Australian government agencies. For example, see the many incarnations of the Department of Industry,... Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, Department of Industry, Technology and Regional Development, Department of Industry, Science and Technology. Most existed for 1-3 years and were similar agencies. Bravetheif (talk) 10:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bravetheif: Hm, I think departments are a bit of a different case since they have a ministerial allocation (Minister for Industry etc) and are a bit more notable and significant. I think a case could be maybe made for merging them all together since they don't have any major unique content, but I definitely think the DTO and DTA articles can be merged (especially since DTO is no more than three sentences). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 00:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: I don't have them to hand, but I have seen multiple pages about short lived Australian agencies (mostly from 1920-60) that are in a similar situation to this page, that is why I initially created them separately. I can certainly understand the argument that they should be merged, but that is outside the scope of this discussion. Additionally, I personally believe that the entity's reorganisation from an Office to an Agency is a notable enough distinction to warrant separate articles. While still a secondary statutory structure, the change is significant and means the entity is subject to more regulations as well as more independence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bravetheif (talk • contribs) 10:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bravetheif: I disagree. The DTO was always an agency, it just called itself an office (see Office of National Intelligence) - there is no legal or organisational distinction between the two (see Order to rename the Digital Transformation Office and specify functions for the renamed Digital Transformation Agency), it just got a bigger budget pretty much. Also, just because other stuff exists isn't a hugely valid argument; anyways, we're talking about an agency in 2010-onwards, not departments in the 1920–60s. There's simply not enough content or notability to qualify having two separate articles for the same. Per WP:MOVE, since DTA is the majority name for the agency, Digital Transformation Office should have been moved to Digital Transformation Agency - that's fine that it wasn't, but we now need to merge it to just fix that. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: Hmm I was not aware that that was DTA's situation, in my experience the office and agency is used to denote an actual difference. The Department of Finance detailed several responsibilities that applied to agencies but not offices. However, if it truly was just a name change, then I support the merge. Bravetheif (talk)

@Bravetheif: I'm unaware of any actual legal differences between the two, but nonetheless, for the DTA there are none. Just to check, are you okay for me to take this as support for a merge? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: Yes Bravetheif (talk)