This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
As part of my effort to get a decent page up for every Mayor of Christchurch, I have greatly expanded the article for Eden George, who also spent a few years in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly. The article is now a bit out of balance, and his Australian period should be expanded. I don't have the right resources to do this, though. Can somebody from this project help? The article will be heading to DYK soon. Schwede 66 20:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
-- Canley ( talk) 00:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Can someone clarify this for me? Why is an absolute majority of 76 required? What other motions does this extend to? Timeshift ( talk) 10:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Is this noteworthy as an addition to Australian House of Representatives? Timeshift ( talk) 09:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, just noticed that Bjelkemander had been PRODed. Looks like it might be notable to me (like the Playmander, which I had heard of), but this isn't really my area of expertise. Hoping someone who has a good grasp on what makes an Australian political term notable could take a look. Cheers, Jenks24 ( talk) 03:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I've created this page to fill what is really the only remaining significant void in our coverage of Australian elections at state level. I'd like to go back a few years as well, but first I'd like input into the layout, etc., of these pages, as they're rather unique in Australia. (Incidentally, I would anticipate including by-elections that take place on the same day as the periodic elections within the same page (e.g. Derwent 2011), with a redirect obviously.) Frickeg ( talk) 02:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Can I suggest Alexander Downer, Sr. be moved to Alec Downer? He's generally known by the latter. Frickeg ( talk) 08:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Could I ask for some attention on the Craig Thomson affair article, please? There's some really uncivil behaviour there, and I'm particularly concerned at allegations being thrown around, such as that Craig Thomson himself is editing the article. Removal of well-sourced material (described in edit summary as vandalism) Is a worry. I'm going to be requesting admin intervention if this sort of thing keeps up, but I'd like some editors familiar with the subject to look over what's going on first. -- Pete ( talk) 17:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
HSU Victoria No. 4 branch represents medical scientists, hospital pharmacists and psychologists. The branch's petition of 268 members in June 2009 followed an April call the same year for a full investigation of the national union's financial administration between 2002 and 2007, the period when Mr Thomson was federal secretary. However in a response that stunned Dr Kelly's branch, Fair Work official Terry Nassios said that as the national union did not itself have members, it was only treated as a union branch for the purposes of financial reporting.
It might be worth noting that these discussions are taking place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Craig_Thomson_affair
For information of interested parties only. 121.216.230.139 ( talk) 08:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
PS - the proposed deletion discussion regarding the above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Craig_Thomson_affair
One21dot216dot ( talk) 09:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC) (previously known as 121.216.230.139)
Just wondering if anyone has any views on whether this should be renamed to Carbon pricing in Australia. Sure 'carbon tax' is what it is widely known as, but the price in the legislation isn't a Carbon Tax under the definition of the term - a tax implies that it is paid directly by consumers, the lead of the Carbon tax article talks about the regressive nature of carbon taxation - and I don't think the potential for flow on price increases falls under that definition - it would be like calling the company tax a regressive tax on low income earners because companies paying more tax causes increases in the cost of goods and services which impacts greatest at lower income levels.
The carbon pricing scheme that will exist on July 1, fails the definition of the distinction that a 'carbon tax' makes within the options for pricing carbon, and the fact it's transitional to a full ETS means it's even less accurate after 2015. Views? -- GoForMoe ( talk) 13:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
It appears to have been extensively expanded, but by a non-experienced contibutor. Does anyone have the knowledge and time to verify the article? Timeshift ( talk) 07:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
In this obituary, it is claimed that Peter T. Finn (died 4 April 1911) was Attorney-General of Victoria (Australia) for 24 hours sometime before 1877, but he's not on the list and I can't even find a death notice for him on Trove. Can anybody shed any light on this? Schwede 66 19:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The article looks presentable now, but it lacks Australian content. Can somebody with knowledge of the Victorian Lower House, elections, etc have a look at it, please? Schwede 66 20:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I've been having a play around with the format for member tables like this, which at the moment are fairly basic. By fiddling around with the US version, I came up with this, which manages to incorporate much more information. I'd very much like feedback and suggestions since I think with this kind of thing we could work, in the long run, towards getting some of these up to featured list status. I've tried to incorporate party changes and resignations into the list without using footnotes, which should help when we want to add citations. Frickeg ( talk) 03:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The template {{ Cabinet of Western Australia}} lists all ministers and parliamentary secretaries in the Barnett Ministry. Are all WA ministers and secretaries included in Cabinet? Another question revolves around the status of the ruling parties in WA. According to Coalition (Australia) the Liberals and Nationals in WA are one of several coalition governments in Australia. After the messy conclusion to the last election there was much made of the fact that the Liberals and Nationals were not going to form a coalition, rather a loose alliance. Has this changed since 2008? Hack ( talk) 05:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Is the proper name the Queensland Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Assembly of Queensland? Currently the main page and the one for the Speaker are at the latter, with all the members pages at the former. After a brief look around the Parliament website it seems to use them interchangeably. What's the official name? Frickeg ( talk) 04:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but it is the Legislative Assembly of Queensland. For the most part, the various organs of the state simply say "Legislative Assembly", "Parliament" or "Parliament of Queensland". But there is proof. First, the title of Hansard in QLD is "Record of Proceedings", and looking at the first issue of the current Parliament is instructive. A search of its text will, as a matter of fact, not turn up a single reference to "Queensland Legislative Assembly". But does it mention the other? Yes, as a matter of fact it does. In fact, in quoting the commissions summoning Parliament, commissioning members to open Parliament, and commissioning the same people to administer oaths, the phase "Legislative Assembly of Queensland" is used. Links to the Letters Patent themselves are embedded in the PDF linked to above. In addition, the writ of election also uses "Legislative Assembly of Queensland". Those all emanate from the Governor, and by extension the executive, but the legislature uses it to. For instance, one of the statutes to qualify "Legislative Assembly" with the name of the state is the Constitution Amendment Act 1934], which says at section 3 that "The Parliament of Queensland (or, as sometimes called, the Legislature of Queensland), constituted by His Majesty the King and the Legislative Assembly of Queensland in Parliament assembled shall not be..." Others, over a period of 1899 to 1991, do the same. [1] [2] [3] [4] The only reference I could find in statute to "Queensland Legislative Assembly" is section 123D of the Constitution Act 2001, which quotes the term in its definition of the Members' Entitlement Handbook (in fact the quote is from the Handbook's title page). Searching its site, the Assembly itself uses both about equally. Moving to perhaps the worst search, a Google search of "site:qld.gov.au" for each turns up 2,290 for "Queensland Legislative Assembly" and 10,300 for "Legislative Assembly of Queensland". - Rrius ( talk) 01:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
In the past when we've discussed knighthoods and damehoods and such like in member lists I've usually come out against it, but with the work I've been doing on members lately I'm reconsidering. Per my reading of the rather confusing WP:HONORIFIC, I'd suggest we include the knight/damehoods (and these only) in these lists, provided they were knights while serving as members/ministers/whatever. If they were knighted at some time during their term, we can just use brackets, i.e. (Sir) Edmund Barton. Another reason is simple common usage - after they were knighted these people were very rarely referred to without the Sir or Dame. Thoughts? Frickeg ( talk) 07:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
With the results table for Melbourne state by-election, 2012, the Australian Christians haven't been added yet. I rarely do these, I can't even find current parties in Template:Election box candidate AU party, but i'm probably doing it wrong. Can someone who knows how to do it fix it? Thanks! Timeshift ( talk) 08:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Can someone advise why candidate names in 2012 by-election articles are published in italics? This seems contrary to MOS:ITALIC. Thanks, WWGB ( talk) 04:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Could someone with some time have a look at recent edits by this user? I'm seeing some dubious grammar and odd changes, but don't have time to delve into the complexities right now. Frickeg ( talk) 06:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Template:Electorate result and Template:Electorate result summary have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the templates' entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 ( talk) 01:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Input would be appreciated at the discussion here, which will also impact several other pages. Frickeg ( talk) 03:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Given past discussions on the matter of whether, say, Katter's Australian Party gained Dalrymple or held it at the last Queensland election, Antony Green's discussion of similar problems with the NT election here may be of interest. Frickeg ( talk) 09:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Input is sought on the discussion at Talk:New South Wales state election, 2015#Polling. Thanks, WWGB ( talk) 11:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible to run a bot to add "| posttitle = Resulting Prime Minister/Premier/Chief Minister" to every Australian election article infobox? One of the many 2010 fed election debates had agreed to say resulting rather than elected in the infobox. Only MPs are elected. Timeshift ( talk) 03:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Input would be appreciated here. Frickeg ( talk) 00:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I was just wondering what is the opinion on the creation of full election results pages for each Australian state and federal election? I've been thinking about the task ahead for the state election project, and concluded that thousands of new pages will need to be created for former electorates and their results. So to make things go along a bit faster, I was thinking that there could be 1 page per election with the results tables for all seats at that time. Then when that's finished, work on electorates and their results can proceed.
A further advantage of this would be the compilation of all results in that particular election without having to browse through each individual seat's page. I know that a disadvantage would be the massive size of these pages though. Kirsdarke01 ( talk) 02:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Uh, can we keep the discussion at one place? Namely Talk:Australian 2010 election upper house results? Timeshift ( talk) 23:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The discussion there refers to the Senate election results tables. I'm proposing a different matter, that all federal and state elections get their own full results pages. Kirsdarke01 ( talk) 23:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I've been trying to update the at times badly out of date Victorian LGA articles following the local elections, following the excellent work done by Rangasyd in New South Wales. I've run into trouble handling the parties, however. Unlike in NSW, the electoral commission doesn't seem to recognise parties or groupings (apart from, strangely, the City of Melbourne).
This causes problems anywhere there's a Green councillor (who are all officially endorsed, even if it's only mentioned in their candidate statement in some places), and in others where there seems to be an official Labor slate in an LGA where tickets aren't on the ballot (i.e. the City of Yarra). I'm reluctant to not make any attempt at a partisan breakdown, because I think it's a really useful aspect to the NSW articles, but I'm a bit stuck. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 11:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Just pointing out a discussion here should anyone be interested. Frickeg ( talk) 22:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi auspol folks!
Thought I'd raise this here first to see if anyone else had any thoughts about how it should be handled given the issue will likely get a lot more coverage in the near future. I'll not mention any specific articles or people (as much as possible) for the benefits of general neutrality (though given my comments elsewhere you could work it out fairly quickly without too much effort)...
There is currently an investigation under way into the conduct of a number of former and current Australian politicians. The investigation itself is based on the investigative journalism of a particular journalist and a range of other sources of information that have subsequently been uncovered by the investigative authority in question (this has been made clear during investigative hearings, the transcripts of which are publicly available).
The journalist in question has a long history of "investigating" the individuals involved and a long history of "reporting" the "results" of investigations. The reports haven't always been particularly accurate and I understand the journalist was sued (for defamation) by the individuals involved in the past and lost. Badly. The journalist's "investigations" of those individuals have become more fervent since.
This week, the questionable link between the journalist and the official investigation was highlighted (again, public transcripts) and the investigation was criticised for taking the journalist's "information" and launching an investigation without an evidential "killer blow" (albeit in a rival paper, so...) - just speculation and rumours from the journalist rather than proof of misconduct.
The journalist in question continues to "cover" the investigation. This is where I think it becomes a problem for us. The journalist's articles (historical and ones relating to this investigation) are still used extensively as sources for particular BLPs. There is at least one BLP where the journalist's articles represent about 50% of the sources. Most of them are clearly unfavourable (I think the article for which the journalist was originally sued is actually still being cited here which is a concern in itself given it was effectively found to be an unreliable source by a court).
The investigation in question is still ongoing but the journalist in question continues to cover the story in a manner that suggests their original investigative journalism was justified and vindicated and the politicians in question are clearly guilty.
It is not our place to make judgements about whether a particular journalist is biased or has a vendetta but we do have to make a judgement call about whether sources are reliable or not and the author of a source is clearly an element in that judgement call. Blindly referencing articles by this particular journalist and using them as sources for significant portions of particular BLPs would be, I think, particularly concerning. But I'm not going to unilaterally remove all such references from all such BLPs without some discussion first. Nor am I going to unilaterally declare all material from the journalist in question to be inherently "unreliable". I would like to get some thoughts from everyone else.
I've tried to keep my summary free of identifying material so we can discuss these issues in a conceptual sense. I'm happy to fill in the blanks for editors if there is consensus that leaving details out means discussion is impossible.
Cheers, Stalwart 111 01:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC).
Just bringing to attention that this article appears to be about a year out of date, I did my best to fix it but there's a lot of mixed tense and also info which is now trivial in context of them since having contested a state election. A third MP, Ray Hopper, is reported by the Courier Mail newspaper to be switching across and there may be more so the article may be more watched soon. Thanks and keep up the good work 124.169.167.84 ( talk) 19:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Action (Australia). Article definitely needs work.-- Grahame ( talk) 01:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm currently working on List of Tasmanian House of Assembly casual vacancies, and I was thinking it'd be really handy to have a template tying together all of our "List of X by-elections" and "List of X casual vacancies" articles. Does someone who's better at templates than me feel like having a crack at creating one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Drover's Wife ( talk • contribs) 12:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I've been doing a lot of work on the List of Victorian state by-elections article, which was pretty dismal up until a couple of days ago, but I've come across the issue of what to do with supplementary elections (which usually get referred to as "by-elections"). This most notably comes up in Victoria in the 1999 supplementary election for Frankston East, which resulted in the election of the Bracks government. How should articles on supplementary elections be titled? Should they go in the by-election lists? The Drover's Wife ( talk) 03:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I have been planning a systematic attack on filling in all the missing Qld state electoral districts and then, after that, their members (basic details, not complete bios). I have already started this and completed an initial set of electorates. I am now being told that I must seek permission of this group to use precise dates in relation to member's representation of the electorate (I cannot see where this is documented incidentally). Frankly I see no benefit whatsoever in using only years. I can understand that people may have done that in other states because that was all the information available to them in their source material or whatever reason. However, I have precise dates authoritatively sourced from the Qld Parliament. With precise dates, a reader only interested in the year can trivially determine that information, but the reverse is not true. Without precise dates, it is not easy to understand what is happening with by-elections (which sometimes occur twice in one year -- apparently I am not allowed to use the word "by-election" either -- please explain), the concurrent membership of the multi-seat electorates that Qld had in the 1800s, and it does not provide anyone interested in using resources like newspapers to do further study of that election or by-election as you need precise dates to work with newspaper microfilms (trawling through a year's worth of newspapers to find what you are looking for is a ridiculous waste of effort when precise dates can be made readily available). I note that these Qld electoral districts have redlinked for years, so I would hope this group will wish to help rather than hinder in getting something done about them. 01:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Date | Member | Party | |
---|---|---|---|
30 March 1901 | Bob Smith | Labor |
This WikiProject should not be in Category:Politics of Australia. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 23:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
This should be moved back to Electoral district of Mindarie and a new Electoral district of Butler should be created.-- Grahame ( talk) 01:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I think we should have some consistency across the various articles about state, territory and commonwealth legislatures. I don't think "House of Representatives (Australia)" and "Senate (Australia)" are very useful, since they would not be the most likely search term. Personally I preferred "Australian House of Representatives" and I find the argument about 'official' titles unconvincing. At any rate, there is also inconsistency with "New South Wales Legislative Assembly" and "Legislative Assembly of Queensland". Can we get one format across these articles? My preferred format would be "Adjective Name", omitting words in parentheses or "of"s. Slac speak up! 23:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Now the most recent House and Senate lists have been moved to "Members of the House of Representatives of Australia", etc. It seems that the consensus here is pretty definite. Any objections to them all being moved back to their original names (at "Australian Senate", "Australian House of Representatives", etc.). Frickeg ( talk) 22:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
A whole host of articles have been changed to show Adam Giles as Chief Minister of the NT. Does the NT follow the state procedure where the premiers only take office when sworn in? Hack ( talk) 08:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
What infobox are we supposed to be using in party articles? {{
Infobox Australian political party}} is used in 47 articles, but {{
Infobox political party}} is used in others. One or the other should be used. Interestingly, |position=
, which is used in many Australian articles, is regarded to be a deprecated parameter in {{Infobox political party}}
. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
05:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
|position=
, which only leads to confusion. I suspect this could be merged fairly easily into the general template, since the links at the bottom of the Australian template are the only thing really distinguishing them and they're far from essential for an infobox.
Frickeg (
talk)
07:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)In the course of working on a couple of the older PMs' pages, I've noted something curious about the pages on the ministries - specifically I cannot find verification for their demarcation in the older cases. I think there was some questionable research done/assumptions made some time ago and it needs to be corrected. My concern is my current project on Stanley Bruce, who is listed as having a first, second and third ministry; but I can't find any source for that, and the Australian Parliamentary Handbook which those pages cite actually states there was just one during Bruce's term. The dates picked for those seem to coincide with elections, which is logical assumption but actually doesn't require the formation of a new ministry. I considered proposing a merger between the three pages for one Bruce ministry page, but then realized the problem is replicated over several of the PMs. I'd like to correct this and am willing to do the work to update to actual listings, but there's a lot of merging/renaming work to be done and I thought that should be preceded by a general discussion and I'd like input on how to proceed from the group. Unus Multorum ( talk) 14:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
You can also redirect to article sections, so we don't actually lose the ability to nominate "Third Bruce Ministry" etc. Even for the case where a PM loses office then regains the Prime Ministership, I think we should have only one ministry article, and just mention the break in the sections (or even have a superheading for each term). -- Surturz ( talk) 06:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Any objections to rolling this out? I've got a bit of time to spare and wouldn't mind doing a few of these. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 06:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Is anyone going to bother listening to the Budget speech tomorrow night? Virtually the whole thing has been leaked. I just don't get it, I have to say. Why all the hush-hush in the lockup tomorrow, and all the pretence of Budget-in-confidence, when they freely announce huge chunks of it in advance? Or announce that they are going to be making announcements - which amounts to the same thing. It gets worse each year. If they want to make policy announcements in the weeks and months leading up to the Budget, then let them do so as discrete announcements and introduce appropriate legislation straight away, and let them not pretend that they have anything to do with the Budget. </rant> -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 11:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, I just thought I'd mention the The Dictionary of Australasian Biography (sub-titled: Comprising notices of eminent colonists from the inauguration of responsible government down to the present time. [1855-1892]) was proof-read and validated last month at Wikisource. It has about 1,650 entries and might be a good source of material for those who create articles about old politicians. Diverman ( talk) 13:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Mustn’t an article be prepared on the Second Rudd Ministry, being formed now? 138.16.109.170 ( talk) 12:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I understand the division between ministry articles and government articles (e.g. First Rudd Government and First Rudd Ministry). However, right now, all the articles in the Governments of Australia category have no main list where they are compiled, making them hard to find. The ministry articles, on the other hand, do have a list (i.e. List of Australian ministries). I was considering adding links in the List of Australian ministries chart to the government articles, so that they are more visible. Does this sound like a good solution? My propose way of doing this would like this:
Order | Name of Ministry | Party affiliation(s) | Constituted | Concluded | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
Barton Ministry History |
Protectionist | 1 January 1901 | 24 September 1903 |
Please do comment. RGloucester ( talk) 18:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
A user has moved Members of the Australian House of Representatives, 2010–2013 to Members of the Australian House of Representatives, 2010–13, citing MOS:YEAR. The user has stated that they don't feel too strongly about it but we should have the discussion about where we want them, I guess. My opinion is that we have used the full dates for a long time, and that it is common practice to do so, at least in article titles. Thoughts? Frickeg ( talk) 20:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I came across File:Kevin07b.jpg on Kerry Rea's page and couldn't help but notice that the head of the man in the red baseball cap behind and to the left of Kevin Rudd looks photoshopped in (and check out the description the author gives the image). Do we have a policy on this type of photoshopping? -- Roisterer ( talk) 06:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I am compiling lists of whips for the major parties. So far I have finished the Liberals (though I do not have exact beginning dates for Reg Swartz, Henry Pearce, Bert Kelly or Ross McLean). I anticipate that, even though they are older, the Labor and Nationals lists will take less than the 2.5 months the first one took. All the same, I am at a point where one is completed and could be copied, with a bit of polishing and drafting of a lead, to a new page called List of Liberal Party of Australia Whips, or something like that, and create similar lists for the other parties as I complete them. Or, I could wait and create Whip (Australia) with all three lists (and possible future lists for the UAP, Nationalists, etc). In either case, I hope add Senate whips, though that is a project for later. I await your guidance. - Rrius ( talk) 03:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
By the way, the list can be seen at User:Rrius/Sandbox 1. - Rrius ( talk) 03:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Despite the fact that the Labor and Country/National parties are older than the Liberals, I think the lists will be reasonable enough that we can just put all three at whatever we name the article. Once we expand to the Senate, the defunct parties, and (god help me) the states, some sort of split will be needed. I suspect it would be better when the time comes to do List of federal Australian Labor Party Whips, etc., than to do a House list with all of the parties and a Senate list with all of the parties, but again, I'd like input.
As for the prose, my plan is to borrow from the passage at Whip (politics)#Australia, and add in a few things I've found along the way. - Rrius ( talk) 09:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I have completed Party whip (Australia), List of whips in the Australian House of Representatives, and List of whips in the Australian Senate. While I was at it, I created Leader of the Government in the Senate (Australia) and Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Australia) (which I intend to fill out as lists going back to 1901, and should be easier than the whips) and Template:Parliament of Australia, which provides a place for all of those offices as they don't really fit at Template:Politics of Australia. The template allows for a navigational tool that brings together the officials and officers of Parliament, as well as the list of senators and MPs and some key procedural and electoral concepts. There may well be other articles that should be linked to from it, so have a look. - Rrius ( talk) 13:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Re this edit. A couple of points:
I'm looking at moving my userspace list of 2013 candidates across to mainspace fairly soon, but wanted to ask if anyone could help out with some of the ex-candidates. Some of them are just waiting on some cites from me but others (particularly the raft of ex-Palmer candidates) I have no idea on and were just summarily replaced without so much as an announcement. If anyone knows of coverage in local media that I might have missed I'd appreciate it. (I'm aware the Senate is out of date but I may wait until nominations close to do a proper update, since it's ridiculously fiddly.) Frickeg ( talk) 02:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I've completed the page following the declaration of nominations and moved it to the mainspace. With the columns, I've ended up going mostly on number of candidates, especially since I'm pretty sure a record was broken with the number; if they were running in every seat and there was room, they got their own column. Everyone have at it - I'm sure there are people with articles I missed, and there are still plenty of ex-candidates without the stories (if any) that go with them. Frickeg ( talk) 13:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi guys, I pretty much rewrote the entire Stanley Bruce article from scratch earlier this year and slowly but surely, it's almost at FA status, but I need more reviewers/eyes to get it perfect! If so inclined please visit the nomination page and add any comments, support or criticism you might have. It's a top-importance article and it would be great to get this one over the line if it deserves it. Unus Multorum ( talk) 10:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
There is some dispute over the scale of Kevin Rudd's 2007 victory. It is commonly referred to as a landslide and seems to be on par with other election victories so described in Wikipedia, except in List of landslide victories, where it is described as a "Ruddslide". Given that thousands of Wikipedia articles use the term, many of them within the Australian politics sphere, I'm wondering how informed editors would define the term. There is some discussion going on here, but obviously any decision to remove the term there will impact on similar Australian political articles. -- Pete ( talk) 06:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I think that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-election pendulum for the Australian federal election, 2013 would benefit from input from editors who are familiar with the workings and conventions around Australian elections. Nick-D ( talk) 09:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I came across this resource which may be of interest for those looking on info for each election since 1901. This should also conclusively settle 2010... "The ALP could only win 72 seats but the Coalition could not better that number when the WA National, Tony Crook, chose to sit on the crossbench." Timeshift ( talk) 01:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Well look what I came across, 2PP since 1919. Some figure estimations seem to be different through and RM doesn't say what the source is. Eg for 1946, 54.1 [7], 53.8 [8], 52.2 [9] - even though two of three of those were apparently sourced from Mackarras. I note that the record 2PP result in 1943 of 58.2 percent still beats RM's 1931 result of 58.1 percent :D Timeshift ( talk) 00:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Ouch... anyone want to try and fix this mess? Orderinchaos 06:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Costello APH image on wikipedia - How does such a senior politician's official APH image and therefore a copyright violation manage to avoid detection/deletion for 6 years and counting..? Timeshift ( talk) 00:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Peta Credlin - I am sure enthusiasts who have this page on watch might wish to elaborate on the bare minumum stub started satusuro 12:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
What is our current position regarding the creation of articles about local government politicians, especially mayors, in Australia? I notice that ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Mayors of places in New South Wales only has 68 pages in it and I seem to remember some discussion on this some time ago. Examination of the articles in the category show a large percentage are about MPs or former MPs and many others have otherwise established their notability in other fields but then there are several who are, apparently, just mayors. These include Clinton Mead, Jeff McCloy, Aaron Rule and John Stuart Tate. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 14:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
There shouldn't be inherent notability for mayors, but Tate is extremely notable and McCloy shouldn't be challengeable either. I don't see notability for Rule or Mead, but I can think of numerous cases of suburban mayors who would. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 09:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
If Wayne Dropulich of the Australian Sports Party is not elected in what is presumably an upcoming WA Senate election and he does not take his place on 1 July 2014, should he still have an article? I'm in two minds, there's a good argument for and against. Timeshift ( talk) 00:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that the colours and some of the formatting had disappeared from the tables in almost all Australian election result articles yesterday. The issue appears to be this change on 2 January, which removed the table formatting from the header and instead uses the standard "wikitable" class, and this appears to cause the colour template at Template:Australian politics/party colours to fail. It appears there has been discussions going on for some time at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Elections Manual of Style/Results tables (mainly between two editors though, and more about formatting and style, so I'm not sure there is consensus for altering a widely-used template unless there is another discussion elsewhere). I reverted the edit and left a note on User:Number 57's talk page anyway, so I may hear more from them about their plans and intentions. -- Canley ( talk) 00:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I was looking at Penny Wong and found something I find a little odd. I don't know how you deal with renamed ministries in Australian politics (actually I'm not sure how any deal with it), but I find it a little odd that the succession box at the bottom refers to her as 'Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency' a position which if I understand her article and Minister for the Environment (Australia)#List of Ministers for Climate Change correctly, she never held. (The ministry went under 2 different names during her tenure, neither of which were that name.)
Perhaps more confusing is the fact that 'Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency' isn't even the final name for the ministry, that appears to be Minister for Climate Change.
Both the Penny Wong and Greg Combet article in the succession box call it 'Climate Change and Energy Efficiency' whereas Mark Butler calls it 'Climate Change' . It seems to me it would be better to either call it 'Climate Change' in all 3 succession boxes, or call it 'Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Water' (the final name under her tenure) in Penny Wong's succession box.
But it could be there's something I'm missing. For example I believe the 'Water' portfolio bounced around, I'm not sure what happened to 'Enery Efficiency' , whether it was no longer a specific portfolio but shared by appropriate ministers or was still completely under the purview of the Minister for Climate Change and the rename in the final Rudd cabinet was more of a branding thing or what.
So I'll let those more familiar with the norms here sort it out.
Nil Einne ( talk) 05:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I just stumbled up on this disaster of a page. I'm far from convinced about notability - what do people think? There seems little point in attempting to salvage it otherwise. Frickeg ( talk) 06:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems this gives the green light to use parliament.curriculum.edu.au photos of politicians, however some appear to be from 10-20 years ago. Do we use a modern photo or an older but clearer photo? Some bear little resemblance at all. It's been an issue before but until now an isolated one. What to do? Timeshift ( talk) 13:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I recently stumbled upon a clutch of articles about Mayors of Cairns, almost all of which are of dubious notability. John Coxall in particular seems like a definite non-notable and I've prodded him, but I wanted to see if anyone had anything further on Tom Pyne, Val Schier or Bob Manning. Richard Alfred Tills appears to have a mass of sources but almost all of them are from local press. The only one that I think really approaches notability at the moment, Kevin Byrne, has such a toxic mess of an article that I'm tempted to say that TNT is the best option. Thoughts? Frickeg ( talk) 02:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, I've been working on creating and editing articles of former districts, Template:Former electoral districts of South Australia, there's still a few to do so if any feels inclined, have a go at creating missing ones. Use an existing one e.g. Electoral district of Albert (South Australia) as a basis for a new one. There's also the Electoral districts of South Australia article that needs some more table editing if anyone feels keen.
I also created a template for using the S.A. Former member database. see Template:cite SA-parl; can be useful when creating or editing articles for S.A. politicians. — Diverman ( talk) 04:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
This story is all over the news. An IP added material but it was unsourced. Question is, how best to word and source it. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
See articles like South Australian state election, 2014 and Tasmanian state election, 2014... it seems that "Liberal Party of Australia" party coding has been broken. Can someone get in to the appropriate template and fix it up ASAP? Timeshift ( talk) 23:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Talk moved to Talk:Australian Senate special election in Western Australia, 2014 -- Surturz ( talk) 06:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, time for a consensus view here. A couple of issues to sort out it seems: where does the date information go in the list of members and what about the detail dates (which could be "month year" or "day month year").
I propose we use the established Wikipedia-wide standard of having the plain years in the left column of the member table. In the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables all of the four examples containing dates have the years listed before the person, three of the four have years in the left column, the fourth still has the year before the person.
Having years in the left column is used by all these district articles for other countries I could find, see: New Zealand electorates, Scottish Parliament constituencies and regions 1999 to 2011, List of United Kingdom Parliament constituencies, List of parliamentary constituencies in Northern Ireland, List of London Assembly constituencies (for those articles that do have a member table). Canada is slightly different, see List of Canadian federal electoral districts they have the number of the Parliament in the left column e.g. 17th, then the year, then the member, so still have the year before the member. As I mentioned above in the discussion under 'South Australian electoral districts' there are numerous other (non electoral) articles with lists of people that have years in the left hand column.
The other issue is about the extended date information, I propose it is kept (as does Kerry) - I don't see the point of removing that information and getting peolpe to search for it elsewhere, often it doesn't exist in Wikipedia; there's many redlinks in these articles. I also propose to show it in the rightmost column see South Western Province (Victoria) as an example. This has the plain years (not extended month & year) in the left column so it's easier to comprehend as stated by Frickeg, and has the extended dates that often do not appear in any other article in the right column. For multi-member tables like the example it also serves to more easily find the dates when looking at Member columns 4 and 5.
I'm not the only one who has created an Australian electoral district article with dates in the left column, see Electoral district of Murray (South Australia) That one has extended dates in the left (I did tidy it a little to use abbreviated months).
Does it help general readability (less emphasis on the detailed date) if its text is smaller in the far right "Term (detail)" column? - see User:Diverman/sandbox. I've done the first ten or so lines the right column as a comparison. It would be good if there was the ability for a collapsible column entry in the wikitable (so the detailed date could be optionally displayed) but there doesn't appear to be so. I think having a detailed date footnote for every plain year row entry would be too cumbersome. I'm going to hold off editing further district articles for now. Let's try and get a consensus. Diverman ( talk) 07:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Are Bill Denny (officer) and Rob Atkinson (surgeon) noteable? I checked with an admin several days ago, they said on brief glance one looked barely noteable, the other not noteable (I can't remember which way around). They also seem to have been created by an editor with potential for WP:COI (based on timing, their userpage content, these are the only two articles the user has created so far, and user's own photos used in the articles). Opinions? Timeshift ( talk) 01:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Frankly I have bigger questions about Glenn Docherty and David O'Loughlin. May be worth waiting until after the election, but thoughts? Frickeg ( talk) 22:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Can someone better than me with article moves, move a previous head of a government, Terry Mills (politician), to Terry Mills, and move the basketball player to something else? Timeshift ( talk) 03:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
If a head of a government doesn't trump some average joe basketball player, well... Timeshift ( talk) 06:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Can we please have more eyes on this article? An IP who I suspect to have a WP:COI keeps trying to whitewash the article. The article has a long history of this. Timeshift ( talk) 00:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Minor Party Alliance :) It's a basic article at the moment but lists the parties involved. Hopefully I haven't started something where randoms try to remove it from the party articles. Timeshift ( talk) 03:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
See here for candidates/draw. Timeshift ( talk) 08:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
As someone who does/has done a lot of Australian electorate infoboxes over the years, I am curious as to the consensus (if there is one) on the creation date listed in that infobox, and the subsequent "establishment in Australia" category. So in South Australia for example, the last redistribution took place in 2012, and the boundaries came into effect just before the 2014 election. My initial protocol was to list the year of the election in which the boundaries come into effect (specifically the date when the assembly is dissolved before that election), however there seems to be a widespread view that the creation date is the year in which the redistribution was carried out or completed. I followed the latter for the SA infoboxes, although I don't really agree with it—my reasoning being the MP is still member for the old boundary or name until the assembly is dissolved, and I don't think the two districts can really co-exist at the same time. Anyway, would be interested to hear any thoughts, opinions, or links to previous discussions on the matter... -- Canley ( talk) 02:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
See here over whether to include an infobox. Timeshift ( talk) 00:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Taikomochiyarichin, who created an account only last month, has been enthusiastically changing articles (over 50 of them so far) on Australians who used to be politicians. I use that language advisedly, because the edits involve changing the wording "xxxxx is a former Australian politician..." to "xxxxx is an Australian former politician...".
While I can appreciate that the new wording may be pedantically correct, it's not normal, common Australian English. A couple of the edits have been reverted, and I have asked the editor, on their Talk page, to please stop.
I'm happy to discuss this, especially with the editor involved, but would appreciate others' thoughts and input please. HiLo48 ( talk) 03:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I think it's really time we broke out the ongoing ICAC inquiries in NSW into one or more articles, considering the breadth of the scandal and the amount of people implicated in some way. I'm not sure what would be the best way to organise this, though. Any ideas? The Drover's Wife ( talk) 04:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I found it troubling that Electoral district of Finniss and to a lesser extent Electoral district of Heysen and Electoral district of Kavel in South Australia get classified in the infoboxes as "metropolitan". I've changed them to outer metropolitan, but I can't reconcile calling Finniss outer metro, Heysen and Kavel less so but still ruralish. I've looked through ABC and ECSA sources for any classifications they might have but I couldn't find any. Timeshift ( talk) 03:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Where do you get your km2 from for SA state infoboxes? Timeshift ( talk) 02:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone want to volunteer to update the suburbs amongst the Electoral districts of South Australia? Many seats are still using 2010 and earlier boundaries. :P Personally i'm against the listing of suburbs (sadly) in electorate articles when they're changing at every election. It makes 47 articles out of date every four years :/ Timeshift ( talk) 04:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:Independent (politician)#Requested move. Timeshift ( talk) 03:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
We have a lot of these around wikipedia, location-based electoral results. Unfortunately nobody seems to update them anymore. I started a discussion there as to if we should just remove them if they aren't going to get updated, but with little to no success. I removed the results from that article as both state and federal are two elections out of date and looks biased as they stop at the Labor high water mark, but it was reverted as I didn't have consensus to do so. What should we do with these sorts of smaller-than-seat-level results around wikipedia? Timeshift ( talk) 07:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
So only one oppose so far? Timeshift ( talk) 02:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps Pdfpdf had better understand what you (plural) mean, and perhaps then he should express an opinion?
So, please can one of you explain why combining five booths is "bordering on
WP:OR", and also, as it hasn't been a problem for many years, explain why you (plural) suddenly seem to think it's a problem now?
As Drover's Wife said, "For me, having a politics section based on the data about how the booths in that locality have voted over the years is useful information and something I would be interested to know about any particular locality. This says considerably more than merely listing data at the electorate level." - If the way it has been done has problems, is there a way that the data can be presented that does not have these problems?
Thanks in advance.
Pdfpdf (
talk)
12:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I've added an incomplete tag as this article requires serious expansion - it is almost all pre-budget. I've added the under 30s Newstart bit and linked ABC's winners/losers in external links that can be drawn on for article expansion. There's a lot that still isn't covered. It also wasn't linked anywhere in a wikipedia article except Australian federal budget and templates so i've linked to it in Abbott/Abbott govt articles. Timeshift ( talk) 23:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm just a bit concerned lately that some old seats in Victoria and Queensland have had the format of the dates in the list of members changed, for example, here, and here.
I know that there was a discussion about it last year that didn't seem to reach a conclusion, and I'm a bit reluctant to go about changing them back to the standard format of just having the years that each member held the seat since there seemed to be a bit of heat in that discussion. So I was wondering if there could be an agreement of what the format should be.
I'd prefer to change it to the year alone with a link to the election or by-election in question that the seat changed hands, like how most NSW seats are done, examples here and here. It keeps the tables simple and neat and the election in question where the new member won is easily accessible. Kirsdarke01 ( talk) 01:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
What do you all reckon? Include Abbott's daughter hoopla, or not. A certain user's trying to get me blocked, so I won't be contributing, but some more eyes would be nice. 124.169.104.184 ( talk) 12:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Input is requested regarding a change to the graphic in the infobox depicting the party makeup of the House. Frickeg ( talk) 08:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Prompted by this discussion. This has been sort of a background disagreement for many years now and I think it's time we sorted it out. When a politician changes party affiliation during their term, how should we treat the electorate when dealing with gains/losses, seat counts, maps, and pendulums?
My view is that, for the purposes listed above, the seat should remain with the party it voted for at the previous election. For example, I would consider Dobell and Fisher to be a Labor hold and an LNP hold at the last election, respectively. Likewise I would consider Kennedy to be a KAP gain from an Independent (since KAP did not exist in 2010). This is because, in the instances listed above, we are dealing with parties, not MPs. When we are colouring maps, I would consider we are first concerned with party designation, not MPs. A party that did not exist at a previous election cannot "hold" a seat at a new one. I think we should be distinguishing between party gains/holds and MP gains/holds. For example, the seat of Dalrymple was a gain for KAP at the last Queensland election, but a hold for Shane Knuth. Frickeg ( talk) 01:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
For the purpose of a map and pendulum for a future election - ie South Australian state election, 2018, it should reflect current affiliation. Waite is now represented by an independent MP, not a Liberal MP. In theory the voters elect the person, not the party, so i'm not sure why the party should be hard-coded until the next election if the MP changes affiliation. Of course the 2014 article should remain as-is though. We have enough precedent for this. Timeshift ( talk) 01:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I've mostly been going by the rule that how the seat at the election is either held or changed hands depending on how the voters voted at the previous election. For example I'd say Dobell was just a plain Liberal gain from Labor and Fisher was an LNP hold in 2013.
But in redistributions, I admit that I've been going by the other argument, that if the seat has no current member I'd go by the party vote in the new boundaries (eg - Wright 2010 as a LNP hold, Flynn 2007 as a Labor gain from National), but if it does and the seat becomes notionally held by another party, I'd consider it still held by the member (eg - Dickson 2010 as a LNP hold, while Macquarie 2007 as a Labor gain from Liberal as a sitting MP was defeated). Just I've been doing that so that it can be more easily identified that a seat has changed hands rather than saying Macquarie 2007 was a Labor Hold. Kirsdarke01 ( talk) 06:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Martin Hamilton-Smith#Edit war - speculation - input appreciated. Timeshift ( talk) 02:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Same editor now putting speculation in to Vickie Chapman. I've requested they follow WP:BRD but they won't listen. Again, input appreciated. Timeshift ( talk) 08:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
An issue has come up at Victorian state election, 2014 regarding the sole use of Newspoll for state election articles, and I'm inclined to agree with the reverted editor that it's very strange to exclude non-Newspoll polling. I can't think of another example anywhere on Wikipedia - and I follow election articles at a bunch of levels in a bunch of countries - where a set of articles cherrypicks one particular pollster at random and insists on using them and only them. This is removing a massive swathe of good, reliable polling data - to use one thirty-second example, it wipes out the last five polls taken of upcoming state elections around Australia. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 03:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of political polling, have you seen that Nielsen are no longer doing public polling? -- Canley ( talk) 05:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm more then happy to include more polling results, assuming they are from reputable sources. The fact that Nielson will no longer be doing public polling is a huge loss, in my opinion they were the best. I should also state that I too have some concerns about some of the more "dodgy" polling sources. But all the same would like more updates, again as long as the sources are reputable. SultanNicole ( talk) 13:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, considering the response which appears to be uniformly in favour of additional polling data from 'reputable' firms which don't rely on online responses, I move to include recent polling data from Essential Research on the
Victorian state election, 2014. Link for most recent Victoria data is
here. Why?
-Qualifies as reputable: About this poll:
This report summarises the results of a weekly omnibus conducted by Essential Research with data provided by Your Source. The survey was conducted online over 4 weeks to 27th May 2014.
Sample sizes were NSW 1,293, Queensland 737 and Victoria 1,005. LINK: See here (under State voting intention - NSW subheading)
I haven't encountered any other polling firms running regular polling of state election voting intentions for VIC or any other state or Territory, though I haven't been looking for them either. Im suggesting that we adopt a new policy with respect to polling data inclusion criteria for state/Territory election pages, that being - when published on Wikipedia's state/Territory election pages - they are
All in favour? Yae or Nay? Jono52795 ( talk) 09:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Can some more editors please keep an eye on this page? An editor is repeatedly adding claims that Ban has ties to far-right organisations, cited to an Australian article that doesn't actually remotely support the things claimed. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 09:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk)
10:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
If it isn't, then asking on the talk page there probably won't gain any useful responses. Maybe it's called something else now. I dunno how Labor factions work, so if someone knows what's what, that might help. -- Pete ( talk) 16:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
List of political parties in Australia... what a dog's breakfast. Thoughts? Timeshift ( talk) 02:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Other views would be appreciated. Timeshift ( talk) 02:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
It's happening again :( Timeshift ( talk) 04:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I loathe articles wholly based on factoid trivia like this one. Should this article exist? Timeshift ( talk) 04:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Per archived discussion here, I've given it more than enough time. Added outdated|section tag. I still question whether they should be included at all. Timeshift ( talk) 01:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Pdfpdf is removing the outdated tag without any talkpage contribution, and appears to be ignoring the fact that everyone but him either agrees it should be removed from all articles, or at least should be removed from Adelaide City Centre as the combining of booths is WP:OR. Timeshift ( talk) 02:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
... Am I to understand that this is still in dispute? I thought we settled this months ago, with the Adelaide one at the very least. (It goes, of course; OR of the most ridiculous kind.) Frickeg ( talk) 13:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Pdfpdf, do you seriously expect other readers will look favourably upon your view when you often swear and type in caps and bold? Why is it that relatively small things turn you all nasty? Timeshift ( talk) 17:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
So three users agree the booth results should be removed from the article for varying reasons, per above. One user is constantly re-inserting the booth tables when removed by various users. Nobody appears to want to budge. When does majority become consensus and how do we proceed when the only objector keeps re-inserting the table? Timeshift ( talk) 23:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Greetings Gentlemen! (Apologies if there are any ladies involved).
Pdfpdf ( talk) 14:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Wow! The outdated election tables are gone! And Pdfpdf seems ok with it! What changed?! Timeshift ( talk) 22:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
This category seems like a bit of a mess. There's a bunch of random party-by-ideology categories, some categorisations of which are a bit questionable, a bunch of party-by-state categories, and various people running bots have ripped various parties out of the main category and stuck them in random subcategories. More helpfully, someone is running around putting the defunct parties in a defunct party category, which is past time. I feel like a way of sorting this out would be a) to put all current parties in Category:Political parties in Australia, b) creating a holding category for the party-by-ideology categories if people feel strongly that they should exist, and c) find and add that category tag that stops silly people with bots messing up the place by deleting stuff from the main category. Thoughts? -- The Drover's Wife ( talk) 15:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
This article could do with some eyes. There's an editor trying to include some serious negative claims in a BLP article without any citation at all and I'm getting fed up with reiterating the same ground. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 21:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
As part of my effort to get a decent page up for every Mayor of Christchurch, I have greatly expanded the article for Eden George, who also spent a few years in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly. The article is now a bit out of balance, and his Australian period should be expanded. I don't have the right resources to do this, though. Can somebody from this project help? The article will be heading to DYK soon. Schwede 66 20:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
-- Canley ( talk) 00:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Can someone clarify this for me? Why is an absolute majority of 76 required? What other motions does this extend to? Timeshift ( talk) 10:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Is this noteworthy as an addition to Australian House of Representatives? Timeshift ( talk) 09:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, just noticed that Bjelkemander had been PRODed. Looks like it might be notable to me (like the Playmander, which I had heard of), but this isn't really my area of expertise. Hoping someone who has a good grasp on what makes an Australian political term notable could take a look. Cheers, Jenks24 ( talk) 03:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I've created this page to fill what is really the only remaining significant void in our coverage of Australian elections at state level. I'd like to go back a few years as well, but first I'd like input into the layout, etc., of these pages, as they're rather unique in Australia. (Incidentally, I would anticipate including by-elections that take place on the same day as the periodic elections within the same page (e.g. Derwent 2011), with a redirect obviously.) Frickeg ( talk) 02:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Can I suggest Alexander Downer, Sr. be moved to Alec Downer? He's generally known by the latter. Frickeg ( talk) 08:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Could I ask for some attention on the Craig Thomson affair article, please? There's some really uncivil behaviour there, and I'm particularly concerned at allegations being thrown around, such as that Craig Thomson himself is editing the article. Removal of well-sourced material (described in edit summary as vandalism) Is a worry. I'm going to be requesting admin intervention if this sort of thing keeps up, but I'd like some editors familiar with the subject to look over what's going on first. -- Pete ( talk) 17:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
HSU Victoria No. 4 branch represents medical scientists, hospital pharmacists and psychologists. The branch's petition of 268 members in June 2009 followed an April call the same year for a full investigation of the national union's financial administration between 2002 and 2007, the period when Mr Thomson was federal secretary. However in a response that stunned Dr Kelly's branch, Fair Work official Terry Nassios said that as the national union did not itself have members, it was only treated as a union branch for the purposes of financial reporting.
It might be worth noting that these discussions are taking place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Craig_Thomson_affair
For information of interested parties only. 121.216.230.139 ( talk) 08:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
PS - the proposed deletion discussion regarding the above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Craig_Thomson_affair
One21dot216dot ( talk) 09:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC) (previously known as 121.216.230.139)
Just wondering if anyone has any views on whether this should be renamed to Carbon pricing in Australia. Sure 'carbon tax' is what it is widely known as, but the price in the legislation isn't a Carbon Tax under the definition of the term - a tax implies that it is paid directly by consumers, the lead of the Carbon tax article talks about the regressive nature of carbon taxation - and I don't think the potential for flow on price increases falls under that definition - it would be like calling the company tax a regressive tax on low income earners because companies paying more tax causes increases in the cost of goods and services which impacts greatest at lower income levels.
The carbon pricing scheme that will exist on July 1, fails the definition of the distinction that a 'carbon tax' makes within the options for pricing carbon, and the fact it's transitional to a full ETS means it's even less accurate after 2015. Views? -- GoForMoe ( talk) 13:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
It appears to have been extensively expanded, but by a non-experienced contibutor. Does anyone have the knowledge and time to verify the article? Timeshift ( talk) 07:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
In this obituary, it is claimed that Peter T. Finn (died 4 April 1911) was Attorney-General of Victoria (Australia) for 24 hours sometime before 1877, but he's not on the list and I can't even find a death notice for him on Trove. Can anybody shed any light on this? Schwede 66 19:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The article looks presentable now, but it lacks Australian content. Can somebody with knowledge of the Victorian Lower House, elections, etc have a look at it, please? Schwede 66 20:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I've been having a play around with the format for member tables like this, which at the moment are fairly basic. By fiddling around with the US version, I came up with this, which manages to incorporate much more information. I'd very much like feedback and suggestions since I think with this kind of thing we could work, in the long run, towards getting some of these up to featured list status. I've tried to incorporate party changes and resignations into the list without using footnotes, which should help when we want to add citations. Frickeg ( talk) 03:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The template {{ Cabinet of Western Australia}} lists all ministers and parliamentary secretaries in the Barnett Ministry. Are all WA ministers and secretaries included in Cabinet? Another question revolves around the status of the ruling parties in WA. According to Coalition (Australia) the Liberals and Nationals in WA are one of several coalition governments in Australia. After the messy conclusion to the last election there was much made of the fact that the Liberals and Nationals were not going to form a coalition, rather a loose alliance. Has this changed since 2008? Hack ( talk) 05:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Is the proper name the Queensland Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Assembly of Queensland? Currently the main page and the one for the Speaker are at the latter, with all the members pages at the former. After a brief look around the Parliament website it seems to use them interchangeably. What's the official name? Frickeg ( talk) 04:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but it is the Legislative Assembly of Queensland. For the most part, the various organs of the state simply say "Legislative Assembly", "Parliament" or "Parliament of Queensland". But there is proof. First, the title of Hansard in QLD is "Record of Proceedings", and looking at the first issue of the current Parliament is instructive. A search of its text will, as a matter of fact, not turn up a single reference to "Queensland Legislative Assembly". But does it mention the other? Yes, as a matter of fact it does. In fact, in quoting the commissions summoning Parliament, commissioning members to open Parliament, and commissioning the same people to administer oaths, the phase "Legislative Assembly of Queensland" is used. Links to the Letters Patent themselves are embedded in the PDF linked to above. In addition, the writ of election also uses "Legislative Assembly of Queensland". Those all emanate from the Governor, and by extension the executive, but the legislature uses it to. For instance, one of the statutes to qualify "Legislative Assembly" with the name of the state is the Constitution Amendment Act 1934], which says at section 3 that "The Parliament of Queensland (or, as sometimes called, the Legislature of Queensland), constituted by His Majesty the King and the Legislative Assembly of Queensland in Parliament assembled shall not be..." Others, over a period of 1899 to 1991, do the same. [1] [2] [3] [4] The only reference I could find in statute to "Queensland Legislative Assembly" is section 123D of the Constitution Act 2001, which quotes the term in its definition of the Members' Entitlement Handbook (in fact the quote is from the Handbook's title page). Searching its site, the Assembly itself uses both about equally. Moving to perhaps the worst search, a Google search of "site:qld.gov.au" for each turns up 2,290 for "Queensland Legislative Assembly" and 10,300 for "Legislative Assembly of Queensland". - Rrius ( talk) 01:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
In the past when we've discussed knighthoods and damehoods and such like in member lists I've usually come out against it, but with the work I've been doing on members lately I'm reconsidering. Per my reading of the rather confusing WP:HONORIFIC, I'd suggest we include the knight/damehoods (and these only) in these lists, provided they were knights while serving as members/ministers/whatever. If they were knighted at some time during their term, we can just use brackets, i.e. (Sir) Edmund Barton. Another reason is simple common usage - after they were knighted these people were very rarely referred to without the Sir or Dame. Thoughts? Frickeg ( talk) 07:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
With the results table for Melbourne state by-election, 2012, the Australian Christians haven't been added yet. I rarely do these, I can't even find current parties in Template:Election box candidate AU party, but i'm probably doing it wrong. Can someone who knows how to do it fix it? Thanks! Timeshift ( talk) 08:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Can someone advise why candidate names in 2012 by-election articles are published in italics? This seems contrary to MOS:ITALIC. Thanks, WWGB ( talk) 04:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Could someone with some time have a look at recent edits by this user? I'm seeing some dubious grammar and odd changes, but don't have time to delve into the complexities right now. Frickeg ( talk) 06:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Template:Electorate result and Template:Electorate result summary have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the templates' entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 ( talk) 01:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Input would be appreciated at the discussion here, which will also impact several other pages. Frickeg ( talk) 03:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Given past discussions on the matter of whether, say, Katter's Australian Party gained Dalrymple or held it at the last Queensland election, Antony Green's discussion of similar problems with the NT election here may be of interest. Frickeg ( talk) 09:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Input is sought on the discussion at Talk:New South Wales state election, 2015#Polling. Thanks, WWGB ( talk) 11:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible to run a bot to add "| posttitle = Resulting Prime Minister/Premier/Chief Minister" to every Australian election article infobox? One of the many 2010 fed election debates had agreed to say resulting rather than elected in the infobox. Only MPs are elected. Timeshift ( talk) 03:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Input would be appreciated here. Frickeg ( talk) 00:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I was just wondering what is the opinion on the creation of full election results pages for each Australian state and federal election? I've been thinking about the task ahead for the state election project, and concluded that thousands of new pages will need to be created for former electorates and their results. So to make things go along a bit faster, I was thinking that there could be 1 page per election with the results tables for all seats at that time. Then when that's finished, work on electorates and their results can proceed.
A further advantage of this would be the compilation of all results in that particular election without having to browse through each individual seat's page. I know that a disadvantage would be the massive size of these pages though. Kirsdarke01 ( talk) 02:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Uh, can we keep the discussion at one place? Namely Talk:Australian 2010 election upper house results? Timeshift ( talk) 23:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The discussion there refers to the Senate election results tables. I'm proposing a different matter, that all federal and state elections get their own full results pages. Kirsdarke01 ( talk) 23:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I've been trying to update the at times badly out of date Victorian LGA articles following the local elections, following the excellent work done by Rangasyd in New South Wales. I've run into trouble handling the parties, however. Unlike in NSW, the electoral commission doesn't seem to recognise parties or groupings (apart from, strangely, the City of Melbourne).
This causes problems anywhere there's a Green councillor (who are all officially endorsed, even if it's only mentioned in their candidate statement in some places), and in others where there seems to be an official Labor slate in an LGA where tickets aren't on the ballot (i.e. the City of Yarra). I'm reluctant to not make any attempt at a partisan breakdown, because I think it's a really useful aspect to the NSW articles, but I'm a bit stuck. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 11:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Just pointing out a discussion here should anyone be interested. Frickeg ( talk) 22:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi auspol folks!
Thought I'd raise this here first to see if anyone else had any thoughts about how it should be handled given the issue will likely get a lot more coverage in the near future. I'll not mention any specific articles or people (as much as possible) for the benefits of general neutrality (though given my comments elsewhere you could work it out fairly quickly without too much effort)...
There is currently an investigation under way into the conduct of a number of former and current Australian politicians. The investigation itself is based on the investigative journalism of a particular journalist and a range of other sources of information that have subsequently been uncovered by the investigative authority in question (this has been made clear during investigative hearings, the transcripts of which are publicly available).
The journalist in question has a long history of "investigating" the individuals involved and a long history of "reporting" the "results" of investigations. The reports haven't always been particularly accurate and I understand the journalist was sued (for defamation) by the individuals involved in the past and lost. Badly. The journalist's "investigations" of those individuals have become more fervent since.
This week, the questionable link between the journalist and the official investigation was highlighted (again, public transcripts) and the investigation was criticised for taking the journalist's "information" and launching an investigation without an evidential "killer blow" (albeit in a rival paper, so...) - just speculation and rumours from the journalist rather than proof of misconduct.
The journalist in question continues to "cover" the investigation. This is where I think it becomes a problem for us. The journalist's articles (historical and ones relating to this investigation) are still used extensively as sources for particular BLPs. There is at least one BLP where the journalist's articles represent about 50% of the sources. Most of them are clearly unfavourable (I think the article for which the journalist was originally sued is actually still being cited here which is a concern in itself given it was effectively found to be an unreliable source by a court).
The investigation in question is still ongoing but the journalist in question continues to cover the story in a manner that suggests their original investigative journalism was justified and vindicated and the politicians in question are clearly guilty.
It is not our place to make judgements about whether a particular journalist is biased or has a vendetta but we do have to make a judgement call about whether sources are reliable or not and the author of a source is clearly an element in that judgement call. Blindly referencing articles by this particular journalist and using them as sources for significant portions of particular BLPs would be, I think, particularly concerning. But I'm not going to unilaterally remove all such references from all such BLPs without some discussion first. Nor am I going to unilaterally declare all material from the journalist in question to be inherently "unreliable". I would like to get some thoughts from everyone else.
I've tried to keep my summary free of identifying material so we can discuss these issues in a conceptual sense. I'm happy to fill in the blanks for editors if there is consensus that leaving details out means discussion is impossible.
Cheers, Stalwart 111 01:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC).
Just bringing to attention that this article appears to be about a year out of date, I did my best to fix it but there's a lot of mixed tense and also info which is now trivial in context of them since having contested a state election. A third MP, Ray Hopper, is reported by the Courier Mail newspaper to be switching across and there may be more so the article may be more watched soon. Thanks and keep up the good work 124.169.167.84 ( talk) 19:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Action (Australia). Article definitely needs work.-- Grahame ( talk) 01:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm currently working on List of Tasmanian House of Assembly casual vacancies, and I was thinking it'd be really handy to have a template tying together all of our "List of X by-elections" and "List of X casual vacancies" articles. Does someone who's better at templates than me feel like having a crack at creating one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Drover's Wife ( talk • contribs) 12:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I've been doing a lot of work on the List of Victorian state by-elections article, which was pretty dismal up until a couple of days ago, but I've come across the issue of what to do with supplementary elections (which usually get referred to as "by-elections"). This most notably comes up in Victoria in the 1999 supplementary election for Frankston East, which resulted in the election of the Bracks government. How should articles on supplementary elections be titled? Should they go in the by-election lists? The Drover's Wife ( talk) 03:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I have been planning a systematic attack on filling in all the missing Qld state electoral districts and then, after that, their members (basic details, not complete bios). I have already started this and completed an initial set of electorates. I am now being told that I must seek permission of this group to use precise dates in relation to member's representation of the electorate (I cannot see where this is documented incidentally). Frankly I see no benefit whatsoever in using only years. I can understand that people may have done that in other states because that was all the information available to them in their source material or whatever reason. However, I have precise dates authoritatively sourced from the Qld Parliament. With precise dates, a reader only interested in the year can trivially determine that information, but the reverse is not true. Without precise dates, it is not easy to understand what is happening with by-elections (which sometimes occur twice in one year -- apparently I am not allowed to use the word "by-election" either -- please explain), the concurrent membership of the multi-seat electorates that Qld had in the 1800s, and it does not provide anyone interested in using resources like newspapers to do further study of that election or by-election as you need precise dates to work with newspaper microfilms (trawling through a year's worth of newspapers to find what you are looking for is a ridiculous waste of effort when precise dates can be made readily available). I note that these Qld electoral districts have redlinked for years, so I would hope this group will wish to help rather than hinder in getting something done about them. 01:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Date | Member | Party | |
---|---|---|---|
30 March 1901 | Bob Smith | Labor |
This WikiProject should not be in Category:Politics of Australia. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 23:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
This should be moved back to Electoral district of Mindarie and a new Electoral district of Butler should be created.-- Grahame ( talk) 01:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I think we should have some consistency across the various articles about state, territory and commonwealth legislatures. I don't think "House of Representatives (Australia)" and "Senate (Australia)" are very useful, since they would not be the most likely search term. Personally I preferred "Australian House of Representatives" and I find the argument about 'official' titles unconvincing. At any rate, there is also inconsistency with "New South Wales Legislative Assembly" and "Legislative Assembly of Queensland". Can we get one format across these articles? My preferred format would be "Adjective Name", omitting words in parentheses or "of"s. Slac speak up! 23:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Now the most recent House and Senate lists have been moved to "Members of the House of Representatives of Australia", etc. It seems that the consensus here is pretty definite. Any objections to them all being moved back to their original names (at "Australian Senate", "Australian House of Representatives", etc.). Frickeg ( talk) 22:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
A whole host of articles have been changed to show Adam Giles as Chief Minister of the NT. Does the NT follow the state procedure where the premiers only take office when sworn in? Hack ( talk) 08:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
What infobox are we supposed to be using in party articles? {{
Infobox Australian political party}} is used in 47 articles, but {{
Infobox political party}} is used in others. One or the other should be used. Interestingly, |position=
, which is used in many Australian articles, is regarded to be a deprecated parameter in {{Infobox political party}}
. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
05:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
|position=
, which only leads to confusion. I suspect this could be merged fairly easily into the general template, since the links at the bottom of the Australian template are the only thing really distinguishing them and they're far from essential for an infobox.
Frickeg (
talk)
07:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)In the course of working on a couple of the older PMs' pages, I've noted something curious about the pages on the ministries - specifically I cannot find verification for their demarcation in the older cases. I think there was some questionable research done/assumptions made some time ago and it needs to be corrected. My concern is my current project on Stanley Bruce, who is listed as having a first, second and third ministry; but I can't find any source for that, and the Australian Parliamentary Handbook which those pages cite actually states there was just one during Bruce's term. The dates picked for those seem to coincide with elections, which is logical assumption but actually doesn't require the formation of a new ministry. I considered proposing a merger between the three pages for one Bruce ministry page, but then realized the problem is replicated over several of the PMs. I'd like to correct this and am willing to do the work to update to actual listings, but there's a lot of merging/renaming work to be done and I thought that should be preceded by a general discussion and I'd like input on how to proceed from the group. Unus Multorum ( talk) 14:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
You can also redirect to article sections, so we don't actually lose the ability to nominate "Third Bruce Ministry" etc. Even for the case where a PM loses office then regains the Prime Ministership, I think we should have only one ministry article, and just mention the break in the sections (or even have a superheading for each term). -- Surturz ( talk) 06:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Any objections to rolling this out? I've got a bit of time to spare and wouldn't mind doing a few of these. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 06:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Is anyone going to bother listening to the Budget speech tomorrow night? Virtually the whole thing has been leaked. I just don't get it, I have to say. Why all the hush-hush in the lockup tomorrow, and all the pretence of Budget-in-confidence, when they freely announce huge chunks of it in advance? Or announce that they are going to be making announcements - which amounts to the same thing. It gets worse each year. If they want to make policy announcements in the weeks and months leading up to the Budget, then let them do so as discrete announcements and introduce appropriate legislation straight away, and let them not pretend that they have anything to do with the Budget. </rant> -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 11:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, I just thought I'd mention the The Dictionary of Australasian Biography (sub-titled: Comprising notices of eminent colonists from the inauguration of responsible government down to the present time. [1855-1892]) was proof-read and validated last month at Wikisource. It has about 1,650 entries and might be a good source of material for those who create articles about old politicians. Diverman ( talk) 13:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Mustn’t an article be prepared on the Second Rudd Ministry, being formed now? 138.16.109.170 ( talk) 12:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I understand the division between ministry articles and government articles (e.g. First Rudd Government and First Rudd Ministry). However, right now, all the articles in the Governments of Australia category have no main list where they are compiled, making them hard to find. The ministry articles, on the other hand, do have a list (i.e. List of Australian ministries). I was considering adding links in the List of Australian ministries chart to the government articles, so that they are more visible. Does this sound like a good solution? My propose way of doing this would like this:
Order | Name of Ministry | Party affiliation(s) | Constituted | Concluded | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
Barton Ministry History |
Protectionist | 1 January 1901 | 24 September 1903 |
Please do comment. RGloucester ( talk) 18:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
A user has moved Members of the Australian House of Representatives, 2010–2013 to Members of the Australian House of Representatives, 2010–13, citing MOS:YEAR. The user has stated that they don't feel too strongly about it but we should have the discussion about where we want them, I guess. My opinion is that we have used the full dates for a long time, and that it is common practice to do so, at least in article titles. Thoughts? Frickeg ( talk) 20:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I came across File:Kevin07b.jpg on Kerry Rea's page and couldn't help but notice that the head of the man in the red baseball cap behind and to the left of Kevin Rudd looks photoshopped in (and check out the description the author gives the image). Do we have a policy on this type of photoshopping? -- Roisterer ( talk) 06:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I am compiling lists of whips for the major parties. So far I have finished the Liberals (though I do not have exact beginning dates for Reg Swartz, Henry Pearce, Bert Kelly or Ross McLean). I anticipate that, even though they are older, the Labor and Nationals lists will take less than the 2.5 months the first one took. All the same, I am at a point where one is completed and could be copied, with a bit of polishing and drafting of a lead, to a new page called List of Liberal Party of Australia Whips, or something like that, and create similar lists for the other parties as I complete them. Or, I could wait and create Whip (Australia) with all three lists (and possible future lists for the UAP, Nationalists, etc). In either case, I hope add Senate whips, though that is a project for later. I await your guidance. - Rrius ( talk) 03:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
By the way, the list can be seen at User:Rrius/Sandbox 1. - Rrius ( talk) 03:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Despite the fact that the Labor and Country/National parties are older than the Liberals, I think the lists will be reasonable enough that we can just put all three at whatever we name the article. Once we expand to the Senate, the defunct parties, and (god help me) the states, some sort of split will be needed. I suspect it would be better when the time comes to do List of federal Australian Labor Party Whips, etc., than to do a House list with all of the parties and a Senate list with all of the parties, but again, I'd like input.
As for the prose, my plan is to borrow from the passage at Whip (politics)#Australia, and add in a few things I've found along the way. - Rrius ( talk) 09:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I have completed Party whip (Australia), List of whips in the Australian House of Representatives, and List of whips in the Australian Senate. While I was at it, I created Leader of the Government in the Senate (Australia) and Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Australia) (which I intend to fill out as lists going back to 1901, and should be easier than the whips) and Template:Parliament of Australia, which provides a place for all of those offices as they don't really fit at Template:Politics of Australia. The template allows for a navigational tool that brings together the officials and officers of Parliament, as well as the list of senators and MPs and some key procedural and electoral concepts. There may well be other articles that should be linked to from it, so have a look. - Rrius ( talk) 13:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Re this edit. A couple of points:
I'm looking at moving my userspace list of 2013 candidates across to mainspace fairly soon, but wanted to ask if anyone could help out with some of the ex-candidates. Some of them are just waiting on some cites from me but others (particularly the raft of ex-Palmer candidates) I have no idea on and were just summarily replaced without so much as an announcement. If anyone knows of coverage in local media that I might have missed I'd appreciate it. (I'm aware the Senate is out of date but I may wait until nominations close to do a proper update, since it's ridiculously fiddly.) Frickeg ( talk) 02:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I've completed the page following the declaration of nominations and moved it to the mainspace. With the columns, I've ended up going mostly on number of candidates, especially since I'm pretty sure a record was broken with the number; if they were running in every seat and there was room, they got their own column. Everyone have at it - I'm sure there are people with articles I missed, and there are still plenty of ex-candidates without the stories (if any) that go with them. Frickeg ( talk) 13:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi guys, I pretty much rewrote the entire Stanley Bruce article from scratch earlier this year and slowly but surely, it's almost at FA status, but I need more reviewers/eyes to get it perfect! If so inclined please visit the nomination page and add any comments, support or criticism you might have. It's a top-importance article and it would be great to get this one over the line if it deserves it. Unus Multorum ( talk) 10:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
There is some dispute over the scale of Kevin Rudd's 2007 victory. It is commonly referred to as a landslide and seems to be on par with other election victories so described in Wikipedia, except in List of landslide victories, where it is described as a "Ruddslide". Given that thousands of Wikipedia articles use the term, many of them within the Australian politics sphere, I'm wondering how informed editors would define the term. There is some discussion going on here, but obviously any decision to remove the term there will impact on similar Australian political articles. -- Pete ( talk) 06:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I think that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-election pendulum for the Australian federal election, 2013 would benefit from input from editors who are familiar with the workings and conventions around Australian elections. Nick-D ( talk) 09:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I came across this resource which may be of interest for those looking on info for each election since 1901. This should also conclusively settle 2010... "The ALP could only win 72 seats but the Coalition could not better that number when the WA National, Tony Crook, chose to sit on the crossbench." Timeshift ( talk) 01:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Well look what I came across, 2PP since 1919. Some figure estimations seem to be different through and RM doesn't say what the source is. Eg for 1946, 54.1 [7], 53.8 [8], 52.2 [9] - even though two of three of those were apparently sourced from Mackarras. I note that the record 2PP result in 1943 of 58.2 percent still beats RM's 1931 result of 58.1 percent :D Timeshift ( talk) 00:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Ouch... anyone want to try and fix this mess? Orderinchaos 06:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Costello APH image on wikipedia - How does such a senior politician's official APH image and therefore a copyright violation manage to avoid detection/deletion for 6 years and counting..? Timeshift ( talk) 00:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Peta Credlin - I am sure enthusiasts who have this page on watch might wish to elaborate on the bare minumum stub started satusuro 12:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
What is our current position regarding the creation of articles about local government politicians, especially mayors, in Australia? I notice that ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Mayors of places in New South Wales only has 68 pages in it and I seem to remember some discussion on this some time ago. Examination of the articles in the category show a large percentage are about MPs or former MPs and many others have otherwise established their notability in other fields but then there are several who are, apparently, just mayors. These include Clinton Mead, Jeff McCloy, Aaron Rule and John Stuart Tate. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 14:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
There shouldn't be inherent notability for mayors, but Tate is extremely notable and McCloy shouldn't be challengeable either. I don't see notability for Rule or Mead, but I can think of numerous cases of suburban mayors who would. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 09:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
If Wayne Dropulich of the Australian Sports Party is not elected in what is presumably an upcoming WA Senate election and he does not take his place on 1 July 2014, should he still have an article? I'm in two minds, there's a good argument for and against. Timeshift ( talk) 00:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that the colours and some of the formatting had disappeared from the tables in almost all Australian election result articles yesterday. The issue appears to be this change on 2 January, which removed the table formatting from the header and instead uses the standard "wikitable" class, and this appears to cause the colour template at Template:Australian politics/party colours to fail. It appears there has been discussions going on for some time at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Elections Manual of Style/Results tables (mainly between two editors though, and more about formatting and style, so I'm not sure there is consensus for altering a widely-used template unless there is another discussion elsewhere). I reverted the edit and left a note on User:Number 57's talk page anyway, so I may hear more from them about their plans and intentions. -- Canley ( talk) 00:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I was looking at Penny Wong and found something I find a little odd. I don't know how you deal with renamed ministries in Australian politics (actually I'm not sure how any deal with it), but I find it a little odd that the succession box at the bottom refers to her as 'Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency' a position which if I understand her article and Minister for the Environment (Australia)#List of Ministers for Climate Change correctly, she never held. (The ministry went under 2 different names during her tenure, neither of which were that name.)
Perhaps more confusing is the fact that 'Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency' isn't even the final name for the ministry, that appears to be Minister for Climate Change.
Both the Penny Wong and Greg Combet article in the succession box call it 'Climate Change and Energy Efficiency' whereas Mark Butler calls it 'Climate Change' . It seems to me it would be better to either call it 'Climate Change' in all 3 succession boxes, or call it 'Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Water' (the final name under her tenure) in Penny Wong's succession box.
But it could be there's something I'm missing. For example I believe the 'Water' portfolio bounced around, I'm not sure what happened to 'Enery Efficiency' , whether it was no longer a specific portfolio but shared by appropriate ministers or was still completely under the purview of the Minister for Climate Change and the rename in the final Rudd cabinet was more of a branding thing or what.
So I'll let those more familiar with the norms here sort it out.
Nil Einne ( talk) 05:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I just stumbled up on this disaster of a page. I'm far from convinced about notability - what do people think? There seems little point in attempting to salvage it otherwise. Frickeg ( talk) 06:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems this gives the green light to use parliament.curriculum.edu.au photos of politicians, however some appear to be from 10-20 years ago. Do we use a modern photo or an older but clearer photo? Some bear little resemblance at all. It's been an issue before but until now an isolated one. What to do? Timeshift ( talk) 13:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I recently stumbled upon a clutch of articles about Mayors of Cairns, almost all of which are of dubious notability. John Coxall in particular seems like a definite non-notable and I've prodded him, but I wanted to see if anyone had anything further on Tom Pyne, Val Schier or Bob Manning. Richard Alfred Tills appears to have a mass of sources but almost all of them are from local press. The only one that I think really approaches notability at the moment, Kevin Byrne, has such a toxic mess of an article that I'm tempted to say that TNT is the best option. Thoughts? Frickeg ( talk) 02:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, I've been working on creating and editing articles of former districts, Template:Former electoral districts of South Australia, there's still a few to do so if any feels inclined, have a go at creating missing ones. Use an existing one e.g. Electoral district of Albert (South Australia) as a basis for a new one. There's also the Electoral districts of South Australia article that needs some more table editing if anyone feels keen.
I also created a template for using the S.A. Former member database. see Template:cite SA-parl; can be useful when creating or editing articles for S.A. politicians. — Diverman ( talk) 04:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
This story is all over the news. An IP added material but it was unsourced. Question is, how best to word and source it. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
See articles like South Australian state election, 2014 and Tasmanian state election, 2014... it seems that "Liberal Party of Australia" party coding has been broken. Can someone get in to the appropriate template and fix it up ASAP? Timeshift ( talk) 23:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Talk moved to Talk:Australian Senate special election in Western Australia, 2014 -- Surturz ( talk) 06:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, time for a consensus view here. A couple of issues to sort out it seems: where does the date information go in the list of members and what about the detail dates (which could be "month year" or "day month year").
I propose we use the established Wikipedia-wide standard of having the plain years in the left column of the member table. In the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables all of the four examples containing dates have the years listed before the person, three of the four have years in the left column, the fourth still has the year before the person.
Having years in the left column is used by all these district articles for other countries I could find, see: New Zealand electorates, Scottish Parliament constituencies and regions 1999 to 2011, List of United Kingdom Parliament constituencies, List of parliamentary constituencies in Northern Ireland, List of London Assembly constituencies (for those articles that do have a member table). Canada is slightly different, see List of Canadian federal electoral districts they have the number of the Parliament in the left column e.g. 17th, then the year, then the member, so still have the year before the member. As I mentioned above in the discussion under 'South Australian electoral districts' there are numerous other (non electoral) articles with lists of people that have years in the left hand column.
The other issue is about the extended date information, I propose it is kept (as does Kerry) - I don't see the point of removing that information and getting peolpe to search for it elsewhere, often it doesn't exist in Wikipedia; there's many redlinks in these articles. I also propose to show it in the rightmost column see South Western Province (Victoria) as an example. This has the plain years (not extended month & year) in the left column so it's easier to comprehend as stated by Frickeg, and has the extended dates that often do not appear in any other article in the right column. For multi-member tables like the example it also serves to more easily find the dates when looking at Member columns 4 and 5.
I'm not the only one who has created an Australian electoral district article with dates in the left column, see Electoral district of Murray (South Australia) That one has extended dates in the left (I did tidy it a little to use abbreviated months).
Does it help general readability (less emphasis on the detailed date) if its text is smaller in the far right "Term (detail)" column? - see User:Diverman/sandbox. I've done the first ten or so lines the right column as a comparison. It would be good if there was the ability for a collapsible column entry in the wikitable (so the detailed date could be optionally displayed) but there doesn't appear to be so. I think having a detailed date footnote for every plain year row entry would be too cumbersome. I'm going to hold off editing further district articles for now. Let's try and get a consensus. Diverman ( talk) 07:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Are Bill Denny (officer) and Rob Atkinson (surgeon) noteable? I checked with an admin several days ago, they said on brief glance one looked barely noteable, the other not noteable (I can't remember which way around). They also seem to have been created by an editor with potential for WP:COI (based on timing, their userpage content, these are the only two articles the user has created so far, and user's own photos used in the articles). Opinions? Timeshift ( talk) 01:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Frankly I have bigger questions about Glenn Docherty and David O'Loughlin. May be worth waiting until after the election, but thoughts? Frickeg ( talk) 22:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Can someone better than me with article moves, move a previous head of a government, Terry Mills (politician), to Terry Mills, and move the basketball player to something else? Timeshift ( talk) 03:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
If a head of a government doesn't trump some average joe basketball player, well... Timeshift ( talk) 06:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Can we please have more eyes on this article? An IP who I suspect to have a WP:COI keeps trying to whitewash the article. The article has a long history of this. Timeshift ( talk) 00:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Minor Party Alliance :) It's a basic article at the moment but lists the parties involved. Hopefully I haven't started something where randoms try to remove it from the party articles. Timeshift ( talk) 03:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
See here for candidates/draw. Timeshift ( talk) 08:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
As someone who does/has done a lot of Australian electorate infoboxes over the years, I am curious as to the consensus (if there is one) on the creation date listed in that infobox, and the subsequent "establishment in Australia" category. So in South Australia for example, the last redistribution took place in 2012, and the boundaries came into effect just before the 2014 election. My initial protocol was to list the year of the election in which the boundaries come into effect (specifically the date when the assembly is dissolved before that election), however there seems to be a widespread view that the creation date is the year in which the redistribution was carried out or completed. I followed the latter for the SA infoboxes, although I don't really agree with it—my reasoning being the MP is still member for the old boundary or name until the assembly is dissolved, and I don't think the two districts can really co-exist at the same time. Anyway, would be interested to hear any thoughts, opinions, or links to previous discussions on the matter... -- Canley ( talk) 02:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
See here over whether to include an infobox. Timeshift ( talk) 00:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Taikomochiyarichin, who created an account only last month, has been enthusiastically changing articles (over 50 of them so far) on Australians who used to be politicians. I use that language advisedly, because the edits involve changing the wording "xxxxx is a former Australian politician..." to "xxxxx is an Australian former politician...".
While I can appreciate that the new wording may be pedantically correct, it's not normal, common Australian English. A couple of the edits have been reverted, and I have asked the editor, on their Talk page, to please stop.
I'm happy to discuss this, especially with the editor involved, but would appreciate others' thoughts and input please. HiLo48 ( talk) 03:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I think it's really time we broke out the ongoing ICAC inquiries in NSW into one or more articles, considering the breadth of the scandal and the amount of people implicated in some way. I'm not sure what would be the best way to organise this, though. Any ideas? The Drover's Wife ( talk) 04:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I found it troubling that Electoral district of Finniss and to a lesser extent Electoral district of Heysen and Electoral district of Kavel in South Australia get classified in the infoboxes as "metropolitan". I've changed them to outer metropolitan, but I can't reconcile calling Finniss outer metro, Heysen and Kavel less so but still ruralish. I've looked through ABC and ECSA sources for any classifications they might have but I couldn't find any. Timeshift ( talk) 03:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Where do you get your km2 from for SA state infoboxes? Timeshift ( talk) 02:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone want to volunteer to update the suburbs amongst the Electoral districts of South Australia? Many seats are still using 2010 and earlier boundaries. :P Personally i'm against the listing of suburbs (sadly) in electorate articles when they're changing at every election. It makes 47 articles out of date every four years :/ Timeshift ( talk) 04:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:Independent (politician)#Requested move. Timeshift ( talk) 03:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
We have a lot of these around wikipedia, location-based electoral results. Unfortunately nobody seems to update them anymore. I started a discussion there as to if we should just remove them if they aren't going to get updated, but with little to no success. I removed the results from that article as both state and federal are two elections out of date and looks biased as they stop at the Labor high water mark, but it was reverted as I didn't have consensus to do so. What should we do with these sorts of smaller-than-seat-level results around wikipedia? Timeshift ( talk) 07:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
So only one oppose so far? Timeshift ( talk) 02:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps Pdfpdf had better understand what you (plural) mean, and perhaps then he should express an opinion?
So, please can one of you explain why combining five booths is "bordering on
WP:OR", and also, as it hasn't been a problem for many years, explain why you (plural) suddenly seem to think it's a problem now?
As Drover's Wife said, "For me, having a politics section based on the data about how the booths in that locality have voted over the years is useful information and something I would be interested to know about any particular locality. This says considerably more than merely listing data at the electorate level." - If the way it has been done has problems, is there a way that the data can be presented that does not have these problems?
Thanks in advance.
Pdfpdf (
talk)
12:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I've added an incomplete tag as this article requires serious expansion - it is almost all pre-budget. I've added the under 30s Newstart bit and linked ABC's winners/losers in external links that can be drawn on for article expansion. There's a lot that still isn't covered. It also wasn't linked anywhere in a wikipedia article except Australian federal budget and templates so i've linked to it in Abbott/Abbott govt articles. Timeshift ( talk) 23:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm just a bit concerned lately that some old seats in Victoria and Queensland have had the format of the dates in the list of members changed, for example, here, and here.
I know that there was a discussion about it last year that didn't seem to reach a conclusion, and I'm a bit reluctant to go about changing them back to the standard format of just having the years that each member held the seat since there seemed to be a bit of heat in that discussion. So I was wondering if there could be an agreement of what the format should be.
I'd prefer to change it to the year alone with a link to the election or by-election in question that the seat changed hands, like how most NSW seats are done, examples here and here. It keeps the tables simple and neat and the election in question where the new member won is easily accessible. Kirsdarke01 ( talk) 01:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
What do you all reckon? Include Abbott's daughter hoopla, or not. A certain user's trying to get me blocked, so I won't be contributing, but some more eyes would be nice. 124.169.104.184 ( talk) 12:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Input is requested regarding a change to the graphic in the infobox depicting the party makeup of the House. Frickeg ( talk) 08:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Prompted by this discussion. This has been sort of a background disagreement for many years now and I think it's time we sorted it out. When a politician changes party affiliation during their term, how should we treat the electorate when dealing with gains/losses, seat counts, maps, and pendulums?
My view is that, for the purposes listed above, the seat should remain with the party it voted for at the previous election. For example, I would consider Dobell and Fisher to be a Labor hold and an LNP hold at the last election, respectively. Likewise I would consider Kennedy to be a KAP gain from an Independent (since KAP did not exist in 2010). This is because, in the instances listed above, we are dealing with parties, not MPs. When we are colouring maps, I would consider we are first concerned with party designation, not MPs. A party that did not exist at a previous election cannot "hold" a seat at a new one. I think we should be distinguishing between party gains/holds and MP gains/holds. For example, the seat of Dalrymple was a gain for KAP at the last Queensland election, but a hold for Shane Knuth. Frickeg ( talk) 01:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
For the purpose of a map and pendulum for a future election - ie South Australian state election, 2018, it should reflect current affiliation. Waite is now represented by an independent MP, not a Liberal MP. In theory the voters elect the person, not the party, so i'm not sure why the party should be hard-coded until the next election if the MP changes affiliation. Of course the 2014 article should remain as-is though. We have enough precedent for this. Timeshift ( talk) 01:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I've mostly been going by the rule that how the seat at the election is either held or changed hands depending on how the voters voted at the previous election. For example I'd say Dobell was just a plain Liberal gain from Labor and Fisher was an LNP hold in 2013.
But in redistributions, I admit that I've been going by the other argument, that if the seat has no current member I'd go by the party vote in the new boundaries (eg - Wright 2010 as a LNP hold, Flynn 2007 as a Labor gain from National), but if it does and the seat becomes notionally held by another party, I'd consider it still held by the member (eg - Dickson 2010 as a LNP hold, while Macquarie 2007 as a Labor gain from Liberal as a sitting MP was defeated). Just I've been doing that so that it can be more easily identified that a seat has changed hands rather than saying Macquarie 2007 was a Labor Hold. Kirsdarke01 ( talk) 06:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Martin Hamilton-Smith#Edit war - speculation - input appreciated. Timeshift ( talk) 02:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Same editor now putting speculation in to Vickie Chapman. I've requested they follow WP:BRD but they won't listen. Again, input appreciated. Timeshift ( talk) 08:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
An issue has come up at Victorian state election, 2014 regarding the sole use of Newspoll for state election articles, and I'm inclined to agree with the reverted editor that it's very strange to exclude non-Newspoll polling. I can't think of another example anywhere on Wikipedia - and I follow election articles at a bunch of levels in a bunch of countries - where a set of articles cherrypicks one particular pollster at random and insists on using them and only them. This is removing a massive swathe of good, reliable polling data - to use one thirty-second example, it wipes out the last five polls taken of upcoming state elections around Australia. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 03:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of political polling, have you seen that Nielsen are no longer doing public polling? -- Canley ( talk) 05:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm more then happy to include more polling results, assuming they are from reputable sources. The fact that Nielson will no longer be doing public polling is a huge loss, in my opinion they were the best. I should also state that I too have some concerns about some of the more "dodgy" polling sources. But all the same would like more updates, again as long as the sources are reputable. SultanNicole ( talk) 13:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, considering the response which appears to be uniformly in favour of additional polling data from 'reputable' firms which don't rely on online responses, I move to include recent polling data from Essential Research on the
Victorian state election, 2014. Link for most recent Victoria data is
here. Why?
-Qualifies as reputable: About this poll:
This report summarises the results of a weekly omnibus conducted by Essential Research with data provided by Your Source. The survey was conducted online over 4 weeks to 27th May 2014.
Sample sizes were NSW 1,293, Queensland 737 and Victoria 1,005. LINK: See here (under State voting intention - NSW subheading)
I haven't encountered any other polling firms running regular polling of state election voting intentions for VIC or any other state or Territory, though I haven't been looking for them either. Im suggesting that we adopt a new policy with respect to polling data inclusion criteria for state/Territory election pages, that being - when published on Wikipedia's state/Territory election pages - they are
All in favour? Yae or Nay? Jono52795 ( talk) 09:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Can some more editors please keep an eye on this page? An editor is repeatedly adding claims that Ban has ties to far-right organisations, cited to an Australian article that doesn't actually remotely support the things claimed. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 09:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk)
10:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
If it isn't, then asking on the talk page there probably won't gain any useful responses. Maybe it's called something else now. I dunno how Labor factions work, so if someone knows what's what, that might help. -- Pete ( talk) 16:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
List of political parties in Australia... what a dog's breakfast. Thoughts? Timeshift ( talk) 02:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Other views would be appreciated. Timeshift ( talk) 02:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
It's happening again :( Timeshift ( talk) 04:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I loathe articles wholly based on factoid trivia like this one. Should this article exist? Timeshift ( talk) 04:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Per archived discussion here, I've given it more than enough time. Added outdated|section tag. I still question whether they should be included at all. Timeshift ( talk) 01:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Pdfpdf is removing the outdated tag without any talkpage contribution, and appears to be ignoring the fact that everyone but him either agrees it should be removed from all articles, or at least should be removed from Adelaide City Centre as the combining of booths is WP:OR. Timeshift ( talk) 02:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
... Am I to understand that this is still in dispute? I thought we settled this months ago, with the Adelaide one at the very least. (It goes, of course; OR of the most ridiculous kind.) Frickeg ( talk) 13:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Pdfpdf, do you seriously expect other readers will look favourably upon your view when you often swear and type in caps and bold? Why is it that relatively small things turn you all nasty? Timeshift ( talk) 17:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
So three users agree the booth results should be removed from the article for varying reasons, per above. One user is constantly re-inserting the booth tables when removed by various users. Nobody appears to want to budge. When does majority become consensus and how do we proceed when the only objector keeps re-inserting the table? Timeshift ( talk) 23:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Greetings Gentlemen! (Apologies if there are any ladies involved).
Pdfpdf ( talk) 14:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Wow! The outdated election tables are gone! And Pdfpdf seems ok with it! What changed?! Timeshift ( talk) 22:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
This category seems like a bit of a mess. There's a bunch of random party-by-ideology categories, some categorisations of which are a bit questionable, a bunch of party-by-state categories, and various people running bots have ripped various parties out of the main category and stuck them in random subcategories. More helpfully, someone is running around putting the defunct parties in a defunct party category, which is past time. I feel like a way of sorting this out would be a) to put all current parties in Category:Political parties in Australia, b) creating a holding category for the party-by-ideology categories if people feel strongly that they should exist, and c) find and add that category tag that stops silly people with bots messing up the place by deleting stuff from the main category. Thoughts? -- The Drover's Wife ( talk) 15:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
This article could do with some eyes. There's an editor trying to include some serious negative claims in a BLP article without any citation at all and I'm getting fed up with reiterating the same ground. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 21:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)