This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why has a different shade of red been used for the ALP in the maps showing the party of government in each state?
I think it'd be more consistent & look better if just one colour were used. 2001:8003:680C:BD01:6CCE:9ED:EC5B:4FF9 ( talk) 04:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Why is there a line all along Australian coast in the map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.117.55.134 ( talk • contribs)
Where it says that the wall-to-wall Labour governments today are a first for any party co-alition, isn't 1969 the same, but with the co-alition? If so, how is it a first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.139.168 ( talk) 03:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Animated graphic is wrong. It shows that in about 1968, there was a Liberal government in Queensland. This is incorrect. In 1968 there was a coalition of the Country Party and Liberal Party in Queensland, dominated by the Country Party. The Premier ( Leader of the Country Party ) died and the Governor appointed the Deputy Premier ( leader of the Liberal Party junior partner in the governing coalition ) as Premier, for one week until the Country Party MPs elected a new party leader, who became the new Premier. Although the short-term Premier was a Liberal Party member, the Country Party remained the dominant party of the Parliament and a majority membership of the Queensland Cabinet and Executive Council. It cannot therefore be said it was a Liberal Party government. It was still a Country/Liberal ( with the Country Party dominant ) coalition government. Eregli bob ( talk) 04:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I've removed Template:Australian premiers from the various state Premier pages. It seems pointless considering Template:AustralianPremiers covers each link that the first template does. Timeshift ( talk) 07:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
"Liberal government in coalition with the Nationals and independents. Coincidentally, this is the only state not to be running a budget deficit, demonstrating Labor's in-built financial mismanagement tendancy." Isn't this a little biased? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.134.131.75 ( talk) 08:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I've removed this paragraph - the heads of the colonial ministries (or governments) were never known as Prime Ministers - New Zealand changed the title from Premier to Prime Minister, but no Australian colony did the same.
In the 19th century the heads of the colonial ministries were commonly called Prime Ministers, since this was the term used in Britain (see Prime Minister of the United Kingdom), although the term Premier was also used. When the six colonies federated in 1901, it was realised that it would be confusing to have seven Prime Ministers in one country, and the term Premier became standardised. This practice may have been influenced by the example of Canada, which became a federation in 1867 and used the title of Premier for the heads of its provincial governments.
Quiensabe ( talk) 22:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd just like to know why the Norfolk Island Chief Minister is not counted as a Chief Minister of a self governing Territory? Welshboyau11 ( talk) 12:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Consensus can be wrong. The consensus used to be women couldn't vote, the consensus used to be behind the White Australia policy, discrimination against Indigenous Australians, and the consensus used to be homosexuality was illegal, dangerous and immoral. That doesen't make it right. Welshboyau11 ( talk) 15:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Premiers of the Australian states → First ministers of the Australian states – Article should be expanded to include both Premiers and Chief Ministers. The term is frequently used to refer to the sub-national heads of government such as during during this week's COAG meeting. As their is no separate page for Chief Minister, nor should there be as much would be duplicated, that information should be included on this page. This is only possible if the topic is broadened to include it. --Relisted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC) -- DilatoryRevolution ( talk) 18:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Personally I would find any of these acceptable, but with a preference for the 1st and 3rd as they avois having two separate articles to keep mutually up-to-date Kerry ( talk) 07:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, can someone please explain to me why pointing out that the ACT has a minority government with a non-Labor member is apparently controversial. The only reason that's been given is that the ACT has usually had minority governments (though not with members of other parties in cabinet, holding multiple ministries), but how on earth this constitutes a reason not to mention it is beyond me. I'm trying very hard to assume good faith, but I'm having trouble conceiving of how anyone other than a Labor partisan could have a problem with this edit. Colonial Overlord ( talk) 06:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Um...the issues can be seen by reading the talk page and the edit history. What else is there to say? Colonial Overlord ( talk) 08:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- You have invited people in to assess what is going on and to help resolve the issue. If you expect people to take time out to help, you can give them the courtesy of summing what the issues and where you see the barriers to s resolution, rather than dismissing their request as they may have already read the talk page and still dont understand why you think there remains an issue. My understanding of the issue is that you dont think the Government in the ACT should be referred to as a Labor government, I google that term and found Katy Gallagher will be returned as ACT Chief Minister after balance-of-power Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury agreed to support Labor to form government for the next four years. source - http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/gallagher-returned-as-chief-minister-as-rattenbury-chooses-labor-20121102-28onc.html my understand would be to refer a Labor Government in the ACT as the sources support this, therefore what Drovers Wife and Timeshift are saying makes sense to me Gnan garra 08:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- OK, so you want me to summarise it from my point of view? That wasn't clear. It sounded like you wanted me to just repeat what had been said on the page.
- I made an edit to the article noting that the ACT government is a minority government with a non-labor member. Timeshift reverted it saying the ACT has almost always had minority governments. I asked timeshift multiple times how on earth that was a reason not to mention it in an encyclopedia. Timeshift did not respond. Another editor, the drover's wife, said that minority status is irrelevant to the article. I heeded that, and rephrased the edit to not mention minority status. Timeshift reverted again, giving no reason. I asked him on the talk page for an argument against the change. He didn't respond. The drover's wife has at least replied to some of my talk page comments but she hasn't addressed most of my points. She said composition of cabinet was irrelevant to an article about premiers. I responded that the section was about governments not premiers but it could be reworded to focus only on premiers. She didn't address those points, merely saying vaguely that my argument was "a bit of a stretch". I asked why it was a stretch and provided further reasons for my position. She didn't respond. Separately, she said vaguely that she was "completely lost with claims as to why SA is not a labor government". I explained that I was not objecting to calling it a labor government, merely adding a clarification that it has non labor members, and I asked her how this was irrelevant. She didn't respond.
- As to the issues, they are as follows:
- (1) wikipedia guidelines say edits should not be reverted merely for being unecessary yet user timeshift has done exactly that
- (2) The same user has repeatedly reverted me but has refused to engage in discussion on the talk page or explain what the problem is with the edits.
- (3) My proposed edit is nothing more than a note that the SA and ACT governments have non-Labor members of cabinet. Despite me asking over and over, neither timeshift nor the drover's wife has provided an argument against this edit. I have presented multiple arguments myself and most of what I have said has not been addressed.
- Does all this make sense? Colonial Overlord ( talk) 10:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- This discussion might best be continued as part of the dispute resolution at Talk:Premiers of the Australian states. Nick-D ( talk) 10:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the information it makes it clearer as what the problem, 1 is you didnt like being revert and that you interpret unnecessary as being the edit where as timeshift is say the content is unnecessary in the context of the articles subject(a point he repeated on this talk discussion). 2 is a revert war thats unacceptable for all parties involved it can only happen if multiple people are doing it, both are trying to engage in discussion like me and possible Nahnah they havent understood why you think the information is necessary. 3 The editors here are saying that your proposed changes are off topic and irrelevant to an article about Premiers as its to do with cabinet members. That makes sense in that despite there being Green party members in coalition with the recent Federal labor government it was the Labor party who were referred to as the "government" with Julie Gillard as PM being held accountable for the actions of that government if fact it continues to be the case even now. As you(Colonial Overlord) are proposing a change to the article content the responsibility rests with you to gain consensus for the change to do that you need to provide sufficient reliable sources to support your reasonings for changing the content/context of the article. See Wikipedia:CONACHIEVE for an explanation on how to reach consensus, the decision is now upto you how to proceed. Gnan garra 14:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Colonial Overlord, as your contribution is disputed, you require consensus to add it. It is incumbent upon the person wanting to make the change away from the status quo to gain consensus, not the other way around. Imagine what a mess wikipedia would be if it were the other way around. WP:BRD. Lastly, don't say that no argument has been made, as that's your opinion. You choose to dismiss the arguments as non-arguments. That's your choice, and your opinion. Timeshift ( talk) 01:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I've just protected this article for 72 hours to stop the edit warring, and encourage dispute resolution. Nick-D ( talk) 10:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
See here. Most people would agree precedents for females is noteworthy, why not LGBTI? a) It's controversial when it happens and some question if it's a good or bad thing. b) A significant number of parliamentarians try/tried to stop female heads of government and LGBTI heads of governments, I doubt there were any that were trying to stop the first Catholic or left-handed or ranga, those uncontroversial boats have long sailed - they not in the same category. First female/LGBTI is relatively new and controversial with a significant anti-following, unlike first Catholic/left-handed/ranga. If first female should be included, why not LGBTI? I'm not sure there are any other noteables apart from those two but please feel free to suggest those that meet the points I raised. Being Catholic/left-handed/ranga never got in the way historically, unlike female/LGBTI. However, something like first aboriginal if/when it happens would be as notable as first female/first LGBTI and also worthy of inclusion. If LGBTI or aboriginal isn't worthy of inclusion, why single female out? Perhaps your aversion is to the distinctly seperate headings and sections? Could we somehow merge first female and first LGBTI in to the same section/heading? There's only been one female PM (speaks for itself) and no LGBTI or aboriginal PMs yet but I dare say if there were several examples of any and/or all, like in this article, it would no doubt be included at Prime Minister of Australia. Timeshift ( talk) 00:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
As the Labor party is now in power in SA, the "Map showing the states and territories of Australia by governing political party, as of October 2020" is outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ææqwerty ( talk • contribs) 06:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why has a different shade of red been used for the ALP in the maps showing the party of government in each state?
I think it'd be more consistent & look better if just one colour were used. 2001:8003:680C:BD01:6CCE:9ED:EC5B:4FF9 ( talk) 04:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Why is there a line all along Australian coast in the map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.117.55.134 ( talk • contribs)
Where it says that the wall-to-wall Labour governments today are a first for any party co-alition, isn't 1969 the same, but with the co-alition? If so, how is it a first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.139.168 ( talk) 03:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Animated graphic is wrong. It shows that in about 1968, there was a Liberal government in Queensland. This is incorrect. In 1968 there was a coalition of the Country Party and Liberal Party in Queensland, dominated by the Country Party. The Premier ( Leader of the Country Party ) died and the Governor appointed the Deputy Premier ( leader of the Liberal Party junior partner in the governing coalition ) as Premier, for one week until the Country Party MPs elected a new party leader, who became the new Premier. Although the short-term Premier was a Liberal Party member, the Country Party remained the dominant party of the Parliament and a majority membership of the Queensland Cabinet and Executive Council. It cannot therefore be said it was a Liberal Party government. It was still a Country/Liberal ( with the Country Party dominant ) coalition government. Eregli bob ( talk) 04:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I've removed Template:Australian premiers from the various state Premier pages. It seems pointless considering Template:AustralianPremiers covers each link that the first template does. Timeshift ( talk) 07:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
"Liberal government in coalition with the Nationals and independents. Coincidentally, this is the only state not to be running a budget deficit, demonstrating Labor's in-built financial mismanagement tendancy." Isn't this a little biased? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.134.131.75 ( talk) 08:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I've removed this paragraph - the heads of the colonial ministries (or governments) were never known as Prime Ministers - New Zealand changed the title from Premier to Prime Minister, but no Australian colony did the same.
In the 19th century the heads of the colonial ministries were commonly called Prime Ministers, since this was the term used in Britain (see Prime Minister of the United Kingdom), although the term Premier was also used. When the six colonies federated in 1901, it was realised that it would be confusing to have seven Prime Ministers in one country, and the term Premier became standardised. This practice may have been influenced by the example of Canada, which became a federation in 1867 and used the title of Premier for the heads of its provincial governments.
Quiensabe ( talk) 22:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd just like to know why the Norfolk Island Chief Minister is not counted as a Chief Minister of a self governing Territory? Welshboyau11 ( talk) 12:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Consensus can be wrong. The consensus used to be women couldn't vote, the consensus used to be behind the White Australia policy, discrimination against Indigenous Australians, and the consensus used to be homosexuality was illegal, dangerous and immoral. That doesen't make it right. Welshboyau11 ( talk) 15:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Premiers of the Australian states → First ministers of the Australian states – Article should be expanded to include both Premiers and Chief Ministers. The term is frequently used to refer to the sub-national heads of government such as during during this week's COAG meeting. As their is no separate page for Chief Minister, nor should there be as much would be duplicated, that information should be included on this page. This is only possible if the topic is broadened to include it. --Relisted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC) -- DilatoryRevolution ( talk) 18:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Personally I would find any of these acceptable, but with a preference for the 1st and 3rd as they avois having two separate articles to keep mutually up-to-date Kerry ( talk) 07:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, can someone please explain to me why pointing out that the ACT has a minority government with a non-Labor member is apparently controversial. The only reason that's been given is that the ACT has usually had minority governments (though not with members of other parties in cabinet, holding multiple ministries), but how on earth this constitutes a reason not to mention it is beyond me. I'm trying very hard to assume good faith, but I'm having trouble conceiving of how anyone other than a Labor partisan could have a problem with this edit. Colonial Overlord ( talk) 06:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Um...the issues can be seen by reading the talk page and the edit history. What else is there to say? Colonial Overlord ( talk) 08:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- You have invited people in to assess what is going on and to help resolve the issue. If you expect people to take time out to help, you can give them the courtesy of summing what the issues and where you see the barriers to s resolution, rather than dismissing their request as they may have already read the talk page and still dont understand why you think there remains an issue. My understanding of the issue is that you dont think the Government in the ACT should be referred to as a Labor government, I google that term and found Katy Gallagher will be returned as ACT Chief Minister after balance-of-power Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury agreed to support Labor to form government for the next four years. source - http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/gallagher-returned-as-chief-minister-as-rattenbury-chooses-labor-20121102-28onc.html my understand would be to refer a Labor Government in the ACT as the sources support this, therefore what Drovers Wife and Timeshift are saying makes sense to me Gnan garra 08:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- OK, so you want me to summarise it from my point of view? That wasn't clear. It sounded like you wanted me to just repeat what had been said on the page.
- I made an edit to the article noting that the ACT government is a minority government with a non-labor member. Timeshift reverted it saying the ACT has almost always had minority governments. I asked timeshift multiple times how on earth that was a reason not to mention it in an encyclopedia. Timeshift did not respond. Another editor, the drover's wife, said that minority status is irrelevant to the article. I heeded that, and rephrased the edit to not mention minority status. Timeshift reverted again, giving no reason. I asked him on the talk page for an argument against the change. He didn't respond. The drover's wife has at least replied to some of my talk page comments but she hasn't addressed most of my points. She said composition of cabinet was irrelevant to an article about premiers. I responded that the section was about governments not premiers but it could be reworded to focus only on premiers. She didn't address those points, merely saying vaguely that my argument was "a bit of a stretch". I asked why it was a stretch and provided further reasons for my position. She didn't respond. Separately, she said vaguely that she was "completely lost with claims as to why SA is not a labor government". I explained that I was not objecting to calling it a labor government, merely adding a clarification that it has non labor members, and I asked her how this was irrelevant. She didn't respond.
- As to the issues, they are as follows:
- (1) wikipedia guidelines say edits should not be reverted merely for being unecessary yet user timeshift has done exactly that
- (2) The same user has repeatedly reverted me but has refused to engage in discussion on the talk page or explain what the problem is with the edits.
- (3) My proposed edit is nothing more than a note that the SA and ACT governments have non-Labor members of cabinet. Despite me asking over and over, neither timeshift nor the drover's wife has provided an argument against this edit. I have presented multiple arguments myself and most of what I have said has not been addressed.
- Does all this make sense? Colonial Overlord ( talk) 10:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- This discussion might best be continued as part of the dispute resolution at Talk:Premiers of the Australian states. Nick-D ( talk) 10:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the information it makes it clearer as what the problem, 1 is you didnt like being revert and that you interpret unnecessary as being the edit where as timeshift is say the content is unnecessary in the context of the articles subject(a point he repeated on this talk discussion). 2 is a revert war thats unacceptable for all parties involved it can only happen if multiple people are doing it, both are trying to engage in discussion like me and possible Nahnah they havent understood why you think the information is necessary. 3 The editors here are saying that your proposed changes are off topic and irrelevant to an article about Premiers as its to do with cabinet members. That makes sense in that despite there being Green party members in coalition with the recent Federal labor government it was the Labor party who were referred to as the "government" with Julie Gillard as PM being held accountable for the actions of that government if fact it continues to be the case even now. As you(Colonial Overlord) are proposing a change to the article content the responsibility rests with you to gain consensus for the change to do that you need to provide sufficient reliable sources to support your reasonings for changing the content/context of the article. See Wikipedia:CONACHIEVE for an explanation on how to reach consensus, the decision is now upto you how to proceed. Gnan garra 14:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Colonial Overlord, as your contribution is disputed, you require consensus to add it. It is incumbent upon the person wanting to make the change away from the status quo to gain consensus, not the other way around. Imagine what a mess wikipedia would be if it were the other way around. WP:BRD. Lastly, don't say that no argument has been made, as that's your opinion. You choose to dismiss the arguments as non-arguments. That's your choice, and your opinion. Timeshift ( talk) 01:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I've just protected this article for 72 hours to stop the edit warring, and encourage dispute resolution. Nick-D ( talk) 10:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
See here. Most people would agree precedents for females is noteworthy, why not LGBTI? a) It's controversial when it happens and some question if it's a good or bad thing. b) A significant number of parliamentarians try/tried to stop female heads of government and LGBTI heads of governments, I doubt there were any that were trying to stop the first Catholic or left-handed or ranga, those uncontroversial boats have long sailed - they not in the same category. First female/LGBTI is relatively new and controversial with a significant anti-following, unlike first Catholic/left-handed/ranga. If first female should be included, why not LGBTI? I'm not sure there are any other noteables apart from those two but please feel free to suggest those that meet the points I raised. Being Catholic/left-handed/ranga never got in the way historically, unlike female/LGBTI. However, something like first aboriginal if/when it happens would be as notable as first female/first LGBTI and also worthy of inclusion. If LGBTI or aboriginal isn't worthy of inclusion, why single female out? Perhaps your aversion is to the distinctly seperate headings and sections? Could we somehow merge first female and first LGBTI in to the same section/heading? There's only been one female PM (speaks for itself) and no LGBTI or aboriginal PMs yet but I dare say if there were several examples of any and/or all, like in this article, it would no doubt be included at Prime Minister of Australia. Timeshift ( talk) 00:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
As the Labor party is now in power in SA, the "Map showing the states and territories of Australia by governing political party, as of October 2020" is outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ææqwerty ( talk • contribs) 06:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)