Talk:Candidates of the 2007 Australian federal election

Hajnal Ban
I've decided to remove the anonymous addition of Hajnal Ban. Despite lengthy profiles from both the SMH and AJN, she's not yet the endorsed National candidate for Forde. Preselection is in December. Dlw22 08:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact she was endorsed only a week or so after I posted this. Re-added, belatedly. Dlw22 12:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Lib vs Nats in SA
I thought Libs and Nats federally were not to challenge each other because they are in a coalition. If that is occuring in SA, will Libs has candidates in Nat-held seats in other states 203.213.97.55 11:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is rather curious. But the answer to your question is no. It seems that even though it's a federal election, the Coalition agreement starts and ends at state borders. At the last federal election, the Nationals stood candidates against Wilson Tuckey and Patrick Secker . Because the SA & WA Nationals have no MPs in need of protection, they're apparently free to challenge sitting Liberals.  Note too that in South Australia, the sole National MHA is a cabinet minister in the state Labor govt. Dlw22 16:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Parkes
What is happening in Parkes? A different National candidate (Mark Coulton) is indicated in the article, but nothing is said about any retirement of sitting MP John Cobb. Frickeg 06:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Don't worry! Frickeg 06:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ken Aldred
I notice there has been a mini edit war over Ken Aldred's candidacy for Holt. Just to settle the matter: Aldred is NOT the endorsed Liberal candidate for Holt. He was disendorsed within a week of winning preselection. This has been documented in the Former Candidates section. Dlw22 15:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Greg Pargeter
Could someone who knows how to change the table please add Greg Pargeter as the Labor candidate for La trobe. http://www.starnewsgroup.com.au/story/37583. Thanks Crested Penguin 23:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Dlw22 02:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Intending Independent Candidates
For those of us who are intending on running as independents, whats the policy for adding names? Purserj 09:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Do not do so, firstly you have a conflict of interest and secondly you would need to provide an independent source which names you has having become a candidate for the election. In fact I presume that is not possible to register as a candidate at this point, therefore it is impossible to be an independent candidate at this point, the only way you could qualify would be to be endorsed by a political party or to be a sitting independent who has announced an intention to recontest the seat... Maybe if someone high profile announced they were going to run... but otherwise it's just speculation and/or posturing. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 14:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is where it gets tricky, the AEC tracks all electoral donations from the time of the announcement of intention to run, yet as you say, independents cannot register as candidates until the election is actually called. Purserj 22:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I would personally appreciate independent candidates putting up some very basic information here on this talk page, in preparation for the official announcement so that the information is on hand to transfer to the article. The basic information would include:
 * Name
 * State / Electorate intention
 * Link to campaign website
 * Links to newspaper articles and other publically available reference material

I'm of the distinct impression that this sort of "work in progress" is within wiki policy to post on the talk page, as long as it does not include self-promoting statements such as political platform. Matthew 1130 14:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In keeping with this here is my information - James Purser / New South Wales Senate / jamespurser.com.au / Am being interviewed tomorrow will update when the article is published. Purserj 09:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Article in ComputerWorld confirming my intention to run Purserj 03:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed my name from the list of the New South Wales senate candidates due to failing to meet the deposit requirement Purserj 22:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I am Tejay M Sener, an Ungrouped Independent Senate candidate from Victoria. Would the editor of this page kindly consider linking my campaign websites URL, to my name on the page?

Thank you --Tmsener 06:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed
Congratulations to Western Australia for having all candidates verified by sources, I have marked the candidates that need a source backing them up. Otherwise this is just random people adding names any one of which could be vandalism for all we know, it's a MUCH better article if it is as it was a little while ago with all candidates backed up with sources. I propose that when the election is actually called that all unverified candidates be removed until the electoral commission releases an official list of candidates. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 14:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles about election candidates are speedily deleted!
I have created two articles about election candidates, but they have both been "speedily deleted", because they did not satisfy the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

Apparently, references to three news articles and candidacy in an upcoming election is not sufficient to make them "notable"!!! How can we gather information about these candidates so that we and others may know who we are voting for?

My next idea was to use my userpage, and link to my userpage for each of the "non-notable" candidates on the Candidates of the Australian general election, 2007, but I suspect that would also be against some wikipedia policy.

My best idea now is to create a MSN Group with pages for each of the "non-notable" candidates, and link directly there from Candidates of the Australian general election, 2007. Does anyone have a better idea?

Matthew 1130 13:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's another idea ... how about I create a section for "Information About New Candidates" at the bottom of Candidates of the Australian general election, 2007? That way we can link from the Candidates of the Australian general election, 2007 down to that section, without fear of the information getting "speedily deleted" because they are not notable enough.

Matthew 1130 14:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you need to look at WP:Bio - you will see that candidates for an election do not meet the criteria for notability for politicians automatically. Without looking at which articles were deleted being a candidate for a seat in a federal election does not in my mind (or it seems in the mind of other wikipedians) make you notable even if that information is verified in the newspapers. If that is all the newspaper articles are talking about then it doesn't matter that the information is verified, it doesn't pass the notability threshhold.
 * I am not sure why you wish to create candidate articles since they are not inherently notable and thus do not fit within the scope of the encyclopaedia project. They seem to be a magnet for promotion as others also do not realise that  wikipedia is not a soapbox.  The aim of Wikipedia is to produce a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia that is not a primary publisher - how does adding non-notable political biographies contribute to that aim?
 * There are a very few candidates that are notable - Michael Towke (no longer a candidate) for the amount of controversy he has caused and Maxine McKew for example in challenging the PM in Bennelong. She is currently the lead story in the Bulletin.  She was a notable journalist in her own right beforehand.
 * For a candidate's article to stay they need to have a verifiable claim to notability beyond candidature. I don't much like the idea of creating a monster article as the principle of not writing biographies on candidates applies whther they are in their own article or part of a larger one. I would suggest that once the election is declared you will find it difficult to keep the content to a reasonable standard.  The references on this page should be sufficient links for people who want to know more - wikipedia isn't a news paper or a source of truth on all candidates in the Australian federal election ...  There are other sites. --Golden Wattle  talk 19:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Just re-reading you post, you ask How can we gather information about these candidates so that we and others may know who we are voting for? - Wikipedia is not for that purpose! Yes your proposal would definitely be against userpage policy.  You can of course use your userpage to develop an article on a candidate that you think/wish might be successful in order to promote it to article space promptly on the night.  Please don't use wikipedia to promote politics - it isn't its purpose.  There are other sites that do that.
 * I had a look at your deleted edits - somebody who has been in the navy for a decade and whose wife runs a dancing school does not meet the standard at WP:Bio. Somebody who was the General Manager of the Apex Foundation might - if it was nationwide Apex Clubs of Australia you were talking about. Fundraising manager even for notable organisations is not sufficiently notable unless there is controversy - I would hope not for an election candidate :-)  Chairman of FIA  might do it but only if there was an article about the FIA first. However, you would be writing the article not because he was a candidate but because he was an inherently notable person.  Given it has already been speedily deleted, I suggest drafting in your user space and producing quality secondary references before trying again to include it in mainspace.  The local Parramatta newspaper is probably not of the standard we are looking at - it is the job of a local newspaper to report on local candidates.  Several different mentions in the Sydney Morning Herald is more useful.  Hope this helps--Golden Wattle  talk 19:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your informative reply Golden Wattle. Looking at this article, I got excited thinking it could be a NPOV guide to the election.  I see now that I was wrong, that it simply documents the more newsworthy parts of the election, and is not about providing information to allow the general public to evaluate the less famous candidates.


 * I'll look elsewhere, but NPOV is a very hard thing to find in politics!


 * Matthew 1130 04:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that someone is a candidate for election to the Australian Parliament makes them notable by virtue of that fact alone, I would have thought. Intelligent Mr Toad 01:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * no not necessarily - please review WP:Bio which deals specifically with election candiates and states otherwise.--Golden Wattle talk 01:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Lachlan Conner
Lachlan Conner is listed as an Independent Candidate for the Victorian Senate. Conner is a character in an ongoing comedy/soap by blogger "Grods Corp", I sincerely doubt that the character in this soap is actually a candidate for election. http://www.grods.com/lachlan-connor-independent/ --Kieran Bennett 08:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

redlinks
Since being a candidate alone does not make a notable BLP subjectmatter for an article maybe we should remove all the redlinks on this page as it encourages people to create articles which will just have to be deleted on notability grounds. I'd like to achieve consensus first though before going through it all. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 13:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The redlinks will go, but not until after the election. Until that time all the major party candidates should stay linked. Besides, most of the non-notable pages have been created for minor party candidates that were unlinked. Dlw22 15:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, it should be the other way around, if a candidate has an article created about them then the link gets added here, otherwise it looks like there is meant to be articles about each of them, we just haven't gotten round to writing them, when actually, for most of them, it breaches policy to create them just for promotional purposes. Forcing people to link new articles also has the benefit of wikipedians seeing relatively quickly when non-notable articles are being set up for promotional purposes, and that includes the mainstream candidates.  Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 04:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Your policy would require unlinking and deleting of the existing pages for Richard Marles, Melissa Parke, Jason Clare and Alex Hawke when these candidates will, almost certainly, soon be asserting their notability. I don't share the view that linking them encourages page creation. Those who want to create pages for their favourite candidates need no extra encouragement. Dlw22 16:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

include margin
what do people think about including the margins that each seat is held by in the lower house, this would be useful information for people browsing through the list.

Additionally we are going to soon have to address the issue of how big the senate candidate tables are going to get, if they are going to be full lists then there will be hundreds and hundreds of names included! Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 04:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The seat margins can be found elsewhere. See here and here. There is no need to reproduce them here. This page is a list of candidates. And yes, all the election candidates will be listed, which is precisely why any further clutter is undesirable. The Senate tables will be restructured in the same format as the present Queensland table. Dlw22 16:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I wasn't proposing cluttering the Senate tables with margins. Regarding the other articles every article is supposed to stand on its own without having to go to other articles for relevant info.  Also all I would suggest would be adding it to the "Held By" column. WikiTownsvillian 17:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The article does stand on its own. It wasn't designed to display the results of the previous election, just the candidates at this election. Dlw22 05:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Links
Please be a bit careful about unlinking linked names on this page. Someone came along and unlinked Caroline Hutchinson because she was an independent, despite the fact she is a high-profile radio host and by far the biggest threat to the incumbent in that seat. Equally, independent and newsreader Noel Brunning was not linked in Forrest, despite the fact that he poses a much greater threat to the Liberals there than the linked Labor candidate. This was also the case in O'Connor, where the 20-year old university student running for Labor was linked, but not the prominent National candidate who actually might pose a challenge. Rebecca 06:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As I've said above I think that notable people should be linked and non-notable people should not be linked with the presumption being to not wikilink those without articles as it only takes one sentence to create a stub (the exception of course would be where a candidate does not have an article but has their notability established as you have done above; then the red link would be kept). Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 07:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Like I said in the previous section, my policy has been to link all major party candidates, rather than drawing an artificial line between what's winnable and unwinnable. (There are a few unlinked major party candidates in unwinnable seats because if linked they would point to disambiguation pages.) Whether the Nats in WA are a major party is an open question. Candidates notable outside of politics, e.g. Philip Nitschke, should of course be linked. But I wasn't aware Noel Brunning or Caroline Hutchinson were especially notable (I still wonder). Dlw22 17:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hutchinson and Brunning are independently notable, regardless of their election campaign. This would be clear if you had checked first. Applying a blanket "Liberal and Labor notable, others non-notable" just makes no sense - as in the example I used above, anyone with the slightest knowledge of the O'Connor, Forrest or Fisher races knows the National or independent candidates are the more serious threat to the incumbent. Rebecca 00:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would have thought that independent candidates overall would be more, not less, likely to be independently notable than major party challengers. It's certainly true that the major party challengers have higher likelihood of becoming notable in the future... but I'm not too worried. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 04:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As I have already explained, the links were done on the basis of consistency and uniformity. I don't deny that means there are holes. But linking on the basis of 150 seat assesments would just create more holes. That a third party or independent candidate stands a better chance than Labor of winning in a safe non-Labor seat is unremarkable. They are still long shots, just slightly lesser long shots. Dlw22 15:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor parties in HoR
Was there a particular motivation for eliminating the Socialist Alliance and LDP columns in NSW yet keeping the CEC there?

The CEC might run a larger number of candidates than either of the former parties, but in electorates they run in they are significantly outpolled by SA and the LDP polled 1.8% in the 2004 ACT election compared to results of about .5% for the CEC in most seats they stand. Obviously I have a bias, but I'm trying to approach this from a non-biased perspective.

When is a minor party "major enough" to get its own HoR column? Obviously there has to be an arbitrary cut off for "neatness" but if the cut off is going to exclude SA and the LDP I'd also exclude CDP and CEC, limiting it to parties that have had parliamentary representation. Or set as a guideline parties that are running candidates in X% of seats per state. Which may be what you've done now.

I would still dispute the idea that the CEC is less "minor" than the LDP or SA, though.

Feel free to give your own analysis, though Dlw22 as you've been the main contributor.

Saben4 05:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Saben4,


 * The only motivation was, as you've speculated, to keep the tables tidy. Having a separate column for every single party creates a huge table with a lot of blank cells and a lot of cramped columns. This is why the LDP and SA have been moved to the right-hand column.


 * The logic of keeping the minor parties with lots of candidates was to avoid having very tall rows, thinking they'd also make for an ugly table. But after having another look at this page, I think the tall rows actually don't look so bad. So your idea does have some merit. I'm in two minds right now.


 * I was also thinking of merging the Lib and Nat columns. Seeing as there are so few three cornered contests.


 * Dlw22 15:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I would support merging the Liberal and National columns for spacial purposes. As regards the very minor parties, it gets pretty tricky deciding which of them is more or less significant, since at the national or state level they generally all score below 1% of the vote. Perhaps the best criteria in these cases is the number of candidates put forward by a party for that particular state, but not all of the candidates are known yet. I would suggest that the second-to-last column be titled "other minor party candidates" and assign a footnote number to each political party (see 'Candidates of NSW election 2007'), so eg. John Smith¹ (footnoted as 1 = Socialist Alliance), Bill Jones² (2 = LDP) etc. A footnote takes less space than writing 'SA' or 'LDP' each time. I would reserve the last column for 'Independent candidates' (which would include candidates of non-registered parties). I would expect there to be a large number of Independents, with some seats having 2 or even 3 Independents running. Mrodowicz 01:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For the moment, I think the system we're using is fine. If it gets to a situation where there's too many columns for a particular state, then I think we should go to the system used for the state election pages - sticking minor parties and independents in a column on the end, with their party affiliation next to them. There's no need to change it to a footnote - it's unnecessarily confusing. Rebecca 02:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I think merging the Coalition is a good idea, even if there are 2 Coalition candidates for a single electorate, the rows don't become too tall.

Secondly, I like your idea Mrodowicz of splitting the superminor parties and independents into two columns. I don't think footnotes are necessary, a 2-3 letter abbreviation is fine, especially considering under this proposal the number of columns would be cut. The largest numbers of candidates in a single HoR electorate would be 10-12 with probably a maximum of 4 superminor parties and 4 independents. That way the rows don't become too ugly.

I think the best layout would be- Labor Coalition Green Democrats FF Minors Independent for the HoR- 7 columns total. The current set up for the Senate is fine. I would propose converting Senate Candidates to their group letters once group tickets are announced. Are we able to agree on my proposed layout? Saben4 06:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we should wait and see how the space pans out in each state. I don't think it's too much of a problem to have columns for fringe parties that are running candidates in most or all seats (the CEC is one of these, the LDP maybe in some states), and it could look a bit unsightly if we have five or six candidates all in the "other" column if we don't really need to. On top of that, the Democrats may not warrant a column in some states, as they're not running candidates in every seat this election. Rebecca 23:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone object to eliminating the National column in WA, and shifting the one candidate to the Others column? I don't really think it fits to put him in the Coalition column, as it would look odd, the parties aren't affiliated in that state, and he's running directly against an incumbent Liberal. It may also be an idea to do the same for the Nationals in SA. Rebecca 23:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Makes sense to me. Dlw22 19:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really fussed either way on the National party column. However, another criteria, that could be used, other than a state party coalition agreement criteria, is to ask the question: If elected would that Nationals candidate be likely to join a Liberal/National Govt. or Opposition, or would the candidate sit on the cross-bench? If they would likely be part of the coalition, then they probably might be included together with the Libs. Note also, that it was fairly common practice in the past for Libs and Nats to run against each other in certain seats, even under a coalition agreement. Mrodowicz 17:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It really isn't clear how any Nationals from SA or WA might sit if they were elected - they could very easily go either way. Rebecca 23:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Shamefully, I've never heard of some of these minor parties - the perils of living in a safe seat, perhaps? A recommendation - is it possible to wikilink headers so those perusing the article can find out what the CEC or the CDP actually are? (I'm assuming CDP is Christian Democratic Party, but I wouldn't be certain. The other alternative is giving the full name - but I'm not sure if this Wikipractice (were old Labour/Labor parties referred to in Wikiliterature as ALP or Labour/Labor?) 121.208.193.118 08:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing actually. I know who the parties are, but the "third tier" parties aren't often known by everyone. Wikilinks would be the best option. I'll do it for the majors so they don't feel left out, too
 * Saben4 06:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this and have decided the best criteria for drawing the line between minor and micro parties is as follows- If the party has Federal representation they count as "minor" and get a column in every state they run in more than 50% of seats (Dems in SA, QLD, Vic). If the party has State-level representation they count as "minor" in that state provided they are running in over 50% of the seats (eg CDP in NSW). All other parties are considered "micro". If the "Other" column exceeds 4 candidates it may reasonably be split into "Other Parties" and "Independents" where appropriate. This should help maintain the NSW table, ensure there isn't too much white-space, promote consistency and ensure the parties with representation are given more prominent positions. Saben4 06:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This criteria is problematic. It means that the Christian Democrats get a column in New South Wales, where they're running candidates in 70% of seats. But in Western Australia, where they're running in 100% of seats, the party is shoved into the Other column. This is based solely on the fact that minor parties have an easier task of gaining representation in the state upper house in NSW than in WA. Dlw22 09:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * True, I considered that- but WA has less "other" candidates, so having the CDP in the "other" column doesn't seem to overcrowd it in the same way it might were there a lot more "others". At the moment apart from Wentworth all the "other" columns look to be of a decent size, and the maximum number of columns is 6 in SA. When NSW had 7 columns it looked over-crowded. 5-6 seems to be aesthetic limit. If you think the WA table would look better with the CDP extracted from it, feel free to separate that column- they are quite popular in WA. I don't think any of the other micro parties can be considered large enough to warrant their own column, though. Political prominence should be a factor to consider, too. Thanks for your feedback, though. I had some free time today.
 * Saben4 10:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've reinstated the CDP column. I feel it's a more consistent approach. Plus we won't know how crowded the WA table (or any other table) will be until the declaration of nominations on Friday. I also suspect Family First will have enough candidates to warrant their own column in every state. Good job with all the reformating. Putting the other candidates in alphabetical order was a good idea. Dlw22 12:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Family First
Would someone be able to start adding Family First columns for the HoR seats? They've obviously started preselecting candidates - former Liberal state minister Robert Brokenshire has just been announced as their candidate for the SA seat of Kingston. Rebecca 23:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Declaration of Nominations
The AEC will disclose nominations at 12 noon AEDT today. At this stage I'm not sure if the candidates will be released in bulk or come out in dribs and drabs. The releases might be staggered according to local timezones.

I shall endeavour to add all of it to this article. But anyone who wishes to add candidates themselves is certainly entitled to do so. But please state here which section you are editing (e.g. House of Reps/Victoria or Senate/SA) so that I may stay out of your way.

Thanks.

Dlw22 00:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hours later
Well this sure didn't go to plan.

It's two and a half hours since the supposed "declaration of nominations" in the south east. And half an hour since then in the west. But nothing appears to have been released on the AEC site. And now I have to bail.

I'll either come home this evening to add the remaining candidates. Or find that it's already been done.

Dlw22 03:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's up
I'm going to start working on the territories and Tassie House of Reps. Saben4 08:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Done that. Was going to work on SA and WA, but a guest came over. Saben4 09:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Saben. I've done the Tassie Senate as a model of how I think the Senate tables should look. Dlw22 13:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

NSW: House of Reps - now doing. Dlw22 13:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Phew Dlw22 16:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I've done the Senate for NSW, NT and the ACT. I see someone else has done Tasmania. Rebecca 00:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Vic: House of Reps - now doing. Dlw22 02:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Dlw22 03:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

SA: House of Reps - now doing. Dlw22 04:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Dlw22 04:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The Senate is now done for every state except South Australia. I've had enough for now, so it'd be good if someone could finish that off. Also, I wasn't quite sure how to work out the group letters, so if someone could add that for the other states, that would be great. Rebecca 04:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rebecca. I'll do the SA Senate now. Dlw22 04:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done Dlw22 05:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

WA: House of Reps - now doing. Dlw22 05:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. That's it for now. I'll tidy things up at a later stage. Dlw22 05:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Middle Names
Rebecca, I notice you removed the middle names from Shane Kenneth Neumann and Cameron Paul Thompson.

Whilst I'm not strongly attached to this policy, I thought it best to present the names as they are on the ballot paper. (But without the reversing of the surname/given names.) Sometimes that includes a middle name. Sometimes just a middle initial.

Your thoughts?

Dlw22 03:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * They're not at all known by these names, so it adds confusion and makes the table a lot harder to read - it's crammed enough as it is. Rebecca 03:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Dlw22 04:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Table format change
I notice someone has changed the ACT table. While I think this is a nice design and an improvement in many ways, I am concerned about the elimination of links to the major parties. To someone with Australian politics this is not a problem; for someone else, they may have no idea what "Labor", "Liberal" or "CDP" refer to. However, I'm hesitant to reinstate the links as they neutralise the colour, which I think aids readability. Additionally, I'm concerned about the lack of dividing lines between rows, which, if the new design is implemented across the article, could lead to confusion in very large tables. What are others' thoughts on this? Frickeg (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We ought not to be sacrificing a readable format for the sake of a few links. Bush shep (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The existing format is just as readable but much more helpful to foreign readers. I'm particularly concerned about the Senate tables - having simply "Climate Change Coalition Candidates" (without link) is verging on irresponsible. In any case, before reverting again please wait for further discussion. So far the only other opinion - here - has agreed with my assessment. Wikipedia has an obligation to make itself understandable to readers wherever they come from. That means not having "CDP Candidates" and no link, because non-Australian readers will have no idea what "CDP" even stands for. Frickeg (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Name of Article
In Australia, where the legislature and executive are effectively one, we're less inclined to call the election a "legislative" vote but rather a general election. Could the title be changed to reflect this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.219.60 (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It already was. Bush shep (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Candidates of the Australian federal election, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071022044158/http://www.news.com.au:80/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22622110-5005961,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22622110-5005961,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)