Talk:Electoral district of Tablelands

Merger discussion
For the reasons raised in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Electoral_results_for_the_Division_of_Darwin, the electoral results page should stay separate from the main article.

Since including all election results in all electorates makes the original article too large (even if it is small now, it may increase with further research or if the electorate is re-created at a later date), electoral results have been separated from their original article.

Since hundreds of electoral results pages have already been created, it would be a bad precedent to be set, and all [electoral results that already have their own pages] would also therefore be needed to be merged into their main pages. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's a bummer. I certainly don't have the energy to merge hundreds of articles. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why on earth would you want to? This is eminently splittable information. Frickeg (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, only just seen this response. Do you think it's "eminently splittable" per WP:SIZESPLIT or per WP:CONSPLIT? (I understand that this is probably purely academic, but pure academia has its uses.) I'd like to merge these articles because I don't think splitting them is appropriate under either guideline. (Apologies again for my inability to function on here without persistent talkbacks.) – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SIZESPLIT, primarily. Take a look, for example, at Electoral results for the Division of Werriwa. Now, that is quite a long page, a page that, on its own, meets the criteria for size splitting. Its inclusion on the Division of Werriwa page would hopelessly unbalance that article, and bear in mind these electoral division articles can be brought up to a very high standard (Electoral district of Perth, for example, is a GA). The original discussion in which this was decided (in which, by the way, I initially argued stridently against a split) occurred here, if you want to consult that. Frickeg (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I get that on some articles it's necessary. It's just that, while I commend the optimism and don't doubt the hardworkingness of the people who work on these articles, I don't understand the leap from it being necessary in a few cases to it being necessary in every case. Do you really think every article for every seat is a possible future GA? (Is GA status even incompatible with including brief results lists? GAs aren't required to push the boundaries of size limitations.) And presumably the fact that certain seats, like this one, no longer exist means that the electoral results sections/articles are unlikely to get much longer. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, consistency was chosen. It is necessary on most articles, to be honest, as most have longish lists. And yes, I do think every electorate article could be brought up to GA standard (which is not to say they will, but I think it's possible). In very, very few cases are these lists going to be less than, say, four or five elections, which (considering the actual space they take up) is going to start to overwhelm an article pretty quickly. Finally, especially for state districts, it is quite common for seats to be re-created, so there's every possibility the lists will get longer. Either way this is all academic since I don't think anyone is intending to take any action on it. Frickeg (talk) 03:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)