![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
There has recently been coverage by The Australian ( http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/how-the-friend-kathy-jackson-never-knew-revealed-creditcard-abuse-12-years-earlier/story-fn59noo3-1227006472214#) about Kathy Jackson's knowledge of Craig Thompsons activities for a long period of time before she choose to come forward. There are some who are currently attempting to sensor the addition of that coverage in her page for anyone who is interested. AlanS ( talk) 04:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Is there any reason in particular that material on Jackson being sued by her own union is not included anywhere on her page or for that mater any of the revelations coming out from the ongoing royal commission? AlanS ( talk) 06:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Why are we starting to do this? Eg Australian Greens and Australian Labor Party. For starters, there's not even a consistency in layout. Timeshift ( talk) 06:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Should we keep the Greens HoR table? This one. Seems pretty pointless to have one for a party that's only got one HoR seat. We don't and shouldn't have it for Palmer or Katter. Timeshift ( talk) 23:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
In the SA Electoral district of Fisher, Family First got 4%, or 3.982%, of the primary vote. But the candidate here claims "We got 4% of the vote in Fisher, just enough to get the $3000 nomination fee back from the Electoral Commission". How is 4% calculated? I would have thought 3.9999% is not enough but 4.0000% is? Timeshift ( talk) 05:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:Mike Baird (politician)#Requested move and add your opinion/vote please! Timeshift ( talk) 02:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Can someone get a bot to go through Mike Baird (politician) links and change them to Mike Baird as he is now WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Thanks. Timeshift ( talk) 01:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Per here. I think we should have links to leaders' elections in infoboxes to give readers an area to quickly navigate to their respective election articles and don't need to read through the article in the chance they may come across the election link. Elections are central to the outcomes of leaders. Thoughts? Timeshift ( talk) 04:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm actually inclined to disagree here. This seems exactly the kind of thing that is better in the text than in the infoboxes (most of which are already monstrous and could use pruning). Open to being convinced, though. Frickeg ( talk) 05:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
And he's back, reverting, and not discussing. Why must we deal with such a recalcitrant and intransigent editor? Timeshift ( talk) 07:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Frickeg. There is no point adding this in the infobox as it can be found in the text. It also looks untidy and is distracting. Also, if it is so important to add something as irrelevant as this in the infobox, then why would you not add truly important pieces of information in infoboxes on other pages, such as the political position and ideology of the Liberal Party. That is something that is actually important and should be included. Seems you are doing one thing one one page, but doing the complete opposite on another. Incompetence from Timeshift once again. Andreas11213 ( talk) 07:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
So SultanNicole, Frickeg and myself oppose the inclusions, where as The Tepes, Timeshift and WWGB support the inclusion. There is an equal amount of users opposing and supporting, so consensus to include it has not been reached. Therefore, I am reverting it and restoring the original infobox, without the elections included. Andreas11213 ( talk) 08:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Even though they actually look quite neat, don't take up a lot of info box space and serve some purpose, I'd be inclined to remove them on a technicality - Australian prime ministers are not elected to office in a general election. They are elected as members of parliament and selected by their respective parties as prime minister. They may have contested many elections, but not all as prime minister, or to become prime minister. What do you do with Gillard, for example - she became prime minister, but did not contest the previous election as a pending PM? Unless the elections relate to all elections contested as a candidate (and by extension, this is included in the info box of all election candidates, then I think it's actually not correct to have the list. It would be very different with an American president, for example, where the office is won by winning the election. This is not the case with the Australian parliamentary system. Wikipeterproject ( talk) 19:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
For the record, Skyring/Pete supports including election links in leader infoboxes, but his support was removed due to an "interaction ban"? Timeshift ( talk) 02:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
A quick look around Wikipedia at David Cameron, John Key, Manuel Valls, Narendra Modi, Shinzō Abe and Stephen Harper shows remarkable consistency - no links to elections in infoboxes about politicians who are Prime Ministers. NebY ( talk) 11:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Correction - David Cameron has one such link in the caption of his picture. His immediate three predecessors - at least, I haven't further back - do not. NebY ( talk) 12:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I think a big issue is the fact they keep disappearing then reappearing, the lesser visited pages of former State Premiers, and Federal Opposition leaders tend to maintain their inclusion. Not just within Australian pages, but other nations political leaders too (on the pages they have been included at least). It appears to be the more popular pages where there is this constant conflict as to whether or not too include them. In my opinion the best way to resolve this issue is if they were included on all the pages in a broad effort, rather then the current arrangement where some always have them, some never have them, and others have them depending on the month. SultanNicole ( talk) 13:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
So we're back here again... Timeshift ( talk) 01:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I haven't exactly contributed to prior discussion on the topic but my opinion is that elections listed under Prime Minister assume that he was Prime Minister at the time of that election. Elections listed under Leader of the Liberal party would make far more sense given that he was not Prime Minister at or before the 2010 election. While the links to the elections - I can concede - would be beneficial for some users - they should not be confusing. Which they are. Simply, list the elections under the 'Leader of the Liberal party', since his position as leader is more relevant than the executive position of PM. Communistgoat ( talk) 10:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Seeing as "SultanNicole" was a sock puppet of The Tepes, could all users who support retaining the links of elections in the infoboxes please make themselves known. If not, I will revert, seeing as the only reason consensus was gained in the first place was because one extra user, SultanNicole, agreed on adding them in, and seeing as that user does not exist, I think it should be reverted. Andreas11213 ( talk) 08:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
It is unnecessary to include the full name of the political parties of Australian politicians on both the full page and the infobox. If they are an Australian politician, it is fairly obvious they belong to the Liberal Party of Australia, not the Liberal Party of Canada. It looks silly having the full name and can sometimes cause the infobox to appear wider because the name of the party is so long. This is the case for some politicians belonging to the Australian Labor Party. The full name of the party does not necessarily have to include the country in which it belongs to; the Liberal Party is still the full name. If Liberal or Labor was simply wriitten, like on the pages of British politicians where Conservative or Labour is simply written, then there would be an issue. All other pages of politicians have the party, but not the country. The Republican Party, The Christian Democratic Union, The Communist Party, The Justice and Development Party. And honestly, don't give me the "Other Stuff Exists Excuse", because that is really lame. Making Australian pages completely different to other wikipedia pages is not necessarily a good thing, maybe its time we start putting in line our pages with other pages. Finally, consensus was never actually reached to add "the full name of the party", so maybe you might want to either agree with me or put your case forward before actually reverting every edit I make. Andreas11213 ( talk) 00:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
First, Andreas doesn't point out who they were addressing their initial post to but it wasn't me. Second, Andreas, you don't ever learn from experience, your continued recalcitrance has become intolerable, so basically i'm done with you. From now on i'll just state what I support and ignore time-consuming but fruitless engagement with you, and let consensus from the masses take its course knowing my belief has been lodged. Timeshift ( talk) 02:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed from many sources that the Liberal Party in Western Australia in state elections was known as the Liberal and Country League of WA from 1949-1968, only changing it formally to the Liberal Party (WA division) in '68. Should we modify the relevant articles from WA state politics in that period to reflect this? (as the case for the LCL in SA, and the LCP in Victoria). Or just leave it as is for now? Kirsdarke01 ( talk) 00:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, it seems the NSW Liberals are being sucked in to a vortex where every second day, another one disappears. I think it's happened so much that people including me are starting to lose count. Per this edit, are there now 10 current independents in the lower house? The issue is that every time the number changes, an editor will usually only edit one article. When in fact, there's six areas that need updating for this change. The infobox at Parliament of New South Wales, the infobox at New South Wales Legislative Assembly, the table at New South Wales Legislative Assembly, the mini state infoboxes at Liberal Party of Australia, and in Coalition (Australia), and of course, Next New South Wales state election. What are the current numbers? Timeshift ( talk) 06:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Timeshift ( talk) 06:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
This is a notice about Category:Australian politics articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock ( talk) 06:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
As someone who often edits on by-election articles, i'm not sure at what point an article is no longer a stub. Thoughts? Timeshift ( talk) 02:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
My watchlist today is not only filled with Whitlam but also many dozens of MPs articles who've had their "theyvoteforyou.org.au" link added to their external links. Should it be added en-masse? Timeshift ( talk) 12:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Just bringing the AfD of this person to the attention of this group. I don't want to vote on it because I've only just started editing on this account and it seems that there's an issue over there with a sock puppet. Looking at the article it looks like it should be gone, but I thought I would run it by this project and there appears to be a dispute over the definition of notability. The IP (who is being accused of being a sock) accuses two Keep voters of a conflict of interest but I don't know why even if their interpretation of notability is wrong as Delete voters are indicating and very determined as well. I'd prefer to leave this to more experienced editors at this point who have a better grasp on matters and have more edits on the clock in this area. BritainD ( talk) 09:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Another user has renominated this for deletion, after (as I predicted) the previous one ended up as no consensus. Two users are trying to derail it again. We need more input. BritainD ( talk) 08:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I notice Andreas has taken it upon himself to start going around and removing the red or blue from the 2PP columns in various fed and state election tables as an indicator for which party is trailing. Why? Both columns should contain both colours. Timeshift ( talk) 16:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I accept that there is a consensus to include election links in infoboxes, however, I have a question. Which elections should be added there? For example, in Tony Abbott's infobox, underneath Prime Minister, it says 2010, 2013. He contested both elections as Leader of the Opposition, not Prime Minister. On Gough Whitlam's infobox, under Prime Minister is says 1969, 1972, 1974, 1975 and 1977. He only contested one of these elections as Prime Minister. So, I think it is misleading to put elections in the infobox. Thoughts? I think it is just too confusing to decide so it should just be removed completely, because besides, infoboxes for politicians are supposed to be about offices they hold, not about elections they contest. I will not change anything until someone replies, but if no one does I will start removing election links. Andreas11213 ( talk) 02:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately to a few of you, I'm going to support the removal of the election links underneath 'PM'. I think if you wanted to include it - it should be under the title of leader of their political party. Really, you don't compete in an election as 'the PM' nor seeking the prime ministership specifically, you compete individually and as the leader of your party seeking a majority to form government. I think it creates an assumption that, for instance, Tony Abbott was PM going into the 2010 election and competing as such. I think it's also rather odd that the elections are listed, rather than the parliament in which they served as PM. A more accurate link then would be, for instance - under Tony Abbott's 'PM' title in the infobox, would be '44th parliament' or similar - but the '28th PM' vaguely does that already I guess. Discuss. Communistgoat ( talk) 13:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Election links should stay. Timeshift ( talk) 00:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
No because it still doesn't solve the issue of overcrowding the infobox. It looks really messy and it isn't even that important. It can easily be found in the text, and if you want to make it easier, why not add a new section to the page listing the elections that they have contested and add some brief information about it, rather than sticking it in the infobox where it looks very messy. Andreas11213 ( talk) 08:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I've avoided this discussion so far, but wouldn't it make sense to put the election links in the party leader section of the infobox? This has been suggested by a couple of people above but seems to keep getting lost in the argument about whether to have them at all. I really don't care that much either way, but it would seem to be a solution that removes a lot of the confusion of having them in the PM section (i.e. the Whitlam example, which would be confusing as hell to people with less political knowledge than us). The Drover's Wife ( talk) 13:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete them all, as these kinda links aren't in infoboxes of other PMs & party leaders, like Stephen Harper, David Cameron, Ed Broadbent, Michael Ignatieff for example. GoodDay ( talk) 14:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
While there is still great disagreement about keeping them or removing them, would people be okay with the proposal of moving them to the "Leader of Party X" Section? As this seems to be the suggestion of a few. Personally I'm equally fine with both where they are now and this proposal. The Tepes ( talk) 04:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
He's adding religion to Infoboxes all over the place for Australian pollies who don't have it listed yet. In Gough Whitlam's case, he added that Gough was agnostic. I reverted, because agnosticism is not a religion. Andreas11213 reverted back, saying it exists in other articles. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS means this is not a valid reason, but this is Andreas11213. I await his response. Can I ask other editors to keep a watch on Andreas11213's current campaign please? I don't want to go near 3RRR HiLo48 ( talk) 10:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Extra eyes appreciated. Frickeg ( talk) 22:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I only just realised/looked at it - that in the infobox on election pages is 'popular vote'. This confused me because 53.5% people did not vote for the LNP and it doesn't mention 2PP. I figured even though fixing it up to say it was 2PP was easy - I figured I better talk it out here first. I just think it oddly suggests that he achieved a majority of votes which isn't the case. Might I add, not just Abbott, this 2PP 'popular vote' and % goes back through previous election results. Communistgoat ( talk) 09:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
So that's agreement to modify the wording of 'popular vote' to perhaps '2PP vote'? Communistgoat ( talk) 04:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Would someone be able to go over Bracks Ministry, Brumby Ministry, Baillieu Ministry and Napthine Ministry and delineate their reshuffles, as with the federal ministries and other states? These four articles all show ministers who dropped a portfolio during a term as never having held it, and it's really confusing. I can have a shot at it later, but things involving tables freak me out a bit. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 03:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
An editor is disputing the fact that "government" can refer to the successive ministries (collective executives) in Australian English, e.g. the Abbot government lost the election. I've provided a variety of sources, including the Macquarie Dictionary, but it doesn't seem he is keen to cease and desist. Third opinions would be appreciated. Please chime in at Talk:Government. RGloucester — ☎ 23:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
For those chomping at the bit for more electoral politics after the excitement of Victoria, I've started draft candidate pages in userspace for next year's elections in NSW and Queensland. I feel it might be a bit early for them to be in mainspace, but feel free to make any additions or corrections in the meantime. Frickeg ( talk) 23:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Some help would be appreciated please. Robertson stood down as Labor leader on 23 December 2014, with Linda Burney serving as interim Labor leader. The Labor caucus will meet on 5 January 2015 to elect a new leader to succeed Robertson as Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition can only be so once elected by the party. Neither Burney, nor Chris Bowen, are/were elected by their party as leaders and are/were thus not Leaders of the Opposition. There would be many many interim leaders, federal and state, who aren't listed as Leaders of the Opposition, nor should they be. Some seem to have difficulties grasping this. Am I correct or not? Timeshift ( talk) 08:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The navigation boxes between lists of members of individual parliaments used to be centred, and were designed that way. Now, though, the code doesn't seem to work and they are left-aligned, and look quite strange. Any chance that someone who is a bit more technically aligned could fix this? The Drover's Wife ( talk) 09:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Following a discussion on Timeshift's talk page, I realised the other day that we'd never had a discussion about whether The Poll Bludger is a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes.
I strongly feel that it should be: William Bowe is probably the second foremost election analyst in the country beyond Antony Green, the foremost on the areas Green doesn't cover, and the ABC's stand-in when Green isn't available (such as when there are simultaneous state elections). He's a well-regarded academic source and I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to cite him directly. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 11:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
There is now a Sydney's Aldermen biographical index of anyone who's ever served as a Sydney alderman. This could be useful for a bunch of our biographical articles. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 10:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Currently, Category:Australian politicians by party is a bit of a mess. The Liberal and National categories have been split by state (but with an awkward situation where the federal members remain in the parent category), whereas everyone else is mashed together (there are more than 2,000 pages in the Labor category). Furthermore, it has become quite common to see people who were merely members of the party or candidates, but who never held elected office, being included, despite the fact that these people are not really "politicians". In light of that, I would like to make a cautious proposal (which I assume will have to be taken to CfD at some stage, but I haven't the faintest idea how that works so let's start here):
I look forward to further suggestions/improvements, and also anyone who knows what they're doing with the whole CfD process and how this could be done. Frickeg ( talk) 02:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@ Frickeg:: This discussion seems to have run its course - worth taking through the CfD process now? The Drover's Wife ( talk) 11:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I've been doing pendulums for the state elections, and I've reached a little bit of a dilemma with some of them, namely elections where the Liberals and Nationals were not in coalition and one party had enough seats to govern without the other (e.g. - Queensland 1986, Victoria 1976). I'm just wondering if it would be better to arrange the pendulums so that the non governing party is on the crossbench, or just put the Liberals and Nationals in the same column for these elections? Kirsdarke01 ( talk) 09:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Just wondering how this is going to work... since NSW elects leaders in both houses anyway, is Labor going to elect another leader in the Legislative Assembly (or does John Robertson remain leader in the lower house while not being the "official" opposition/Labor leader)? Is this like the Campbell Newman situation where Newman was the leader "from outside parliament" going into the 2012 election, but Jeff Seeney was the leader in the parliament until Newman was elected (it looks like Foley will be seeking preselection for Auburn [1] at the 2015 election)? -- Canley ( talk) 03:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
He does not appear to be notable.-- Grahame ( talk) 01:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Presumably this party will have trouble gaining registration under this name.-- Grahame ( talk) 00:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to Doug Butler's phenomenal job on past South Australian Legislative Councils and MLCs, we've now got a complete set of lists going back to the very first Legislative Council. I'd like to start doing articles on the elections that were held to fill mid-term vacancies prior to the introduction of a statewide electorate and proportional representation, but I'm noticing that they don't seem to be referred to as "by-elections" in sources from the time. Any suggestions on how best to name these articles? The Drover's Wife ( talk) 11:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I've recently noticed (again) the duplicate pages for Members of the Tasmanian Legislative Council - see the last few categories at Category:Members of Tasmanian parliaments by term and the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Members of the Tasmanian Legislative Council, 2002–2006. Background:
I've done a few designs at User:Chuq/Sandbox/TasLC - only ideas at the moment. I've used the four year range for demonstation purposes. Comments welcome! -- Chuq (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Why did Charles Latham's term finish at the Australian federal election, 1943 rather than at the end of the term (30 June 1944)? Hack ( talk) 03:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
It's on. -- Canley ( talk) 03:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, 2015. Timeshift ( talk) 03:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Various editors probably close to Bolkus from time to time try to remove all reference to Dante Tan affair. I have removed some unbalanced comments, but others might wish to look at it.-- Grahame ( talk) 10:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The Parliament of Tasmania article has an editor claiming a new consensus is required due to length of time, to have the Greens listed as on the crossbench, and not party of her majesty's loyal opposition. The opposition has the opposition leader, the crossbench and the Greens do not. We don't work with media characterisations, we work with facts. Tasmanian House of Assembly has it right. Can I please have motions of support? Timeshift ( talk) 03:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I've given more than sufficient time for talk to occur. Consensus has occurred. We work with facts, not media characterisations. Nick-D has said it well too. For the record, this talk page has long been used for consensus discussions as far more people watch this page than an individual article's talk page. Timeshift ( talk) 01:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Opinions of as many editors as possible would be appreciated. Thanks. Timeshift ( talk) 05:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: It has been re-listed. Again, opinions of as many editors as possible would be appreciated. Thanks. Timeshift ( talk) 22:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
AfD failed, but now the nominator has added a POV tag to the article and is trying to remove chunks of it. Opinions on the articles talkpage would be appreciated. Timeshift ( talk) 00:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Following on from the conversation above, there is a conversation at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 12#Country Party of Australia about Country Party of Australia which currently redirects to National Party of Australia. That conversation arose as a consequence of an article for deletion discussion for the article now at Draft:Country Party of Australia. My comment in the RFD discussion is reproduced here to save me retyping since it seems it should get wider exposure:
On further consideration and reading the above Wilson discussion, maybe we should separate out the "Country Party" from the "National Party" and have separate articles linking to their successor and predecessor articles. Thoughts? -- Scott Davis Talk 04:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
There's been a thread at social conservatism going for two months here. I thought i'd raise it here as it relates to AusPol but is a bit of a separate article. Opinions please. FTR you don't need to look hard to find RS supporting the Libs and soc con. Timeshift ( talk) 03:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Independent politician#Australia is linked to a lot throughout oz wikipedia. We've got current federal covered, but what about state/territories? Should they be added? As words/expansion, or perhaps a table, or perhaps even a seperate article with present as well as past independents? Thoughts? Timeshift ( talk) 00:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I've created Australian independent politicians. Feel free to rename it, tabulate it, expand it, or whatever else. Timeshift ( talk) 02:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I've added the Senate tables, and have run into something of an issue - where people might have "registered political parties" but are to all intents and purposes independents. Like Nick Xenophon, for instance, who has the "Nick Xenophon Team", or Brian Harradine, who always had the "Brian Harradine Group" registered. I've made judgement calls on these people (Xenophon and Harradine obviously belong, George Hannan and Meg Lees I left out). Furthermore, if we are to have similar tables for the states and territories, the pages is quickly going to get very, very long. Perhaps some sort of split is in order? Frickeg ( talk) 05:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I think there's a need to use a little bit of a judgment call here. In most cases where someone has been elected or formed parties under the "[Independent's Name] Team-esque" banner - examples like Xenophon, Harradine, Jo Vallentine between the NDP demise and the rise of the Greens, and Paul Osborne in the ACT, I think it's a big stretch to say they were ever not independents, or that they were party politicians, during that period, regardless that they technically sat as a registered party. This in contrast to say, One Nation, PUP, KAP, or in Meg Lees' case the APA, which started as actual distinct parties focused around one personality - like, they still had party members and a party structure and other policies apart from being named ballot lines for one person. People talked about Jacqui Lambie quitting PUP in a way that wouldn't have made sense, for example, when Ann Bressington fell out with Nick Xenophon. I agree with Frickeg that we shouldn't take media reports as gospel because of their sloppy reporting about minor party affiliations, though. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 04:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Sparked by a recent edit at Candidates of the Australian federal election, 1940, I had a look through Trove records on Alex Wilson and was surprised to see him referred to consistently as a Country Party candidate (and member) for much of his early career. The ADB largely ignores this, as does the Parliamentary Handbook. We currently have him as an independent for his entire term, but from what I can tell, here are the major beats of his parliamentary career:
It seems clear to me that we are not dealing with this (or, by extension, the other CP ructions of the 1930s) well - or indeed at all, since in member lists in places like Division of Wimmera and Members of the Australian House of Representatives, 1937-1940, we ignore them completely. So, to kick things off, how do we deal with Wilson? It seems to me that our main options are to treat him as an independent, or as the sole parliamentary member of the UCP - but then, Rankin was a member of the UCP too, but sat in the federal Coalition (most of the time). We also have to take into account the overwhelming amount of more recent literature that refers to Wilson as an independent - but how much store should we set by that? In short, my head is exploding. Help? Frickeg ( talk) 14:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the root cause of the problem may be whether parties are vehicles for obtaining power or vehicles for achieving aims for particular interests & ideas. The Country Party's origins would incline towards the latter type of party and often such parties have serious divisions on the means by which they can achieve their aims; depending on how the party is structured such divisions can go all the way to the polls and the preferential voting system has allowed parties to run multiple candidates. It also gets messy when federal and state party organisations conflict over direction and alliances. If you take the better known Lang Labor split you have a period when one person was the endorsed candidate of the state Labor branch and another was the endorsed candidate of federal Labor - which was "Labor" and which was "Ind Labor"?! To add to the complication the National Party is a federation of state parties who often stay in despite disagreements - hence the Crook confusion. The particular name a party used in a state is probably a red herring in all this - both the Liberals and Country Party in the post war years used a variety of different names in state politics and there are confusions over whether the state or federal name was used at a particular election.
I suspect the answer is that Wilson was the endorsee of the state Country Party on an anti-Coalition position, but anti-Coalition Country MPs never organised as a party in the federal parliament and were instead divided over whether to make the case for independence from the party room or the crossbenches (until the state party made up their minds and ordered Rankin out of the party room) and the pro-Coalition MPs had to assemble their own state aparatus. There's probably quite a few cases where independents were actually the nominees of local parties. Timrollpickering ( talk) 19:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I found this article detailing the passing of former South Australian Attorney-General Trevor Griffin but sadly no date of death. I've had a fruitless search trying to find one and was wondering if someone here could weave their magic to find a date of death (I'm guessing access to The Advertiser hardcopies will be useful). -- Roisterer ( talk) 04:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
This is interesting but it is probably not encyclopedic and it is difficult to read.-- Grahame ( talk) 03:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I think this article needs to be taken out and shot, to put it bluntly. It's an unencyclopedic topic: you cannot functionally summarise party policy in an election with as many parties as this, it's a topic far better handled by linking to the party websites, and there's no way to do this that doesn't turn out as a trainwreck. To that effect, I've nominated it at AfD (and I'm surprised nobody did it sooner, given the above discussion). I think it's a helpful thing to have a "campaign" section that covers neutrally the major issues in an election and parties' stances on them (e.g. the sale of the "poles and wires"), but this mess is another thing entirely. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 17:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
This was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Country Party (Australia).-- Grahame ( talk) 22:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I came across this gem and thought it would be worth having on wikipedia. Can someone who's good with doing graphs whip one up based on it please? Timeshift ( talk) 01:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
We have recently being reclassifying politicians in to their parliaments. We have the Category:Australian Labor Party members of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly that does not seem to adequately cover members of the former Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly. Would it be better to call it the ACT legislature (which sounds American) or parliament?-- Grahame ( talk) 03:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated South Australian state election, 2006 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.-- Jarodalien ( talk) 00:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The discussion on Australian politicians categories has been closed. The closer interpreted consensus on the main question about state divisions, but not necessarily on the candidates stuff. I will be nominating the candidates categories for a separate CfD soon; any suggestions below are welcome (I'm thinking the "Australian Labor Party candidates" format).
I will be working through the non-Coalition categories manually to split them into state and federal parliaments, and also adding a few categories along the way we're missing (like many of the state parties). Anyone else who feels like it is welcome to join, but we should co-ordinate who's doing what so we don't overlap! Any issues regarding this process can be raised here. Frickeg ( talk) 00:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I have now finished the federal categories, which can be seen here. I will now be moving on to the states, and I have a few general questions:
I anticipate starting the CfD regarding candidates/officials/local councillors after this is all done so that any other things I pick up can be incorporated. One change is that I think we will need a "people associated with" category after all, for people who were merely party members but never ran for office or held official positions but are nonetheless notable for their membership (like Parker Moloney and the DLP, or Chris Watson and the Nationalists, or Charles Russell and the Progress Party). Frickeg ( talk) 07:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
It sounds like we're all fairly well agreed: straightforward back to around 1901-10 depending on the state, complicated before that. I will go ahead with this in mind, reporting back here on progress and any difficult decisions. If research uncovers genuine parties before wherever I stop (and I will do Labor back to whenever they were founded), we can always create the categories later on. Frickeg ( talk) 13:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
One further issue that I just noticed at Guy Arkins: can we please be careful about categorising members of early 20th century state-level conservative parties as well? As I discovered in South Australia, the 1917 Labor split played out quite differently in some places at a state level, and I'd be a bit cautious about bulk-recategorising state Category:Nationalist Party of Australia politicians unless you've confirmed that the Nationalist Party did exist at a state level in that state, under that name, in a way that was consistent with the federal party. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 02:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I have confirmation from the closer of the previous CfD that a consensus here will be appropriate in lieu of a second CfD for the candidates categories. I think it's fair to say we have one already, but I'll put this here as a confirmation. Frickeg ( talk) 01:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
An editor has proposed that fields for nearby electorates, similar to this provided in {{ Infobox Australian place}} be added to {{ Infobox Australian Electorate}}. Please participate in the discussion, which may be found at Template talk:Infobox Australian Electorate#Nearby Electorates. Tnak you. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 08:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Our first Australian conference for Wikipedians/Wikimedians will be held 3-5 October 2015. Organised by Wikimedia Australia, there will be a 2-day conference (Saturday 3 October and Sunday 4 October) with an optional 3rd day (Monday 5 October) for specialist topics (unconference discussions, training sessions, etc). The venue is the State Library of Queensland in Brisbane. So put those dates in your diary! Note: Monday is a public holiday is some states but not others. Read about it here: WikiConference Australia 2015
As part of that page, there are now sections for you to:
It would really help our planning if you could let us know about possible attendance and the kind of topics that would make you want to come. If you don’t want to express your views on-wiki, please email me at kerry.raymond@wikimedia.org.au or committee@wikimedia.org.au
We are hoping to have travel subsidies available to assist active Australasian Wikipedians to attend the conference, although we are not currently in a position to provide details, but be assured we are doing everything we can to make it possible for active Australian Wikipedians to come to the conference. Kerry ( talk) 00:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
A discussion has started at Talk:New South Wales state election, 2015#I think this article was spin-doctored. regarding the appropriateness of adding minor parties to infoboxes of election articles. It started when the Greens party, who have one seat in the NSW legislative assembly, was added to the infobox. There seems to be a consensus that minor parties who are represented in lower houses should be included, but nothing firm on what the threshold should be. So, should minor parties be included in infoboxes of Australian state/territorial/federal election articles, and if so, what should the minimum threshold of representation be? ColonialGrid ( talk) 11:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
This matter is complicated as there are inconsistencies with electoral articles, such as Queensland election articles including One Nation in the '98, '01, and '04 elections, but not One Nation in '06 or KAP in '12 or '15. Given this, it would be good to has a discussion about at what point a minor party should be included in the infobox, there are currently a few election articles that only show L/NP and ALP where minor parties have won lower house seats, such as: New South Wales state election, 2011 (one Green); Victorian state election, 2014 and Victorian state election, 2018 (two Green); Queensland state election, 2006 (one One Nation); Queensland state election, 2012 (two KAP); Queensland state election, 2015 (two KAP); Australian federal election, 2010 (one Green and possibly Crook (WA Nat)); and Australian federal election, 2013/ Next Australian federal election (one Green, one PUP, and one KAP). I'm sure there are probably others, but these are the recent ones which I have found. As the ACT and Tasmania electoral system (Hare-Clarke) doesn't disadvantage minor parties, inclusion of any elected party in their infoboxes makes some sense (at least to me, given how common minor parties are and the role they play in governments, which are more likely to be minority). However, the single-member seats of the other lower houses confuse issues a little more, vis-a-vis when to include minor parties, as it can become harder for them to be elected, retain seats, and hold power within the house (again, in my view). I feel that minor parties should be included in infoboxes, but think a threshold of representation in the lower house is too low, I'm just a little unsure on what the number should be though. ColonialGrid ( talk) 11:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe that only the parties that can form government, that is, the government and her majesty's official opposition, should be in infoboxes. The exception however being multimember systems like the ACT and Tas. That's my strong preference, but failing that, then those parties which won enough seats in the lower house to gain official party status in the respective parliament. Timeshift ( talk) 12:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
If we're to add the smaller parties then one problem that can come up (and has in a few Queesland cases) is who should be listed as the leader. Often the party leader will not be the leader in the lower house/the sole MP and may not even be standing in the election. Some new/small parties don't seem to have had clearly defined state leaders before they broke through.
There's also the problem that some parties have historically opposed having a leader, and instead have some sort of "primary spokesperson" under all manner of titles. Worse still they usually have more than one. This has historically been an issue with Green parties though many have subsequently switched to a leader model.
My view is that the party leader listed should be the person the federal/state/territory party said at the time was their leader, regardless of what if any their position is in the parliament. I'm not sure how to always determine the leader of breakthrough parties, especially those riding on the coattails of parliamentarians at the other leve.
The New Zealand boxes show it's possible to list multiple co-leaders but I'm not sure how easy it will be to list the titles for "not actually a leader because we don't agree with the position but this is the person or people we put forward for leadery things". Timrollpickering ( talk) 19:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Is he notable?-- Grahame ( talk) 02:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
In scouring the internet for Australian election results I stumbled across a rather old article on Dr Adam Carr's website. The article details estimates of federal two party preferred results before any Mackerras estimates and even before the introduction of preferential voting. Now I am not completely sure that the contents of the article are fully accurate as with some of the results between 1937-1949, there are conflicts with the estimates provided by Mackerras which raises an question-marks there. But seeing as how we do not have any two party preferred figures at all for some of the earlier elections, should we not take this information into consideration?
The source is here [40] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.40.176 ( talk) 23:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
While trying to track down an inconsistency between sources, I've realised that we've missed a supplementary election in our articles on the 1957 Queensland election. George Devries, the QLP member for Gregory, died in July with an election scheduled for August, so the 1957 election in that seat wasn't held until October. This is important because the supplementary election was contested by Jack Duggan, the former Labor leader who had lost his seat in August, and at the moment we've just got him down as running in two seats at the same time. I know we've found ways to denote supplementary elections before in the more recent ones in Londonderry (NSW) and Frankston East (Victoria) but I am terrible with tables - can someone try and note this somewhere in the tables for that election? The Drover's Wife ( talk) 14:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Further input (for the brave of heart) appreciated here. Frickeg ( talk) 13:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
This seems to be the discussion page with experts on it. Wikipedia is supposed to help me understand things, not make them more complex...
I've noticed a number of articles have piped links to Country Party. Reading the text, I'm not convinced this is right, at least in South Australia. There seems to have been a Country Party which merged with the Liberal Federation to create the Liberal and Country League in 1932. There was a Country Party that stood against the LCL in some seats according to the Results of the South Australian state election, 1973 (House of Assembly) (also as piped links to National Party of Australia) and there is The Nationals South Australia more recently. This might have been the same Country Party that split from the LCL in 1963 (without any link at all) in the LCL article, just the statement that it the was a reformation).
I'd be happy to help clear up the mess, but at the moment, reading the articles is adding to my confusion, not clarifying it. I think this is support for a larger set of "former party" articles, or at least agreed titles and entities, and an untangling of mis-targeted links. -- Scott Davis Talk 11:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay as a way forward on this can I suggest we go through the parties one by one, and identify potential issues.
I've taken the Greens as a simple first case. We have articles on the federal party and all eight states/territories. A number of the state parties did not affiliate to the federal party at first. The articles are as follow:
Okay the names are a mix with three "State/Territory Greens", three "Greens State/Territory" and two going their own way. Not sure if we should standardise or not but redirects from the two main forms would be handy.
The biggest individual mess is Tasmania. The predecessor United Tasmania Group formed in 1972 and seems to have fizzled out in the late 1970s (but popped up again in the 1990 federal election with many of the same people) with Bob Brown and others carrying on as independents, to the point that by the late 1980s there were a number of "Green Independents" elected to the state parliament and holding the balance of power. The article says "In August 1992 the Green Independents moved to officially form the Tasmanian Greens." but is that the start of a proper organisation or just a name change? The electoral history basically bundles in all the environmentalists from 1972 onwards. And "On 23 July 2005 the Greens celebrated 33.3 years of political activity and achievements, with a large party entitled "33-and-a-third – Now we're Long Playing!"" Here we have one article that's confused about whether the organisation runs from the 1970s, the 1980s or the 1990s, and another article on what is either the early part of the history or the predecessor organisation.
The other key question is what to link federal articles to. The WA Greens didn't affiliate until 2003 and elected some Senators in the meantime. In general we're separating out the WA Greens from the federal party in tables. More of a mess is Australian federal election, 1990 which predates the formation of the federal party. The WA Greens are listed separately but the rest are clusted together. Candidates of the Australian federal election, 1990 is even worse, with the WA party linked to, the United Tasmania Group listed for that state and the individual candidate lists linking to the not yet formed Australian Greens, including both the "Green Party" and "Green Alliance" (see below) who stood against each other in New South Wales. The "Summary by party" shows separate Greens in New South Wales (as well as the Green Alliance who also contested a Reps seat in South Australia), Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory.
(The summary has a footnote about the Green Alliance in New South Wales: "Contested as a group of affiliated parties registered under the names Central Coast Green Party (2 candidates), Cowper Greens (1 candidate), Eastern Suburbs Greens (3 candidates), Greens in Lowe (1 candidate), Illawarra Greens (2 candidates), South Sydney Greens (3 candidates), Sydney Greens (1 candidate) and Western Suburbs Greens (5 candidates), with the Green Alliance Senate - New South Wales as the registered Senate name.")
I suspect some of the confusion over dates may be the difference between environmentalists coming together to united under one banner and formal party registration - and also the party may have been campaigning in a state for federal seats before getting a state registration together.
I don't think we should get hung up on dates of formal party registration but rather focus on continuity of organisation. We may need to merge the parties in Tasmania, do something to explain the NSW mess and the 1990 federal election needs serious thought.
Beyond that can we agree on the basics that:
What about biographies of politicians who were active at both the state/territory level? My instinct is that the federal party should be linked to in intros and infoboxes.
And this is probably the easiest case! Timrollpickering ( talk) 18:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey, is there any chance someone good with templates and colours could give me a hand? Our candidates pages for federal elections during the Nationalist Party era, apparently as a shortcut, use the Liberal shade to indicate seats won by Nationalists. However, I'm trying to draw up a candidates page for the same era in South Australia, when there was both a Liberal Party and (their equivalent of the) Nationalist Party contesting elections against one another. Using the normal "Nationalist" colour is too dark in this context, and it really needs a toned-down shade as for Labor/Liberal/National, etc. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 10:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd appreciate other editors' input at Talk:Australian Labor Party/Archive 4#quote on ALP. I've reverted the ALP one, but not the one at History of Adelaide, or others. It seems this editor takes Crowley quote slabs and pastes them in to various articles, without context, with no indication of relevance, and in awkward places like the start of sections. Thanks. Timeshift ( talk) 19:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
The article has been delisted as a Featured Article here. It's a pity that editors want to de-list FAs rather than help bring them up to FA state. Does anyone want to help salvage this? Timeshift ( talk) 19:48, 25 May 2015 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
There has recently been coverage by The Australian ( http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/how-the-friend-kathy-jackson-never-knew-revealed-creditcard-abuse-12-years-earlier/story-fn59noo3-1227006472214#) about Kathy Jackson's knowledge of Craig Thompsons activities for a long period of time before she choose to come forward. There are some who are currently attempting to sensor the addition of that coverage in her page for anyone who is interested. AlanS ( talk) 04:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Is there any reason in particular that material on Jackson being sued by her own union is not included anywhere on her page or for that mater any of the revelations coming out from the ongoing royal commission? AlanS ( talk) 06:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Why are we starting to do this? Eg Australian Greens and Australian Labor Party. For starters, there's not even a consistency in layout. Timeshift ( talk) 06:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Should we keep the Greens HoR table? This one. Seems pretty pointless to have one for a party that's only got one HoR seat. We don't and shouldn't have it for Palmer or Katter. Timeshift ( talk) 23:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
In the SA Electoral district of Fisher, Family First got 4%, or 3.982%, of the primary vote. But the candidate here claims "We got 4% of the vote in Fisher, just enough to get the $3000 nomination fee back from the Electoral Commission". How is 4% calculated? I would have thought 3.9999% is not enough but 4.0000% is? Timeshift ( talk) 05:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:Mike Baird (politician)#Requested move and add your opinion/vote please! Timeshift ( talk) 02:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Can someone get a bot to go through Mike Baird (politician) links and change them to Mike Baird as he is now WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Thanks. Timeshift ( talk) 01:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Per here. I think we should have links to leaders' elections in infoboxes to give readers an area to quickly navigate to their respective election articles and don't need to read through the article in the chance they may come across the election link. Elections are central to the outcomes of leaders. Thoughts? Timeshift ( talk) 04:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm actually inclined to disagree here. This seems exactly the kind of thing that is better in the text than in the infoboxes (most of which are already monstrous and could use pruning). Open to being convinced, though. Frickeg ( talk) 05:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
And he's back, reverting, and not discussing. Why must we deal with such a recalcitrant and intransigent editor? Timeshift ( talk) 07:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Frickeg. There is no point adding this in the infobox as it can be found in the text. It also looks untidy and is distracting. Also, if it is so important to add something as irrelevant as this in the infobox, then why would you not add truly important pieces of information in infoboxes on other pages, such as the political position and ideology of the Liberal Party. That is something that is actually important and should be included. Seems you are doing one thing one one page, but doing the complete opposite on another. Incompetence from Timeshift once again. Andreas11213 ( talk) 07:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
So SultanNicole, Frickeg and myself oppose the inclusions, where as The Tepes, Timeshift and WWGB support the inclusion. There is an equal amount of users opposing and supporting, so consensus to include it has not been reached. Therefore, I am reverting it and restoring the original infobox, without the elections included. Andreas11213 ( talk) 08:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Even though they actually look quite neat, don't take up a lot of info box space and serve some purpose, I'd be inclined to remove them on a technicality - Australian prime ministers are not elected to office in a general election. They are elected as members of parliament and selected by their respective parties as prime minister. They may have contested many elections, but not all as prime minister, or to become prime minister. What do you do with Gillard, for example - she became prime minister, but did not contest the previous election as a pending PM? Unless the elections relate to all elections contested as a candidate (and by extension, this is included in the info box of all election candidates, then I think it's actually not correct to have the list. It would be very different with an American president, for example, where the office is won by winning the election. This is not the case with the Australian parliamentary system. Wikipeterproject ( talk) 19:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
For the record, Skyring/Pete supports including election links in leader infoboxes, but his support was removed due to an "interaction ban"? Timeshift ( talk) 02:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
A quick look around Wikipedia at David Cameron, John Key, Manuel Valls, Narendra Modi, Shinzō Abe and Stephen Harper shows remarkable consistency - no links to elections in infoboxes about politicians who are Prime Ministers. NebY ( talk) 11:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Correction - David Cameron has one such link in the caption of his picture. His immediate three predecessors - at least, I haven't further back - do not. NebY ( talk) 12:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I think a big issue is the fact they keep disappearing then reappearing, the lesser visited pages of former State Premiers, and Federal Opposition leaders tend to maintain their inclusion. Not just within Australian pages, but other nations political leaders too (on the pages they have been included at least). It appears to be the more popular pages where there is this constant conflict as to whether or not too include them. In my opinion the best way to resolve this issue is if they were included on all the pages in a broad effort, rather then the current arrangement where some always have them, some never have them, and others have them depending on the month. SultanNicole ( talk) 13:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
So we're back here again... Timeshift ( talk) 01:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I haven't exactly contributed to prior discussion on the topic but my opinion is that elections listed under Prime Minister assume that he was Prime Minister at the time of that election. Elections listed under Leader of the Liberal party would make far more sense given that he was not Prime Minister at or before the 2010 election. While the links to the elections - I can concede - would be beneficial for some users - they should not be confusing. Which they are. Simply, list the elections under the 'Leader of the Liberal party', since his position as leader is more relevant than the executive position of PM. Communistgoat ( talk) 10:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Seeing as "SultanNicole" was a sock puppet of The Tepes, could all users who support retaining the links of elections in the infoboxes please make themselves known. If not, I will revert, seeing as the only reason consensus was gained in the first place was because one extra user, SultanNicole, agreed on adding them in, and seeing as that user does not exist, I think it should be reverted. Andreas11213 ( talk) 08:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
It is unnecessary to include the full name of the political parties of Australian politicians on both the full page and the infobox. If they are an Australian politician, it is fairly obvious they belong to the Liberal Party of Australia, not the Liberal Party of Canada. It looks silly having the full name and can sometimes cause the infobox to appear wider because the name of the party is so long. This is the case for some politicians belonging to the Australian Labor Party. The full name of the party does not necessarily have to include the country in which it belongs to; the Liberal Party is still the full name. If Liberal or Labor was simply wriitten, like on the pages of British politicians where Conservative or Labour is simply written, then there would be an issue. All other pages of politicians have the party, but not the country. The Republican Party, The Christian Democratic Union, The Communist Party, The Justice and Development Party. And honestly, don't give me the "Other Stuff Exists Excuse", because that is really lame. Making Australian pages completely different to other wikipedia pages is not necessarily a good thing, maybe its time we start putting in line our pages with other pages. Finally, consensus was never actually reached to add "the full name of the party", so maybe you might want to either agree with me or put your case forward before actually reverting every edit I make. Andreas11213 ( talk) 00:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
First, Andreas doesn't point out who they were addressing their initial post to but it wasn't me. Second, Andreas, you don't ever learn from experience, your continued recalcitrance has become intolerable, so basically i'm done with you. From now on i'll just state what I support and ignore time-consuming but fruitless engagement with you, and let consensus from the masses take its course knowing my belief has been lodged. Timeshift ( talk) 02:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed from many sources that the Liberal Party in Western Australia in state elections was known as the Liberal and Country League of WA from 1949-1968, only changing it formally to the Liberal Party (WA division) in '68. Should we modify the relevant articles from WA state politics in that period to reflect this? (as the case for the LCL in SA, and the LCP in Victoria). Or just leave it as is for now? Kirsdarke01 ( talk) 00:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, it seems the NSW Liberals are being sucked in to a vortex where every second day, another one disappears. I think it's happened so much that people including me are starting to lose count. Per this edit, are there now 10 current independents in the lower house? The issue is that every time the number changes, an editor will usually only edit one article. When in fact, there's six areas that need updating for this change. The infobox at Parliament of New South Wales, the infobox at New South Wales Legislative Assembly, the table at New South Wales Legislative Assembly, the mini state infoboxes at Liberal Party of Australia, and in Coalition (Australia), and of course, Next New South Wales state election. What are the current numbers? Timeshift ( talk) 06:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Timeshift ( talk) 06:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
This is a notice about Category:Australian politics articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock ( talk) 06:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
As someone who often edits on by-election articles, i'm not sure at what point an article is no longer a stub. Thoughts? Timeshift ( talk) 02:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
My watchlist today is not only filled with Whitlam but also many dozens of MPs articles who've had their "theyvoteforyou.org.au" link added to their external links. Should it be added en-masse? Timeshift ( talk) 12:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Just bringing the AfD of this person to the attention of this group. I don't want to vote on it because I've only just started editing on this account and it seems that there's an issue over there with a sock puppet. Looking at the article it looks like it should be gone, but I thought I would run it by this project and there appears to be a dispute over the definition of notability. The IP (who is being accused of being a sock) accuses two Keep voters of a conflict of interest but I don't know why even if their interpretation of notability is wrong as Delete voters are indicating and very determined as well. I'd prefer to leave this to more experienced editors at this point who have a better grasp on matters and have more edits on the clock in this area. BritainD ( talk) 09:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Another user has renominated this for deletion, after (as I predicted) the previous one ended up as no consensus. Two users are trying to derail it again. We need more input. BritainD ( talk) 08:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I notice Andreas has taken it upon himself to start going around and removing the red or blue from the 2PP columns in various fed and state election tables as an indicator for which party is trailing. Why? Both columns should contain both colours. Timeshift ( talk) 16:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I accept that there is a consensus to include election links in infoboxes, however, I have a question. Which elections should be added there? For example, in Tony Abbott's infobox, underneath Prime Minister, it says 2010, 2013. He contested both elections as Leader of the Opposition, not Prime Minister. On Gough Whitlam's infobox, under Prime Minister is says 1969, 1972, 1974, 1975 and 1977. He only contested one of these elections as Prime Minister. So, I think it is misleading to put elections in the infobox. Thoughts? I think it is just too confusing to decide so it should just be removed completely, because besides, infoboxes for politicians are supposed to be about offices they hold, not about elections they contest. I will not change anything until someone replies, but if no one does I will start removing election links. Andreas11213 ( talk) 02:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately to a few of you, I'm going to support the removal of the election links underneath 'PM'. I think if you wanted to include it - it should be under the title of leader of their political party. Really, you don't compete in an election as 'the PM' nor seeking the prime ministership specifically, you compete individually and as the leader of your party seeking a majority to form government. I think it creates an assumption that, for instance, Tony Abbott was PM going into the 2010 election and competing as such. I think it's also rather odd that the elections are listed, rather than the parliament in which they served as PM. A more accurate link then would be, for instance - under Tony Abbott's 'PM' title in the infobox, would be '44th parliament' or similar - but the '28th PM' vaguely does that already I guess. Discuss. Communistgoat ( talk) 13:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Election links should stay. Timeshift ( talk) 00:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
No because it still doesn't solve the issue of overcrowding the infobox. It looks really messy and it isn't even that important. It can easily be found in the text, and if you want to make it easier, why not add a new section to the page listing the elections that they have contested and add some brief information about it, rather than sticking it in the infobox where it looks very messy. Andreas11213 ( talk) 08:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I've avoided this discussion so far, but wouldn't it make sense to put the election links in the party leader section of the infobox? This has been suggested by a couple of people above but seems to keep getting lost in the argument about whether to have them at all. I really don't care that much either way, but it would seem to be a solution that removes a lot of the confusion of having them in the PM section (i.e. the Whitlam example, which would be confusing as hell to people with less political knowledge than us). The Drover's Wife ( talk) 13:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete them all, as these kinda links aren't in infoboxes of other PMs & party leaders, like Stephen Harper, David Cameron, Ed Broadbent, Michael Ignatieff for example. GoodDay ( talk) 14:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
While there is still great disagreement about keeping them or removing them, would people be okay with the proposal of moving them to the "Leader of Party X" Section? As this seems to be the suggestion of a few. Personally I'm equally fine with both where they are now and this proposal. The Tepes ( talk) 04:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
He's adding religion to Infoboxes all over the place for Australian pollies who don't have it listed yet. In Gough Whitlam's case, he added that Gough was agnostic. I reverted, because agnosticism is not a religion. Andreas11213 reverted back, saying it exists in other articles. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS means this is not a valid reason, but this is Andreas11213. I await his response. Can I ask other editors to keep a watch on Andreas11213's current campaign please? I don't want to go near 3RRR HiLo48 ( talk) 10:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Extra eyes appreciated. Frickeg ( talk) 22:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I only just realised/looked at it - that in the infobox on election pages is 'popular vote'. This confused me because 53.5% people did not vote for the LNP and it doesn't mention 2PP. I figured even though fixing it up to say it was 2PP was easy - I figured I better talk it out here first. I just think it oddly suggests that he achieved a majority of votes which isn't the case. Might I add, not just Abbott, this 2PP 'popular vote' and % goes back through previous election results. Communistgoat ( talk) 09:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
So that's agreement to modify the wording of 'popular vote' to perhaps '2PP vote'? Communistgoat ( talk) 04:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Would someone be able to go over Bracks Ministry, Brumby Ministry, Baillieu Ministry and Napthine Ministry and delineate their reshuffles, as with the federal ministries and other states? These four articles all show ministers who dropped a portfolio during a term as never having held it, and it's really confusing. I can have a shot at it later, but things involving tables freak me out a bit. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 03:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
An editor is disputing the fact that "government" can refer to the successive ministries (collective executives) in Australian English, e.g. the Abbot government lost the election. I've provided a variety of sources, including the Macquarie Dictionary, but it doesn't seem he is keen to cease and desist. Third opinions would be appreciated. Please chime in at Talk:Government. RGloucester — ☎ 23:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
For those chomping at the bit for more electoral politics after the excitement of Victoria, I've started draft candidate pages in userspace for next year's elections in NSW and Queensland. I feel it might be a bit early for them to be in mainspace, but feel free to make any additions or corrections in the meantime. Frickeg ( talk) 23:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Some help would be appreciated please. Robertson stood down as Labor leader on 23 December 2014, with Linda Burney serving as interim Labor leader. The Labor caucus will meet on 5 January 2015 to elect a new leader to succeed Robertson as Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition can only be so once elected by the party. Neither Burney, nor Chris Bowen, are/were elected by their party as leaders and are/were thus not Leaders of the Opposition. There would be many many interim leaders, federal and state, who aren't listed as Leaders of the Opposition, nor should they be. Some seem to have difficulties grasping this. Am I correct or not? Timeshift ( talk) 08:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The navigation boxes between lists of members of individual parliaments used to be centred, and were designed that way. Now, though, the code doesn't seem to work and they are left-aligned, and look quite strange. Any chance that someone who is a bit more technically aligned could fix this? The Drover's Wife ( talk) 09:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Following a discussion on Timeshift's talk page, I realised the other day that we'd never had a discussion about whether The Poll Bludger is a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes.
I strongly feel that it should be: William Bowe is probably the second foremost election analyst in the country beyond Antony Green, the foremost on the areas Green doesn't cover, and the ABC's stand-in when Green isn't available (such as when there are simultaneous state elections). He's a well-regarded academic source and I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to cite him directly. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 11:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
There is now a Sydney's Aldermen biographical index of anyone who's ever served as a Sydney alderman. This could be useful for a bunch of our biographical articles. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 10:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Currently, Category:Australian politicians by party is a bit of a mess. The Liberal and National categories have been split by state (but with an awkward situation where the federal members remain in the parent category), whereas everyone else is mashed together (there are more than 2,000 pages in the Labor category). Furthermore, it has become quite common to see people who were merely members of the party or candidates, but who never held elected office, being included, despite the fact that these people are not really "politicians". In light of that, I would like to make a cautious proposal (which I assume will have to be taken to CfD at some stage, but I haven't the faintest idea how that works so let's start here):
I look forward to further suggestions/improvements, and also anyone who knows what they're doing with the whole CfD process and how this could be done. Frickeg ( talk) 02:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@ Frickeg:: This discussion seems to have run its course - worth taking through the CfD process now? The Drover's Wife ( talk) 11:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I've been doing pendulums for the state elections, and I've reached a little bit of a dilemma with some of them, namely elections where the Liberals and Nationals were not in coalition and one party had enough seats to govern without the other (e.g. - Queensland 1986, Victoria 1976). I'm just wondering if it would be better to arrange the pendulums so that the non governing party is on the crossbench, or just put the Liberals and Nationals in the same column for these elections? Kirsdarke01 ( talk) 09:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Just wondering how this is going to work... since NSW elects leaders in both houses anyway, is Labor going to elect another leader in the Legislative Assembly (or does John Robertson remain leader in the lower house while not being the "official" opposition/Labor leader)? Is this like the Campbell Newman situation where Newman was the leader "from outside parliament" going into the 2012 election, but Jeff Seeney was the leader in the parliament until Newman was elected (it looks like Foley will be seeking preselection for Auburn [1] at the 2015 election)? -- Canley ( talk) 03:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
He does not appear to be notable.-- Grahame ( talk) 01:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Presumably this party will have trouble gaining registration under this name.-- Grahame ( talk) 00:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to Doug Butler's phenomenal job on past South Australian Legislative Councils and MLCs, we've now got a complete set of lists going back to the very first Legislative Council. I'd like to start doing articles on the elections that were held to fill mid-term vacancies prior to the introduction of a statewide electorate and proportional representation, but I'm noticing that they don't seem to be referred to as "by-elections" in sources from the time. Any suggestions on how best to name these articles? The Drover's Wife ( talk) 11:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I've recently noticed (again) the duplicate pages for Members of the Tasmanian Legislative Council - see the last few categories at Category:Members of Tasmanian parliaments by term and the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Members of the Tasmanian Legislative Council, 2002–2006. Background:
I've done a few designs at User:Chuq/Sandbox/TasLC - only ideas at the moment. I've used the four year range for demonstation purposes. Comments welcome! -- Chuq (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Why did Charles Latham's term finish at the Australian federal election, 1943 rather than at the end of the term (30 June 1944)? Hack ( talk) 03:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
It's on. -- Canley ( talk) 03:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, 2015. Timeshift ( talk) 03:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Various editors probably close to Bolkus from time to time try to remove all reference to Dante Tan affair. I have removed some unbalanced comments, but others might wish to look at it.-- Grahame ( talk) 10:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The Parliament of Tasmania article has an editor claiming a new consensus is required due to length of time, to have the Greens listed as on the crossbench, and not party of her majesty's loyal opposition. The opposition has the opposition leader, the crossbench and the Greens do not. We don't work with media characterisations, we work with facts. Tasmanian House of Assembly has it right. Can I please have motions of support? Timeshift ( talk) 03:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I've given more than sufficient time for talk to occur. Consensus has occurred. We work with facts, not media characterisations. Nick-D has said it well too. For the record, this talk page has long been used for consensus discussions as far more people watch this page than an individual article's talk page. Timeshift ( talk) 01:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Opinions of as many editors as possible would be appreciated. Thanks. Timeshift ( talk) 05:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: It has been re-listed. Again, opinions of as many editors as possible would be appreciated. Thanks. Timeshift ( talk) 22:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
AfD failed, but now the nominator has added a POV tag to the article and is trying to remove chunks of it. Opinions on the articles talkpage would be appreciated. Timeshift ( talk) 00:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Following on from the conversation above, there is a conversation at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 12#Country Party of Australia about Country Party of Australia which currently redirects to National Party of Australia. That conversation arose as a consequence of an article for deletion discussion for the article now at Draft:Country Party of Australia. My comment in the RFD discussion is reproduced here to save me retyping since it seems it should get wider exposure:
On further consideration and reading the above Wilson discussion, maybe we should separate out the "Country Party" from the "National Party" and have separate articles linking to their successor and predecessor articles. Thoughts? -- Scott Davis Talk 04:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
There's been a thread at social conservatism going for two months here. I thought i'd raise it here as it relates to AusPol but is a bit of a separate article. Opinions please. FTR you don't need to look hard to find RS supporting the Libs and soc con. Timeshift ( talk) 03:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Independent politician#Australia is linked to a lot throughout oz wikipedia. We've got current federal covered, but what about state/territories? Should they be added? As words/expansion, or perhaps a table, or perhaps even a seperate article with present as well as past independents? Thoughts? Timeshift ( talk) 00:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I've created Australian independent politicians. Feel free to rename it, tabulate it, expand it, or whatever else. Timeshift ( talk) 02:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I've added the Senate tables, and have run into something of an issue - where people might have "registered political parties" but are to all intents and purposes independents. Like Nick Xenophon, for instance, who has the "Nick Xenophon Team", or Brian Harradine, who always had the "Brian Harradine Group" registered. I've made judgement calls on these people (Xenophon and Harradine obviously belong, George Hannan and Meg Lees I left out). Furthermore, if we are to have similar tables for the states and territories, the pages is quickly going to get very, very long. Perhaps some sort of split is in order? Frickeg ( talk) 05:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I think there's a need to use a little bit of a judgment call here. In most cases where someone has been elected or formed parties under the "[Independent's Name] Team-esque" banner - examples like Xenophon, Harradine, Jo Vallentine between the NDP demise and the rise of the Greens, and Paul Osborne in the ACT, I think it's a big stretch to say they were ever not independents, or that they were party politicians, during that period, regardless that they technically sat as a registered party. This in contrast to say, One Nation, PUP, KAP, or in Meg Lees' case the APA, which started as actual distinct parties focused around one personality - like, they still had party members and a party structure and other policies apart from being named ballot lines for one person. People talked about Jacqui Lambie quitting PUP in a way that wouldn't have made sense, for example, when Ann Bressington fell out with Nick Xenophon. I agree with Frickeg that we shouldn't take media reports as gospel because of their sloppy reporting about minor party affiliations, though. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 04:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Sparked by a recent edit at Candidates of the Australian federal election, 1940, I had a look through Trove records on Alex Wilson and was surprised to see him referred to consistently as a Country Party candidate (and member) for much of his early career. The ADB largely ignores this, as does the Parliamentary Handbook. We currently have him as an independent for his entire term, but from what I can tell, here are the major beats of his parliamentary career:
It seems clear to me that we are not dealing with this (or, by extension, the other CP ructions of the 1930s) well - or indeed at all, since in member lists in places like Division of Wimmera and Members of the Australian House of Representatives, 1937-1940, we ignore them completely. So, to kick things off, how do we deal with Wilson? It seems to me that our main options are to treat him as an independent, or as the sole parliamentary member of the UCP - but then, Rankin was a member of the UCP too, but sat in the federal Coalition (most of the time). We also have to take into account the overwhelming amount of more recent literature that refers to Wilson as an independent - but how much store should we set by that? In short, my head is exploding. Help? Frickeg ( talk) 14:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the root cause of the problem may be whether parties are vehicles for obtaining power or vehicles for achieving aims for particular interests & ideas. The Country Party's origins would incline towards the latter type of party and often such parties have serious divisions on the means by which they can achieve their aims; depending on how the party is structured such divisions can go all the way to the polls and the preferential voting system has allowed parties to run multiple candidates. It also gets messy when federal and state party organisations conflict over direction and alliances. If you take the better known Lang Labor split you have a period when one person was the endorsed candidate of the state Labor branch and another was the endorsed candidate of federal Labor - which was "Labor" and which was "Ind Labor"?! To add to the complication the National Party is a federation of state parties who often stay in despite disagreements - hence the Crook confusion. The particular name a party used in a state is probably a red herring in all this - both the Liberals and Country Party in the post war years used a variety of different names in state politics and there are confusions over whether the state or federal name was used at a particular election.
I suspect the answer is that Wilson was the endorsee of the state Country Party on an anti-Coalition position, but anti-Coalition Country MPs never organised as a party in the federal parliament and were instead divided over whether to make the case for independence from the party room or the crossbenches (until the state party made up their minds and ordered Rankin out of the party room) and the pro-Coalition MPs had to assemble their own state aparatus. There's probably quite a few cases where independents were actually the nominees of local parties. Timrollpickering ( talk) 19:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I found this article detailing the passing of former South Australian Attorney-General Trevor Griffin but sadly no date of death. I've had a fruitless search trying to find one and was wondering if someone here could weave their magic to find a date of death (I'm guessing access to The Advertiser hardcopies will be useful). -- Roisterer ( talk) 04:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
This is interesting but it is probably not encyclopedic and it is difficult to read.-- Grahame ( talk) 03:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I think this article needs to be taken out and shot, to put it bluntly. It's an unencyclopedic topic: you cannot functionally summarise party policy in an election with as many parties as this, it's a topic far better handled by linking to the party websites, and there's no way to do this that doesn't turn out as a trainwreck. To that effect, I've nominated it at AfD (and I'm surprised nobody did it sooner, given the above discussion). I think it's a helpful thing to have a "campaign" section that covers neutrally the major issues in an election and parties' stances on them (e.g. the sale of the "poles and wires"), but this mess is another thing entirely. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 17:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
This was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Country Party (Australia).-- Grahame ( talk) 22:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I came across this gem and thought it would be worth having on wikipedia. Can someone who's good with doing graphs whip one up based on it please? Timeshift ( talk) 01:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
We have recently being reclassifying politicians in to their parliaments. We have the Category:Australian Labor Party members of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly that does not seem to adequately cover members of the former Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly. Would it be better to call it the ACT legislature (which sounds American) or parliament?-- Grahame ( talk) 03:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated South Australian state election, 2006 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.-- Jarodalien ( talk) 00:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The discussion on Australian politicians categories has been closed. The closer interpreted consensus on the main question about state divisions, but not necessarily on the candidates stuff. I will be nominating the candidates categories for a separate CfD soon; any suggestions below are welcome (I'm thinking the "Australian Labor Party candidates" format).
I will be working through the non-Coalition categories manually to split them into state and federal parliaments, and also adding a few categories along the way we're missing (like many of the state parties). Anyone else who feels like it is welcome to join, but we should co-ordinate who's doing what so we don't overlap! Any issues regarding this process can be raised here. Frickeg ( talk) 00:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I have now finished the federal categories, which can be seen here. I will now be moving on to the states, and I have a few general questions:
I anticipate starting the CfD regarding candidates/officials/local councillors after this is all done so that any other things I pick up can be incorporated. One change is that I think we will need a "people associated with" category after all, for people who were merely party members but never ran for office or held official positions but are nonetheless notable for their membership (like Parker Moloney and the DLP, or Chris Watson and the Nationalists, or Charles Russell and the Progress Party). Frickeg ( talk) 07:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
It sounds like we're all fairly well agreed: straightforward back to around 1901-10 depending on the state, complicated before that. I will go ahead with this in mind, reporting back here on progress and any difficult decisions. If research uncovers genuine parties before wherever I stop (and I will do Labor back to whenever they were founded), we can always create the categories later on. Frickeg ( talk) 13:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
One further issue that I just noticed at Guy Arkins: can we please be careful about categorising members of early 20th century state-level conservative parties as well? As I discovered in South Australia, the 1917 Labor split played out quite differently in some places at a state level, and I'd be a bit cautious about bulk-recategorising state Category:Nationalist Party of Australia politicians unless you've confirmed that the Nationalist Party did exist at a state level in that state, under that name, in a way that was consistent with the federal party. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 02:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I have confirmation from the closer of the previous CfD that a consensus here will be appropriate in lieu of a second CfD for the candidates categories. I think it's fair to say we have one already, but I'll put this here as a confirmation. Frickeg ( talk) 01:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
An editor has proposed that fields for nearby electorates, similar to this provided in {{ Infobox Australian place}} be added to {{ Infobox Australian Electorate}}. Please participate in the discussion, which may be found at Template talk:Infobox Australian Electorate#Nearby Electorates. Tnak you. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 08:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Our first Australian conference for Wikipedians/Wikimedians will be held 3-5 October 2015. Organised by Wikimedia Australia, there will be a 2-day conference (Saturday 3 October and Sunday 4 October) with an optional 3rd day (Monday 5 October) for specialist topics (unconference discussions, training sessions, etc). The venue is the State Library of Queensland in Brisbane. So put those dates in your diary! Note: Monday is a public holiday is some states but not others. Read about it here: WikiConference Australia 2015
As part of that page, there are now sections for you to:
It would really help our planning if you could let us know about possible attendance and the kind of topics that would make you want to come. If you don’t want to express your views on-wiki, please email me at kerry.raymond@wikimedia.org.au or committee@wikimedia.org.au
We are hoping to have travel subsidies available to assist active Australasian Wikipedians to attend the conference, although we are not currently in a position to provide details, but be assured we are doing everything we can to make it possible for active Australian Wikipedians to come to the conference. Kerry ( talk) 00:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
A discussion has started at Talk:New South Wales state election, 2015#I think this article was spin-doctored. regarding the appropriateness of adding minor parties to infoboxes of election articles. It started when the Greens party, who have one seat in the NSW legislative assembly, was added to the infobox. There seems to be a consensus that minor parties who are represented in lower houses should be included, but nothing firm on what the threshold should be. So, should minor parties be included in infoboxes of Australian state/territorial/federal election articles, and if so, what should the minimum threshold of representation be? ColonialGrid ( talk) 11:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
This matter is complicated as there are inconsistencies with electoral articles, such as Queensland election articles including One Nation in the '98, '01, and '04 elections, but not One Nation in '06 or KAP in '12 or '15. Given this, it would be good to has a discussion about at what point a minor party should be included in the infobox, there are currently a few election articles that only show L/NP and ALP where minor parties have won lower house seats, such as: New South Wales state election, 2011 (one Green); Victorian state election, 2014 and Victorian state election, 2018 (two Green); Queensland state election, 2006 (one One Nation); Queensland state election, 2012 (two KAP); Queensland state election, 2015 (two KAP); Australian federal election, 2010 (one Green and possibly Crook (WA Nat)); and Australian federal election, 2013/ Next Australian federal election (one Green, one PUP, and one KAP). I'm sure there are probably others, but these are the recent ones which I have found. As the ACT and Tasmania electoral system (Hare-Clarke) doesn't disadvantage minor parties, inclusion of any elected party in their infoboxes makes some sense (at least to me, given how common minor parties are and the role they play in governments, which are more likely to be minority). However, the single-member seats of the other lower houses confuse issues a little more, vis-a-vis when to include minor parties, as it can become harder for them to be elected, retain seats, and hold power within the house (again, in my view). I feel that minor parties should be included in infoboxes, but think a threshold of representation in the lower house is too low, I'm just a little unsure on what the number should be though. ColonialGrid ( talk) 11:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe that only the parties that can form government, that is, the government and her majesty's official opposition, should be in infoboxes. The exception however being multimember systems like the ACT and Tas. That's my strong preference, but failing that, then those parties which won enough seats in the lower house to gain official party status in the respective parliament. Timeshift ( talk) 12:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
If we're to add the smaller parties then one problem that can come up (and has in a few Queesland cases) is who should be listed as the leader. Often the party leader will not be the leader in the lower house/the sole MP and may not even be standing in the election. Some new/small parties don't seem to have had clearly defined state leaders before they broke through.
There's also the problem that some parties have historically opposed having a leader, and instead have some sort of "primary spokesperson" under all manner of titles. Worse still they usually have more than one. This has historically been an issue with Green parties though many have subsequently switched to a leader model.
My view is that the party leader listed should be the person the federal/state/territory party said at the time was their leader, regardless of what if any their position is in the parliament. I'm not sure how to always determine the leader of breakthrough parties, especially those riding on the coattails of parliamentarians at the other leve.
The New Zealand boxes show it's possible to list multiple co-leaders but I'm not sure how easy it will be to list the titles for "not actually a leader because we don't agree with the position but this is the person or people we put forward for leadery things". Timrollpickering ( talk) 19:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Is he notable?-- Grahame ( talk) 02:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
In scouring the internet for Australian election results I stumbled across a rather old article on Dr Adam Carr's website. The article details estimates of federal two party preferred results before any Mackerras estimates and even before the introduction of preferential voting. Now I am not completely sure that the contents of the article are fully accurate as with some of the results between 1937-1949, there are conflicts with the estimates provided by Mackerras which raises an question-marks there. But seeing as how we do not have any two party preferred figures at all for some of the earlier elections, should we not take this information into consideration?
The source is here [40] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.40.176 ( talk) 23:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
While trying to track down an inconsistency between sources, I've realised that we've missed a supplementary election in our articles on the 1957 Queensland election. George Devries, the QLP member for Gregory, died in July with an election scheduled for August, so the 1957 election in that seat wasn't held until October. This is important because the supplementary election was contested by Jack Duggan, the former Labor leader who had lost his seat in August, and at the moment we've just got him down as running in two seats at the same time. I know we've found ways to denote supplementary elections before in the more recent ones in Londonderry (NSW) and Frankston East (Victoria) but I am terrible with tables - can someone try and note this somewhere in the tables for that election? The Drover's Wife ( talk) 14:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Further input (for the brave of heart) appreciated here. Frickeg ( talk) 13:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
This seems to be the discussion page with experts on it. Wikipedia is supposed to help me understand things, not make them more complex...
I've noticed a number of articles have piped links to Country Party. Reading the text, I'm not convinced this is right, at least in South Australia. There seems to have been a Country Party which merged with the Liberal Federation to create the Liberal and Country League in 1932. There was a Country Party that stood against the LCL in some seats according to the Results of the South Australian state election, 1973 (House of Assembly) (also as piped links to National Party of Australia) and there is The Nationals South Australia more recently. This might have been the same Country Party that split from the LCL in 1963 (without any link at all) in the LCL article, just the statement that it the was a reformation).
I'd be happy to help clear up the mess, but at the moment, reading the articles is adding to my confusion, not clarifying it. I think this is support for a larger set of "former party" articles, or at least agreed titles and entities, and an untangling of mis-targeted links. -- Scott Davis Talk 11:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay as a way forward on this can I suggest we go through the parties one by one, and identify potential issues.
I've taken the Greens as a simple first case. We have articles on the federal party and all eight states/territories. A number of the state parties did not affiliate to the federal party at first. The articles are as follow:
Okay the names are a mix with three "State/Territory Greens", three "Greens State/Territory" and two going their own way. Not sure if we should standardise or not but redirects from the two main forms would be handy.
The biggest individual mess is Tasmania. The predecessor United Tasmania Group formed in 1972 and seems to have fizzled out in the late 1970s (but popped up again in the 1990 federal election with many of the same people) with Bob Brown and others carrying on as independents, to the point that by the late 1980s there were a number of "Green Independents" elected to the state parliament and holding the balance of power. The article says "In August 1992 the Green Independents moved to officially form the Tasmanian Greens." but is that the start of a proper organisation or just a name change? The electoral history basically bundles in all the environmentalists from 1972 onwards. And "On 23 July 2005 the Greens celebrated 33.3 years of political activity and achievements, with a large party entitled "33-and-a-third – Now we're Long Playing!"" Here we have one article that's confused about whether the organisation runs from the 1970s, the 1980s or the 1990s, and another article on what is either the early part of the history or the predecessor organisation.
The other key question is what to link federal articles to. The WA Greens didn't affiliate until 2003 and elected some Senators in the meantime. In general we're separating out the WA Greens from the federal party in tables. More of a mess is Australian federal election, 1990 which predates the formation of the federal party. The WA Greens are listed separately but the rest are clusted together. Candidates of the Australian federal election, 1990 is even worse, with the WA party linked to, the United Tasmania Group listed for that state and the individual candidate lists linking to the not yet formed Australian Greens, including both the "Green Party" and "Green Alliance" (see below) who stood against each other in New South Wales. The "Summary by party" shows separate Greens in New South Wales (as well as the Green Alliance who also contested a Reps seat in South Australia), Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory.
(The summary has a footnote about the Green Alliance in New South Wales: "Contested as a group of affiliated parties registered under the names Central Coast Green Party (2 candidates), Cowper Greens (1 candidate), Eastern Suburbs Greens (3 candidates), Greens in Lowe (1 candidate), Illawarra Greens (2 candidates), South Sydney Greens (3 candidates), Sydney Greens (1 candidate) and Western Suburbs Greens (5 candidates), with the Green Alliance Senate - New South Wales as the registered Senate name.")
I suspect some of the confusion over dates may be the difference between environmentalists coming together to united under one banner and formal party registration - and also the party may have been campaigning in a state for federal seats before getting a state registration together.
I don't think we should get hung up on dates of formal party registration but rather focus on continuity of organisation. We may need to merge the parties in Tasmania, do something to explain the NSW mess and the 1990 federal election needs serious thought.
Beyond that can we agree on the basics that:
What about biographies of politicians who were active at both the state/territory level? My instinct is that the federal party should be linked to in intros and infoboxes.
And this is probably the easiest case! Timrollpickering ( talk) 18:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey, is there any chance someone good with templates and colours could give me a hand? Our candidates pages for federal elections during the Nationalist Party era, apparently as a shortcut, use the Liberal shade to indicate seats won by Nationalists. However, I'm trying to draw up a candidates page for the same era in South Australia, when there was both a Liberal Party and (their equivalent of the) Nationalist Party contesting elections against one another. Using the normal "Nationalist" colour is too dark in this context, and it really needs a toned-down shade as for Labor/Liberal/National, etc. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 10:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd appreciate other editors' input at Talk:Australian Labor Party/Archive 4#quote on ALP. I've reverted the ALP one, but not the one at History of Adelaide, or others. It seems this editor takes Crowley quote slabs and pastes them in to various articles, without context, with no indication of relevance, and in awkward places like the start of sections. Thanks. Timeshift ( talk) 19:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
The article has been delisted as a Featured Article here. It's a pity that editors want to de-list FAs rather than help bring them up to FA state. Does anyone want to help salvage this? Timeshift ( talk) 19:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)