Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Members of the Tasmanian Legislative Council, 2002–2006


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. Of note is that a discussion regarding these articles has began at Talk:Members of the Tasmanian Legislative Council, 2002–2006 N ORTH A MERICA 1000 14:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Members of the Tasmanian Legislative Council, 2002–2006

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Due to the way the Tasmanian Legislative Council works - elections are held annually, only two or three divisions per year, and each candidate sits for six years - the articles about its members are divided into groups, typically six years at at time. The 2002-06, 2006-10 and 2010-14 list pages do not follow this pattern and the contents are duplicates of the 1999-2005, 2005-11 and 2011-17 pages which fit the naming convention of the rest of the articles. Admittedly the six year grouping is arbitrary and it could be done any number of other ways, but the rest of the articles are done in this format. See Category:Members of Tasmanian parliaments by term Chuq (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  02:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  02:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - This does not seem to be a new fork, both the nominated piece and its ostensible fork, Members of the Tasmanian Legislative Council, 1999-2005 date from 2008. The problem is, as nearly as I can tell, the piece being deleted is superior to the piece which is proposed to be saved (footnotes, navigational footer). Clearly a content fork, but I think we have it backwards here and the 1999-2005 piece (etc.) is the one that should go. Carrite (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. I applaud Chuq for taking on this anomaly, which has been sitting around for years. But, as per Carrite above, I actually think the four-year terms are better - as the nomination says the six-year ones are arbitrary, and since it's a tricky one all-round they may as well match up to the lower house. Of course this would involve a hideous amount of work to standardise them all this way, which is why I, for one, have always shied away from doing anything about it. Maybe with a team effort it could be made easier. Frickeg (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. As with others, I agree that the four-year terms are superior. They're a lot easier for navigation, and the six-year ones are completely arbitrary. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments all. The basis for the six year groupings is that the elections are every six years and therefore the article covers one complete cycle of the LC.  I agree the format as a whole could be revisited - it isn't clear from the table that not all the members listed sat at the same time.  Where is a better central point to discuss this?  Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics? -- Chuq (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Contacting everyone on the Australian politics list and seeing if anyone is interested might be a good starting point. It's good that you're addressing a longstanding fork anomaly openly and with an open mind... I don't think there is necessarily a right or a wrong here so long as information isn't lost in the switch. Carrite (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 00:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that the four year articles (time span wise) makes more sense than the six year terms, as the terms line up with those of the Tasmanian House of Assembly, so it shows the Council as it is for each term of government. However, I think the info is displayed in a rather clumsy and hard to comprehend manner. I have constructed a different layout which I think is easier to understand, and posted it on Talk:Members of the Tasmanian Legislative Council, 2002–2006 Even if this group of articles is deleted, I still propose this change, and welcome feedback on the talk page. ColonialGrid (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks ColonialGrid! As you can see it is hard to find a good layout! I'll reply on that page. -- Chuq (talk) 01:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.