Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australia/To-do/Politicians

It's awful having a list of things on one line because the diffs don't work properly. -- Newhoggy | Talk 14:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Housekeeping suggestion
Is there reason that we're maintaining all of these lists (which I suspect are out of date anyway) when self-maintaining categories would do the same thing? I propose:
 * 1) deleting Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Complete to-do/Politicians/Have articles ✅
 * 2) removing all blue links from WikiProject Australia/To-do/Politicians (MHR's) (need to verify dab status on each 1st) ✅
 * 3) removing all blue links from WikiProject Australia/To-do/Politicians (need to verify dab status on each 1st) ✅
 * 4) Change 2 and 3 above to bulleted lists (per Newhoggy's comment above) ✅
 * 5) removing WikiProject Australia/To-do/Politicians (Senators & MHR's) ✅
 * 6) populating Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives with member articles.  This would mean that (for example), Fred Daly is in Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives for Martin as well as Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives.  The supercat can then be used for related changes
 * 7) ditto for Senators, although it seems to be being done slightly haphazardly at Category:Members of the Australian Senate. eg. Andrew Bartlett

Thoughts/comments? &mdash;Moondyne 05:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to 1-5. 6 and 7 seem to contradict the purpose of the hierarchical category structures and anyway will only alert you to new articles if originators add the wider categories, in apparent violation of normal wiki principles.--Grahamec 03:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. There's exceptions to every rule and per WP:SUBCAT and WP:CAT pt2 I think this could be one. Categories don't necessarily form a tree structure and when there's a valid reason to have an article in a category as well as its subcategory I can't see the harm.   I'll get moving on the 1st few points anyway.  &mdash;Moondyne 13:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All your suggestions seem wise. I'm surprised that first page still exists – I thought I'd deleted most of those sort when I went through these pages a few months back.--cj | talk 01:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Parliament links
William Folster for a ... They've changed their web and I'd guess everyone needs updating. Is there a BOT ? Or lots of hard editing ? Dave Rave (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC) and many infoboxes needed Dave Rave (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have deactivated your (by using ) because it's unclear what you are asking - see how it was showing at . -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * much joy, totally helpful answers so far better ? Dave Rave (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No it's not, since you are not asking a meaningful question - check out how it appears at of Requests for comment/Unsorted, which is barely an improvement upon . Before using  again, please read Requests for comment, particularly the section Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues (you might like to read WP:WRFC as well), and also have a look at some of the RfCs listed at WP:RFC/A. Note that to put the RfC into Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law, the first parameter must be pol, in lower case. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * do what I Am asked, tl:dr, I need to provide more ? Where ? How do I know this ? Why is my bio request in unsorted ? When the details are above, why can't you help instead of just reverting. Dave Rave (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC) omg, screw this, project abandoned.
 * It was listed at unsorted because you used Bio not bio or one of the other recognised forms listed at WP:RFC. The details are not above: I can't help you write an RfC when I don't understand what you are asking. -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * are too, wiki link, hyper link, two questions, and you knew where it was sposed to be. Dave Rave (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)