Talk:Division of South Australia

Kingston a Free Trader? Cite?
Kingston a Free Trader? Cite? Timeshift (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoops, sorry! You're right, he's a Protectionist. Frickeg (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And a 'radical liberal'. Free Trade aka conservative, oh puhlease! How offensive to another SA'ian :P Timeshift (talk) 07:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully his reputation is restored! On a similar note, I originally had them listed by surname (rather than party), and the grouping of the parties was coincidental. Should they be alphabetical (surname) or party grouped, as on the Division of Tasmania page? Frickeg (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * These are always tough ones. For some lists (especially infoboxes) I think alphabetically is best. Group by color/party also is good, however I think by far the best way is the order in which they were elected, like how the 2007 Senate results page is done, elected 1-6. Any info available? Timeshift (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * While I agree in principle, I don't think that's possible because in this case each South Australian voter cast seven votes of equal value to the candidates. This is why, on the Psephos page, there are a number of candidates with percentages over 50%. If it was in order of votes received, it would be Kingston, Bonython, Glynn, Holder, Batchelor, Solomon, and Poynton, but I'm not sure how appropriate this would be. Frickeg (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * IMHO completely appropriate. The most votes gets the highest spots. Timeshift (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll change them now. Frickeg (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I added Sorted in order of highest votes, any better/concise wording you can think of? Timeshift (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that sounds good to me. Frickeg (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Highest or most? Also, perhaps a number (hash) column could be added indicating 1-7? (like the senate 07 results page) Timeshift (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How about "Sorted in descending order of votes received?" I wouldn't use the numbers because that implies that this was like a Senate result, which it wasn't; in effect, each South Australian voted in each of the seven electorates the state was entitled to. Also, I'm not sure when Holder became an independent (Psephos doesn't say); he's listed as an independent on the page for Wakefield. Did he become an independent as soon as he was appointed Speaker? Frickeg (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'd look at it from the other way - can you account for the two independents elected to the lower in 1901? Timeshift (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Holder was definitely elected as a Free Trader, but he became an independent at some time during his term. (The two independents were Thomas Macdonald-Paterson in Brisbane and Alexander Paterson in Capricornia. Oh, and James Wilkinson in Moreton ... this is an imperfect measure. Sometimes you'll see H. B. Higgins or all of the Queensland Protectionists (where the Protectionists didn't exist as an organised group) listed as independents too. There was also King O'Malley, elected as "Independent Labour" in Tasmania, where there was no Labour Party.) Frickeg (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(removing indent) Ah yes I see what you mean. Well, Standing as an Independent, Holder was returned to parliament for Wakefield in 1903 and 1906. (interesting picture) Timeshift (talk) 05:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just leave him as Free Trade then? Frickeg (talk) 05:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * On this page, yep. Come to think of it, i'd do a King O'Malley to this page. Unless we can find the year just leave that column and just add FT and ind. Timeshift (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)