![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've decided to remove the anonymous addition of Hajnal Ban. Despite lengthy profiles from both the SMH [1] and AJN [2], she's not yet the endorsed National candidate for Forde. Preselection is in December. Dlw22 08:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought Libs and Nats federally were not to challenge each other because they are in a coalition. If that is occuring in SA, will Libs has candidates in Nat-held seats in other states 203.213.97.55 11:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
What is happening in Parkes? A different National candidate (Mark Coulton) is indicated in the article, but nothing is said about any retirement of sitting MP John Cobb. Frickeg 06:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I notice there has been a mini edit war over Ken Aldred's candidacy for Holt. Just to settle the matter: Aldred is NOT the endorsed Liberal candidate for Holt. He was disendorsed within a week of winning preselection. This has been documented in the Former Candidates section. Dlw22 15:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Could someone who knows how to change the table please add Greg Pargeter as the Labor candidate for La trobe. http://www.starnewsgroup.com.au/story/37583. Thanks Crested Penguin 23:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
For those of us who are intending on running as independents, whats the policy for adding names? Purserj 09:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I would personally appreciate independent candidates putting up some very basic information here on this talk page, in preparation for the official announcement so that the information is on hand to transfer to the article. The basic information would include:
I'm of the distinct impression that this sort of "work in progress" is within wiki policy to post on the talk page, as long as it does not include self-promoting statements such as political platform.
Matthew 1130
14:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I am Tejay M Sener, an Ungrouped Independent Senate candidate from Victoria. Would the editor of this page kindly consider linking my campaign websites URL, [7] to my name on the page?
Thank you -- Tmsener 06:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations to Western Australia for having all candidates verified by sources, I have marked the candidates that need a source backing them up. Otherwise this is just random people adding names any one of which could be vandalism for all we know, it's a MUCH better article if it is as it was a little while ago with all candidates backed up with sources. I propose that when the election is actually called that all unverified candidates be removed until the electoral commission releases an official list of candidates. Cheers, Wiki Townsvillia n 14:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I have created two articles about election candidates, but they have both been "speedily deleted", because they did not satisfy the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
Apparently, references to three news articles and candidacy in an upcoming election is not sufficient to make them "notable"!!! How can we gather information about these candidates so that we and others may know who we are voting for?
My next idea was to use my userpage, and link to my userpage for each of the "non-notable" candidates on the Candidates of the Australian general election, 2007, but I suspect that would also be against some wikipedia policy.
My best idea now is to create a MSN Group with pages for each of the "non-notable" candidates, and link directly there from Candidates of the Australian general election, 2007. Does anyone have a better idea?
Matthew 1130 13:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's another idea ... how about I create a section for "Information About New Candidates" at the bottom of Candidates of the Australian general election, 2007? That way we can link from the Candidates of the Australian general election, 2007#Senate down to that section, without fear of the information getting "speedily deleted" because they are not notable enough.
Matthew 1130 14:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The fact that someone is a candidate for election to the Australian Parliament makes them notable by virtue of that fact alone, I would have thought. Intelligent Mr Toad 01:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Lachlan Conner is listed as an Independent Candidate for the Victorian Senate. Conner is a character in an ongoing comedy/soap by blogger "Grods Corp", I sincerely doubt that the character in this soap is actually a candidate for election. http://www.grods.com/lachlan-connor-independent/ -- Kieran Bennett 08:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Since being a candidate alone does not make a notable BLP subjectmatter for an article maybe we should remove all the redlinks on this page as it encourages people to create articles which will just have to be deleted on notability grounds. I'd like to achieve consensus first though before going through it all. Cheers, Wiki Townsvillia n 13:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
what do people think about including the margins that each seat is held by in the lower house, this would be useful information for people browsing through the list.
Additionally we are going to soon have to address the issue of how big the senate candidate tables are going to get, if they are going to be full lists then there will be hundreds and hundreds of names included! Cheers, Wiki Townsvillia n 04:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Please be a bit careful about unlinking linked names on this page. Someone came along and unlinked Caroline Hutchinson because she was an independent, despite the fact she is a high-profile radio host and by far the biggest threat to the incumbent in that seat. Equally, independent and newsreader Noel Brunning was not linked in Forrest, despite the fact that he poses a much greater threat to the Liberals there than the linked Labor candidate. This was also the case in O'Connor, where the 20-year old university student running for Labor was linked, but not the prominent National candidate who actually might pose a challenge. Rebecca 06:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Was there a particular motivation for eliminating the Socialist Alliance and LDP columns in NSW yet keeping the CEC there?
The CEC might run a larger number of candidates than either of the former parties, but in electorates they run in they are significantly outpolled by SA and the LDP polled 1.8% in the 2004 ACT election compared to results of about .5% for the CEC in most seats they stand. Obviously I have a bias, but I'm trying to approach this from a non-biased perspective.
When is a minor party "major enough" to get its own HoR column? Obviously there has to be an arbitrary cut off for "neatness" but if the cut off is going to exclude SA and the LDP I'd also exclude CDP and CEC, limiting it to parties that have had parliamentary representation. Or set as a guideline parties that are running candidates in X% of seats per state. Which may be what you've done now.
I would still dispute the idea that the CEC is less "minor" than the LDP or SA, though.
Feel free to give your own analysis, though Dlw22 as you've been the main contributor.
Saben4 05:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I would support merging the Liberal and National columns for spacial purposes. As regards the very minor parties, it gets pretty tricky deciding which of them is more or less significant, since at the national or state level they generally all score below 1% of the vote. Perhaps the best criteria in these cases is the number of candidates put forward by a party for that particular state, but not all of the candidates are known yet. I would suggest that the second-to-last column be titled "other minor party candidates" and assign a footnote number to each political party (see 'Candidates of NSW election 2007'), so eg. John Smith¹ (footnoted as 1 = Socialist Alliance), Bill Jones² (2 = LDP) etc. A footnote takes less space than writing 'SA' or 'LDP' each time. I would reserve the last column for 'Independent candidates' (which would include candidates of non-registered parties). I would expect there to be a large number of Independents, with some seats having 2 or even 3 Independents running. Mrodowicz 01:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. I think merging the Coalition is a good idea, even if there are 2 Coalition candidates for a single electorate, the rows don't become too tall.
Secondly, I like your idea Mrodowicz of splitting the superminor parties and independents into two columns. I don't think footnotes are necessary, a 2-3 letter abbreviation is fine, especially considering under this proposal the number of columns would be cut. The largest numbers of candidates in a single HoR electorate would be 10-12 with probably a maximum of 4 superminor parties and 4 independents. That way the rows don't become too ugly.
I think the best layout would be- Labor Coalition Green Democrats FF Minors Independent for the HoR- 7 columns total. The current set up for the Senate is fine. I would propose converting Senate Candidates to their group letters once group tickets are announced. Are we able to agree on my proposed layout? Saben4 06:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Would anyone object to eliminating the National column in WA, and shifting the one candidate to the Others column? I don't really think it fits to put him in the Coalition column, as it would look odd, the parties aren't affiliated in that state, and he's running directly against an incumbent Liberal. It may also be an idea to do the same for the Nationals in SA. Rebecca 23:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really fussed either way on the National party column. However, another criteria, that could be used, other than a state party coalition agreement criteria, is to ask the question: If elected would that Nationals candidate be likely to join a Liberal/National Govt. or Opposition, or would the candidate sit on the cross-bench? If they would likely be part of the coalition, then they probably might be included together with the Libs. Note also, that it was fairly common practice in the past for Libs and Nats to run against each other in certain seats, even under a coalition agreement. Mrodowicz 17:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I have been thinking about this and have decided the best criteria for drawing the line between minor and micro parties is as follows- If the party has Federal representation they count as "minor" and get a column in every state they run in more than 50% of seats (Dems in SA, QLD, Vic). If the party has State-level representation they count as "minor" in that state provided they are running in over 50% of the seats (eg CDP in NSW). All other parties are considered "micro". If the "Other" column exceeds 4 candidates it may reasonably be split into "Other Parties" and "Independents" where appropriate. This should help maintain the NSW table, ensure there isn't too much white-space, promote consistency and ensure the parties with representation are given more prominent positions. Saben4 06:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Would someone be able to start adding Family First columns for the HoR seats? They've obviously started preselecting candidates - former Liberal state minister Robert Brokenshire has just been announced as their candidate for the SA seat of Kingston. Rebecca 23:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't bother adding new citations. I plan to strip out all the references in the House of Reps and Senate sections by the end of the week. On Friday we shall instead have a single authoritative source: the Australian Electoral Commission's list of candidates. Dlw22 15:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The AEC will disclose nominations at 12 noon AEDT today. At this stage I'm not sure if the candidates will be released in bulk or come out in dribs and drabs. The releases might be staggered according to local timezones.
I shall endeavour to add all of it to this article. But anyone who wishes to add candidates themselves is certainly entitled to do so. But please state here which section you are editing (e.g. House of Reps/Victoria or Senate/SA) so that I may stay out of your way.
Thanks.
Dlw22 00:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Well this sure didn't go to plan.
It's two and a half hours since the supposed "declaration of nominations" in the south east. And half an hour since then in the west. But nothing appears to have been released on the AEC site. And now I have to bail.
I'll either come home this evening to add the remaining candidates. Or find that it's already been done.
Dlw22 03:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to start working on the territories and Tassie House of Reps. Saben4 08:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
NSW: House of Reps - now doing. Dlw22 13:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I've done the Senate for NSW, NT and the ACT. I see someone else has done Tasmania. Rebecca 00:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Vic: House of Reps - now doing. Dlw22 02:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
SA: House of Reps - now doing. Dlw22 04:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The Senate is now done for every state except South Australia. I've had enough for now, so it'd be good if someone could finish that off. Also, I wasn't quite sure how to work out the group letters, so if someone could add that for the other states, that would be great. Rebecca 04:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
WA: House of Reps - now doing. Dlw22 05:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Rebecca, I notice you removed the middle names from Shane Kenneth Neumann and Cameron Paul Thompson.
Whilst I'm not strongly attached to this policy, I thought it best to present the names as they are on the ballot paper. (But without the reversing of the surname/given names.) Sometimes that includes a middle name. Sometimes just a middle initial.
Your thoughts?
Dlw22 03:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I notice someone has changed the ACT table. While I think this is a nice design and an improvement in many ways, I am concerned about the elimination of links to the major parties. To someone with Australian politics this is not a problem; for someone else, they may have no idea what "Labor", "Liberal" or "CDP" refer to. However, I'm hesitant to reinstate the links as they neutralise the colour, which I think aids readability. Additionally, I'm concerned about the lack of dividing lines between rows, which, if the new design is implemented across the article, could lead to confusion in very large tables. What are others' thoughts on this? Frickeg ( talk) 07:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
In Australia, where the legislature and executive are effectively one, we're less inclined to call the election a "legislative" vote but rather a general election. Could the title be changed to reflect this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.219.60 ( talk) 02:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Candidates of the Australian federal election, 2007. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've decided to remove the anonymous addition of Hajnal Ban. Despite lengthy profiles from both the SMH [1] and AJN [2], she's not yet the endorsed National candidate for Forde. Preselection is in December. Dlw22 08:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought Libs and Nats federally were not to challenge each other because they are in a coalition. If that is occuring in SA, will Libs has candidates in Nat-held seats in other states 203.213.97.55 11:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
What is happening in Parkes? A different National candidate (Mark Coulton) is indicated in the article, but nothing is said about any retirement of sitting MP John Cobb. Frickeg 06:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I notice there has been a mini edit war over Ken Aldred's candidacy for Holt. Just to settle the matter: Aldred is NOT the endorsed Liberal candidate for Holt. He was disendorsed within a week of winning preselection. This has been documented in the Former Candidates section. Dlw22 15:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Could someone who knows how to change the table please add Greg Pargeter as the Labor candidate for La trobe. http://www.starnewsgroup.com.au/story/37583. Thanks Crested Penguin 23:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
For those of us who are intending on running as independents, whats the policy for adding names? Purserj 09:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I would personally appreciate independent candidates putting up some very basic information here on this talk page, in preparation for the official announcement so that the information is on hand to transfer to the article. The basic information would include:
I'm of the distinct impression that this sort of "work in progress" is within wiki policy to post on the talk page, as long as it does not include self-promoting statements such as political platform.
Matthew 1130
14:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I am Tejay M Sener, an Ungrouped Independent Senate candidate from Victoria. Would the editor of this page kindly consider linking my campaign websites URL, [7] to my name on the page?
Thank you -- Tmsener 06:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations to Western Australia for having all candidates verified by sources, I have marked the candidates that need a source backing them up. Otherwise this is just random people adding names any one of which could be vandalism for all we know, it's a MUCH better article if it is as it was a little while ago with all candidates backed up with sources. I propose that when the election is actually called that all unverified candidates be removed until the electoral commission releases an official list of candidates. Cheers, Wiki Townsvillia n 14:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I have created two articles about election candidates, but they have both been "speedily deleted", because they did not satisfy the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
Apparently, references to three news articles and candidacy in an upcoming election is not sufficient to make them "notable"!!! How can we gather information about these candidates so that we and others may know who we are voting for?
My next idea was to use my userpage, and link to my userpage for each of the "non-notable" candidates on the Candidates of the Australian general election, 2007, but I suspect that would also be against some wikipedia policy.
My best idea now is to create a MSN Group with pages for each of the "non-notable" candidates, and link directly there from Candidates of the Australian general election, 2007. Does anyone have a better idea?
Matthew 1130 13:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's another idea ... how about I create a section for "Information About New Candidates" at the bottom of Candidates of the Australian general election, 2007? That way we can link from the Candidates of the Australian general election, 2007#Senate down to that section, without fear of the information getting "speedily deleted" because they are not notable enough.
Matthew 1130 14:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The fact that someone is a candidate for election to the Australian Parliament makes them notable by virtue of that fact alone, I would have thought. Intelligent Mr Toad 01:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Lachlan Conner is listed as an Independent Candidate for the Victorian Senate. Conner is a character in an ongoing comedy/soap by blogger "Grods Corp", I sincerely doubt that the character in this soap is actually a candidate for election. http://www.grods.com/lachlan-connor-independent/ -- Kieran Bennett 08:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Since being a candidate alone does not make a notable BLP subjectmatter for an article maybe we should remove all the redlinks on this page as it encourages people to create articles which will just have to be deleted on notability grounds. I'd like to achieve consensus first though before going through it all. Cheers, Wiki Townsvillia n 13:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
what do people think about including the margins that each seat is held by in the lower house, this would be useful information for people browsing through the list.
Additionally we are going to soon have to address the issue of how big the senate candidate tables are going to get, if they are going to be full lists then there will be hundreds and hundreds of names included! Cheers, Wiki Townsvillia n 04:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Please be a bit careful about unlinking linked names on this page. Someone came along and unlinked Caroline Hutchinson because she was an independent, despite the fact she is a high-profile radio host and by far the biggest threat to the incumbent in that seat. Equally, independent and newsreader Noel Brunning was not linked in Forrest, despite the fact that he poses a much greater threat to the Liberals there than the linked Labor candidate. This was also the case in O'Connor, where the 20-year old university student running for Labor was linked, but not the prominent National candidate who actually might pose a challenge. Rebecca 06:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Was there a particular motivation for eliminating the Socialist Alliance and LDP columns in NSW yet keeping the CEC there?
The CEC might run a larger number of candidates than either of the former parties, but in electorates they run in they are significantly outpolled by SA and the LDP polled 1.8% in the 2004 ACT election compared to results of about .5% for the CEC in most seats they stand. Obviously I have a bias, but I'm trying to approach this from a non-biased perspective.
When is a minor party "major enough" to get its own HoR column? Obviously there has to be an arbitrary cut off for "neatness" but if the cut off is going to exclude SA and the LDP I'd also exclude CDP and CEC, limiting it to parties that have had parliamentary representation. Or set as a guideline parties that are running candidates in X% of seats per state. Which may be what you've done now.
I would still dispute the idea that the CEC is less "minor" than the LDP or SA, though.
Feel free to give your own analysis, though Dlw22 as you've been the main contributor.
Saben4 05:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I would support merging the Liberal and National columns for spacial purposes. As regards the very minor parties, it gets pretty tricky deciding which of them is more or less significant, since at the national or state level they generally all score below 1% of the vote. Perhaps the best criteria in these cases is the number of candidates put forward by a party for that particular state, but not all of the candidates are known yet. I would suggest that the second-to-last column be titled "other minor party candidates" and assign a footnote number to each political party (see 'Candidates of NSW election 2007'), so eg. John Smith¹ (footnoted as 1 = Socialist Alliance), Bill Jones² (2 = LDP) etc. A footnote takes less space than writing 'SA' or 'LDP' each time. I would reserve the last column for 'Independent candidates' (which would include candidates of non-registered parties). I would expect there to be a large number of Independents, with some seats having 2 or even 3 Independents running. Mrodowicz 01:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. I think merging the Coalition is a good idea, even if there are 2 Coalition candidates for a single electorate, the rows don't become too tall.
Secondly, I like your idea Mrodowicz of splitting the superminor parties and independents into two columns. I don't think footnotes are necessary, a 2-3 letter abbreviation is fine, especially considering under this proposal the number of columns would be cut. The largest numbers of candidates in a single HoR electorate would be 10-12 with probably a maximum of 4 superminor parties and 4 independents. That way the rows don't become too ugly.
I think the best layout would be- Labor Coalition Green Democrats FF Minors Independent for the HoR- 7 columns total. The current set up for the Senate is fine. I would propose converting Senate Candidates to their group letters once group tickets are announced. Are we able to agree on my proposed layout? Saben4 06:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Would anyone object to eliminating the National column in WA, and shifting the one candidate to the Others column? I don't really think it fits to put him in the Coalition column, as it would look odd, the parties aren't affiliated in that state, and he's running directly against an incumbent Liberal. It may also be an idea to do the same for the Nationals in SA. Rebecca 23:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really fussed either way on the National party column. However, another criteria, that could be used, other than a state party coalition agreement criteria, is to ask the question: If elected would that Nationals candidate be likely to join a Liberal/National Govt. or Opposition, or would the candidate sit on the cross-bench? If they would likely be part of the coalition, then they probably might be included together with the Libs. Note also, that it was fairly common practice in the past for Libs and Nats to run against each other in certain seats, even under a coalition agreement. Mrodowicz 17:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I have been thinking about this and have decided the best criteria for drawing the line between minor and micro parties is as follows- If the party has Federal representation they count as "minor" and get a column in every state they run in more than 50% of seats (Dems in SA, QLD, Vic). If the party has State-level representation they count as "minor" in that state provided they are running in over 50% of the seats (eg CDP in NSW). All other parties are considered "micro". If the "Other" column exceeds 4 candidates it may reasonably be split into "Other Parties" and "Independents" where appropriate. This should help maintain the NSW table, ensure there isn't too much white-space, promote consistency and ensure the parties with representation are given more prominent positions. Saben4 06:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Would someone be able to start adding Family First columns for the HoR seats? They've obviously started preselecting candidates - former Liberal state minister Robert Brokenshire has just been announced as their candidate for the SA seat of Kingston. Rebecca 23:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't bother adding new citations. I plan to strip out all the references in the House of Reps and Senate sections by the end of the week. On Friday we shall instead have a single authoritative source: the Australian Electoral Commission's list of candidates. Dlw22 15:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The AEC will disclose nominations at 12 noon AEDT today. At this stage I'm not sure if the candidates will be released in bulk or come out in dribs and drabs. The releases might be staggered according to local timezones.
I shall endeavour to add all of it to this article. But anyone who wishes to add candidates themselves is certainly entitled to do so. But please state here which section you are editing (e.g. House of Reps/Victoria or Senate/SA) so that I may stay out of your way.
Thanks.
Dlw22 00:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Well this sure didn't go to plan.
It's two and a half hours since the supposed "declaration of nominations" in the south east. And half an hour since then in the west. But nothing appears to have been released on the AEC site. And now I have to bail.
I'll either come home this evening to add the remaining candidates. Or find that it's already been done.
Dlw22 03:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to start working on the territories and Tassie House of Reps. Saben4 08:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
NSW: House of Reps - now doing. Dlw22 13:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I've done the Senate for NSW, NT and the ACT. I see someone else has done Tasmania. Rebecca 00:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Vic: House of Reps - now doing. Dlw22 02:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
SA: House of Reps - now doing. Dlw22 04:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The Senate is now done for every state except South Australia. I've had enough for now, so it'd be good if someone could finish that off. Also, I wasn't quite sure how to work out the group letters, so if someone could add that for the other states, that would be great. Rebecca 04:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
WA: House of Reps - now doing. Dlw22 05:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Rebecca, I notice you removed the middle names from Shane Kenneth Neumann and Cameron Paul Thompson.
Whilst I'm not strongly attached to this policy, I thought it best to present the names as they are on the ballot paper. (But without the reversing of the surname/given names.) Sometimes that includes a middle name. Sometimes just a middle initial.
Your thoughts?
Dlw22 03:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I notice someone has changed the ACT table. While I think this is a nice design and an improvement in many ways, I am concerned about the elimination of links to the major parties. To someone with Australian politics this is not a problem; for someone else, they may have no idea what "Labor", "Liberal" or "CDP" refer to. However, I'm hesitant to reinstate the links as they neutralise the colour, which I think aids readability. Additionally, I'm concerned about the lack of dividing lines between rows, which, if the new design is implemented across the article, could lead to confusion in very large tables. What are others' thoughts on this? Frickeg ( talk) 07:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
In Australia, where the legislature and executive are effectively one, we're less inclined to call the election a "legislative" vote but rather a general election. Could the title be changed to reflect this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.219.60 ( talk) 02:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Candidates of the Australian federal election, 2007. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)