Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics/Archive 6

Eden George
As part of my effort to get a decent page up for every Mayor of Christchurch, I have greatly expanded the article for Eden George, who also spent a few years in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly. The article is now a bit out of balance, and his Australian period should be expanded. I don't have the right resources to do this, though. Can somebody from this project help? The article will be heading to DYK soon.  Schwede 66  20:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Have a look at Trove's archive of newspapers from the period. There's a couple of interesting items regarding his time in Australia there:
 * Stood for the Australian Senate (1901)
 * Prosecuted for employing a girl without paying wages (1902)
 * Sold all his racehorses after 90 races without a win (1902)
 * Raised a motion calling for New South Wales to secede from the Commonwealth of Australia (1902)
 * Sued for libel by a government official (1903)
 * Defects from the Ministerialists over policy reform (1903)
 * Lost ₤800 when war broke out while attending his daughter's wedding in Germany (1914)
 * Suffered exposure while manning an ambulance in France during World War I (1916)
 * Son Leslie killed flying for the air force in England (1918)
 * Sued two newspapers for defamation (1926)
 * Damages reduced on appeal in defamation case (1927)

--Canley (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sweet! I tell you what the plan is from here:
 * Eden George meets DYK criteria already, so I'll leave him for the time being.
 * Expand Henry Thomson (New Zealand politician) so that the article also qualifies for DYK.
 * Write article for User:Schwede66/mayors/Aaron Ayers and publish once it meets DYK criteria
 * By Friday evening (NZ time), put triple hook up at DYK (all three mayors contested the Christchurch South electorate in the )
 * Bring the latter two mayor articles up to a better standard.
 * And then, if nobody from the Australian politics task force hasn't done it already, work the Australian history into the Eden George article.
 * I'd be most grateful for others helping with article expansion. DYK credits and kudos are the rewards. I appreciate the above help already.  Schwede 66  08:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made a start on expanding on the Australian part of Eden George, and I'll add more gradually over the next week or so. Interesting guy, seems to have been involved in plenty of libel, defamation and other legal cases, and seems to have constantly made headlines for some reason or other! --Canley (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, an interesting chap. Comes to Christchurch as a rather young man and goes into business with a big bang. He made a name for himself almost immediately and was not shy to put his name forward for Parliament aged 24! Thanks for expanding the article!  Schwede 66  18:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Absolute majority of 76 MPs required?
Can someone clarify this for me? Why is an absolute majority of 76 required? What other motions does this extend to? Timeshift (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Section 47 of the Standing and Sessional Orders – Motions for suspension of orders: If a suspension motion is moved without notice it: (i) must be relevant to any business under discussion and seconded; and (ii) can be carried only by an absolute majority of Members. --Canley (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. How does this have ramifications for other types of votes that affect government stability? Timeshift (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Notably, the standing orders defines "absolute majority" as "a majority of the membership of the House (including the Speaker)", hence the requirement for 76 supporting votes, not just a majority. The only other mention in standing orders of an absolute majority is that one is required to agree to a third reading of a bill altering the Constitution. If an absolute majority of the House does not agree, the bill "shall be laid aside immediately and may not be revived during the same session of Parliament." --Canley (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean votes such as censure or no confidence motions? I think standing orders have to be suspended for the Opposition to move those, so I guess that requires an absolute majority as well. Not sure about this though... --Canley (talk) 11:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fascinating. Would love to hear from someone who might know the answer to that... Timeshift (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've looked into the House practice and procedures a bit more: yes, to raise a motion without notice, the Opposition would need to suspend standing orders. If a motion/amendment of censure or no confidence is raised on notice, it takes precedence over all other business until disposed of by the House. As for why this isn't done, it looks like the motion has to be "approved by a Minister" before it can be included as such on the Notice Paper—which presumably they're not going to do. --Canley (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this noteworthy as an addition to Australian House of Representatives? Timeshift (talk) 09:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Notable?
Hi, just noticed that Bjelkemander had been PRODed. Looks like it might be notable to me (like the Playmander, which I had heard of), but this isn't really my area of expertise. Hoping someone who has a good grasp on what makes an Australian political term notable could take a look. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 03:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I could put something decent together but definitely don't have the time right now. Offhand, it would need an introduction describing the 1940s Hanson changes to the electoral system which enshrined malapportionment, how they initially worked to Labor's benefit, the impact of the 1957 split, and the series of changes made under Bjelke-Petersen's premiership to the system from 1968 until 1987 and their actual effect upon the vote. (It is a bit of a myth that the system was left unchanged, there were at least three very major changes). The aftermath would be the unwinding of the system under Goss and the EARC, and the enshrinement of one-vote-one-value as a principle. There are at least two books about it and several journal articles. Orderinchaos 05:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Surprised to see it PRODed as I had always seen it as one of the most notable voting systems in Oz, at least on par with the Playmander. I'm currently in a different state to my hardcopy resources (and am not going to have a lot of time once I get back) but I can work with someone to put something together. --Roisterer (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Tasmanian Legislative Council periodic elections, 2012
I've created this page to fill what is really the only remaining significant void in our coverage of Australian elections at state level. I'd like to go back a few years as well, but first I'd like input into the layout, etc., of these pages, as they're rather unique in Australia. (Incidentally, I would anticipate including by-elections that take place on the same day as the periodic elections within the same page (e.g. Derwent 2011), with a redirect obviously.) Frickeg (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Great work, I was thinking about this myself when I was updating the lists of LC members last week. I think the layout looks fine, as is the inclusion of the elections held on that day. I'll help you out on the redlinks over the next few weeks. --Canley (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking of the LC, we have two sets of member lists going at the moment. It seems to me that the ones corresponding to the House terms are the ones to keep; any objections to merging the two lots of lists? Frickeg (talk) 05:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, not at all, I think I proposed that a few years ago too. The MLCs have six year terms but only two or three of them will correspond to the year in each six-year list! I prefer the ones which match the House terms too. -Canley (talk) 05:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's going to be a big job, though, since the six-year ones go all the way back to 1856. I might try and make a start this weekend. Frickeg (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's probably why I proposed it and then didn't do it! Saw how many there were... --Canley (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be easier just to flesh out each seat's page with the history of results rather than yearly articles? Perhaps then breaking out into specific articles where there's enough content or a milestone that would make a particular election notable and sources for detail on the candidates. --GoForMoe (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd say in the long term we should do that too. While initially it might seem like duplication, the fully expanded articles (should we ever get there) would be quite different. The election articles would focus on the electoral situation as a whole (and would eventually involve background too; so the 2012 one would talk about the Labor government's current troubles, and the statewide issues at the time). It's much the same reason we have by-election articles. Frickeg (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Downer move request
Can I suggest Alexander Downer, Sr. be moved to Alec Downer? He's generally known by the latter. Frickeg (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd always seen him referred to as Alexander but happy to have him moved to Alec. --Roisterer (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Craig Thomson affair
Could I ask for some attention on the Craig Thomson affair article, please? There's some really uncivil behaviour there, and I'm particularly concerned at allegations being thrown around, such as that Craig Thomson himself is editing the article. Removal of well-sourced material (described in edit summary as vandalism) Is a worry. I'm going to be requesting admin intervention if this sort of thing keeps up, but I'd like some editors familiar with the subject to look over what's going on first. --Pete (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think Craig Thomson is editing the article. But it is being edited by someone who has no idea what discussion and seeking consensus means -  You!  Your approach appears to be - Tell people what you think on the Talk page, then change the article. What others say on the Talk page makes absolutely no difference to what you do. That's where the real problem lies. Your behaviour is identical to that of those desperate to get rid of the Labor government, and willing to do almost anything to achieve that goal. One thing I asked you to do last night was to pause, wait, and think about things for at least a short while. You didn't. Can you? HiLo48 (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done nothing but, HiLo. Looking at the article, I'm on my way to calling for an RfC, but i thought I'd stop by here first. Looking at this diff, we've got some slo-mo edit warring going on, and rather than continue that sort of thing, I want to open it up. The statement in question alleges that the HSU union membership called for an inquiry into the finances of the Victorian No. 4 branch, which is supposedly supported by an article in The Age. But if we look at the source, we find this:"HSU Victoria No. 4 branch represents medical scientists, hospital pharmacists and psychologists. The branch's petition of 268 members in June 2009 followed an April call the same year for a full investigation of the national union's financial administration between 2002 and 2007, the period when Mr Thomson was federal secretary. However in a response that stunned Dr Kelly's branch, Fair Work official Terry Nassios said that as the national union did not itself have members, it was only treated as a union branch for the purposes of financial reporting."
 * It's the branch calling for an investigation of the national union, not the other way around! Would anybody like to take a look at it? --Pete (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - related discussion on this article, etc
It might be worth noting that these discussions are taking place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Craig_Thomson_affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Skyring_.28Pete.29_topic_ban For information of interested parties only. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC) PS - the proposed deletion discussion regarding the above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Craig_Thomson_affair One21dot216dot (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC) (previously known as 121.216.230.139)

Carbon tax in Australia
Just wondering if anyone has any views on whether this should be renamed to Carbon pricing in Australia. Sure 'carbon tax' is what it is widely known as, but the price in the legislation isn't a Carbon Tax under the definition of the term - a tax implies that it is paid directly by consumers, the lead of the Carbon tax article talks about the regressive nature of carbon taxation - and I don't think the potential for flow on price increases falls under that definition - it would be like calling the company tax a regressive tax on low income earners because companies paying more tax causes increases in the cost of goods and services which impacts greatest at lower income levels.

The carbon pricing scheme that will exist on July 1, fails the definition of the distinction that a 'carbon tax' makes within the options for pricing carbon, and the fact it's transitional to a full ETS means it's even less accurate after 2015. Views? --GoForMoe (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm in agreement. It's not actually a tax so much as a fixed price per tonne. I think "carbon tax" has kind of caught on as the popular name for it though. Orderinchaos 14:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I also agree; the above points make a lot of sense. Frickeg (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah my concern was that 'Carbon Tax' was such a widely used term, to the point where many seem to view 'carbon price' as being doublespeak to avoid saying the word tax. The article itself uses 'price' almost exclusively outside the lead, but might be worth discussing the distinction in the body and certainly something like 'commonly referred to as the Carbon Tax' in the lead. Other reason I ask here, is I've got no idea about the proper processes for moving it. --GoForMoe (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Australian plebiscite, 1916
It appears to have been extensively expanded, but by a non-experienced contibutor. Does anyone have the knowledge and time to verify the article? Timeshift (talk) 07:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks excellent, for the most part. I've read quite a bit about this era, and while I don't have the time to go through and compare against the sources, at a read through it looks generally correct. There seems to be a few issues with opinion that might not be appropriate for an encyclopedia (though those aspects do stand out where they're an issue), and there's a few contentions that I think are a bit questionable (such as "There was little reporting of it, but the numerous anti-conscription meetings went unreported and Hughes had little opportunity now to address the Labor and working class masses which he had traditionally identified with"). Nonetheless, it's heavily sourced, and for the most part it's still a great article. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Peter Finn
In this obituary, it is claimed that Peter T. Finn (died 4 April 1911) was Attorney-General of Victoria (Australia) for 24 hours sometime before 1877, but he's not on the list and I can't even find a death notice for him on Trove. Can anybody shed any light on this?  Schwede 66  19:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the official record, he had an apparently unnotable parliamentary career of less than 4 months. (Two other documentary sources are listed there.) A death notice in the Argus of Monday 3 April 1911 says "FINN.—On the 1st April at 73 Webb-street Fitzroy, Peter Thomas Finn, barrister and solicitor, late of Meredith, aged 83 years. Cheers. Bjenks (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The short period of Finn's parliamentary term in Victoria (October 1870 – January 1871) gives a manageable window of when this appointment might have been, but checking the Victorian Government Gazette for that period, all I can find is that Archibald Michie seems to have been Attorney-General of Victoria from 9 April 1870 until he resigned on 19 June 1871, with no apparent appointments within that period which covers the whole of Finn's time in the Victorian Parliament. --Canley (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that the N.Z. Poverty Bay Herald obituary is unreliable on a number of details, starting with the wrong date of death and educational qualifications. (The parliament bio states that he migrated to Australia in the 1850s and "matriculated Melbourne University 1857; BA 1858, MA 1874"--no mention of Dublin University or Trinity College.) The claim of his taking "a prominent part in the politics of Victoria" may likewise have originated at the bar of an Kiwi Irish pub. Of more apparent relevance is the revelation that Finn sprang "from a land associated with clever tongues, quick repartee and argumentative astuteness," truth no doubt being handled with some frugality as a matter of custom! Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, everybody, for your help. I've made a start with an article. No doubt it would benefit form an Australian editor familiar with local sources.  Schwede 66  21:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The article looks presentable now, but it lacks Australian content. Can somebody with knowledge of the Victorian Lower House, elections, etc have a look at it, please?  Schwede 66  20:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added some detail about Finn's predecessor and successor (the same person, James Macpherson Grant) in the Legislative Assembly, a date for the Avoca by-election when he was elected, and the date parliament was dissolved before his defeat in 1871. Note the re-member site gives the start date as the day they were sworn in pre-1900, but the date of election after 1900. I have put his term as starting on the date of the by-election for consistency. I also changed the place of death from Meredith to Fitzroy as the references seem to indicate. --Canley (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked it a bit, putting Victoria ahead of NZ (chronologically only :)) and reducing the large number of short sentences beginning "Finn. . ." Also (hope you're not too mad at me) I took out the extraneous detailed reference to two elections which he did not contest. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 04:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Members tables
I've been having a play around with the format for member tables like this, which at the moment are fairly basic. By fiddling around with the US version, I came up with this, which manages to incorporate much more information. I'd very much like feedback and suggestions since I think with this kind of thing we could work, in the long run, towards getting some of these up to featured list status. I've tried to incorporate party changes and resignations into the list without using footnotes, which should help when we want to add citations. Frickeg (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks very impressive, although a lot of work.--Grahame (talk) 02:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Bravo! Bjenks (talk) 02:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

WA questions
The template Cabinet of Western Australia lists all ministers and parliamentary secretaries in the Barnett Ministry. Are all WA ministers and secretaries included in Cabinet? Another question revolves around the status of the ruling parties in WA. According to Coalition (Australia) the Liberals and Nationals in WA are one of several coalition governments in Australia. After the messy conclusion to the last election there was much made of the fact that the Liberals and Nationals were not going to form a coalition, rather a loose alliance. Has this changed since 2008? Hack (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Libs and Nats are not a coalition in WA, so any references to that should be removed. As for the secretaries, they're not in Cabinet but are members of the ministry. Orderinchaos 08:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? I always understood there to be three distinct tiers: Cabinet, outer ministry, and parliamentary secretaries, the first two comprising the ministry. Frickeg (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Three ministers (Harvey, Mischin and Cowper) are included in the extended list of ministers on the parliament website but are not included in the Department of Premier and Cabinet cabinet list. Assuming this isn't an administrative error, why would this be? Hack (talk) 09:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * They've all just been sworn in, so it could be that one list is a week or so out of date. My guess is someone has just gone in, removed Constable and Johnson, and not added the others in. Orderinchaos 10:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In WA there's no concept of "outer ministry", merely an ordering which ranks individuals from most to least senior. Orderinchaos 10:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Legislative Assembly of Queensland
Is the proper name the Queensland Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Assembly of Queensland? Currently the main page and the one for the Speaker are at the latter, with all the members pages at the former. After a brief look around the Parliament website it seems to use them interchangeably. What's the official name? Frickeg (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A quick search of officialdom seems to suggest QLA - most notably the titles of the Hansards, NLA author record and APH. Orderinchaos 10:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sorting this out. I just noticed the same problem on Parliament of Queensland/Queensland Parliament; I'm pretty sure the latter is the correct name. (This, unlike the QLA, seems to be out of step with the rest of the country, but the website seems pretty decisive on the point.) Frickeg (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is the Legislative Assembly of Queensland. For the most part, the various organs of the state simply say "Legislative Assembly", "Parliament" or "Parliament of Queensland". But there is proof. First, the title of Hansard in QLD is "Record of Proceedings", and looking at the first issue of the current Parliament is instructive. A search of its text will, as a matter of fact, not turn up a single reference to "Queensland Legislative Assembly". But does it mention the other? Yes, as a matter of fact it does. In fact, in quoting the commissions summoning Parliament, commissioning members to open Parliament, and commissioning the same people to administer oaths, the phase "Legislative Assembly of Queensland" is used. Links to the Letters Patent themselves are embedded in the PDF linked to above. In addition, the writ of election also uses "Legislative Assembly of Queensland". Those all emanate from the Governor, and by extension the executive, but the legislature uses it to. For instance, one of the statutes to qualify "Legislative Assembly" with the name of the state is the Constitution Amendment Act 1934], which says at section 3 that "The Parliament of Queensland (or, as sometimes called, the Legislature of Queensland), constituted by His Majesty the King and the Legislative Assembly of Queensland in Parliament assembled shall not be..." Others, over a period of 1899 to 1991, do the same. The only reference I could find in statute to "Queensland Legislative Assembly" is section 123D of the Constitution Act 2001, which quotes the term in its definition of the Members' Entitlement Handbook (in fact the quote is from the Handbook's title page). Searching its site, the Assembly itself uses both about equally. Moving to perhaps the worst search, a Google search of "site:qld.gov.au" for each turns up 2,290 for "Queensland Legislative Assembly" and 10,300 for "Legislative Assembly of Queensland". -Rrius (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rrius. This being the case, the members pages will need moving when someone has the time and energy. Frickeg (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to be more than slightly confused within the sources - the Parliament have themselves confirmed to me that their own usage is split. For example their members list says "Members of the Queensland Legislative Assembly" while the Budget papers say "Legislative Assembly of Queensland". Sources outside Queensland tend more consistently to use QLA - such as references to the House in member histories on the APH website, and in at least two grant documents I can find. APH have confirmed to me their style guide says QLA. Orderinchaos 02:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree completely that QLA is more common outside Parliament. There is certainly no reason to put APH above the rest of the world when looking to what is more common. The fact is that most people call it Parliament or the Legislative Assembly. We can't just say "Legislative Assembly", and disambiguation for legislatures uniformly requires putting the name of the jurisdiction in naturally, rather than parenthetically. Since both are commonly used, the version that makes sense is the one that used formally. Here that would be the one that is used in formal proclamations and statutes, and used more often in government usage. -Rrius (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Knighthoods redux
In the past when we've discussed knighthoods and damehoods and such like in member lists I've usually come out against it, but with the work I've been doing on members lately I'm reconsidering. Per my reading of the rather confusing WP:HONORIFIC, I'd suggest we include the knight/damehoods (and these only) in these lists, provided they were knights while serving as members/ministers/whatever. If they were knighted at some time during their term, we can just use brackets, i.e. (Sir) Edmund Barton. Another reason is simple common usage - after they were knighted these people were very rarely referred to without the Sir or Dame. Thoughts? Frickeg (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this is very sensible. As long as it reflects what they were at the time the member list was current for, then it should be OK. Orderinchaos 15:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Results table coding
With the results table for Melbourne state by-election, 2012, the Australian Christians haven't been added yet. I rarely do these, I can't even find current parties in Template:Election box candidate AU party, but i'm probably doing it wrong. Can someone who knows how to do it fix it? Thanks! Timeshift (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

By-election candidates names in italics
Can someone advise why candidate names in 2012 by-election articles are published in italics? This seems contrary to MOS:ITALIC. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 04:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea when this crept in, but I agree that it's completely pointless. I suspect it might be a holdover from the days when they were given in a list rather than a table; the party names were italicised in that instance. Either way it adds nothing and might as well go. Frickeg (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Request
Could someone with some time have a look at recent edits by this user? I'm seeing some dubious grammar and odd changes, but don't have time to delve into the complexities right now. Frickeg (talk) 06:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Any particular edits that concerned you? I took a quick glance and there seems to be a lot of references being added. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, a second opinion was part of why I asked. But I was mainly concerned with this kind of thing, and mainly wondering if anyone could do a check through to see if it was a pattern. Having had the time to have a closer look myself, I'm also seeing a majority of useful edits. Frickeg (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I looked at Peter Costello and saw a few concerning but well-meaning edits, and fixed them. Orderinchaos 18:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Electorate result and Template:Electorate result summary
Template:Electorate result and Template:Electorate result summary have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the templates' entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Endorsed/unendorsed candidates
Input would be appreciated at the discussion here, which will also impact several other pages. Frickeg (talk) 03:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please? I promise it's easy! (The two of us there have had a very civil discussion, but ultimately have fundamentally opposing positions.) Frickeg (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Changes in party status pre-elections - holds or gains?
Given past discussions on the matter of whether, say, Katter's Australian Party gained Dalrymple or held it at the last Queensland election, Antony Green's discussion of similar problems with the NT election here may be of interest. Frickeg (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Polling history for the 2015 NSW election
Input is sought on the discussion at Talk:New South Wales state election, 2015. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 11:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

PM/Premier/Chief Minister election article mass change needed
Is it possible to run a bot to add "| posttitle = Resulting Prime Minister/Premier/Chief Minister" to every Australian election article infobox? One of the many 2010 fed election debates had agreed to say resulting rather than elected in the infobox. Only MPs are elected. Timeshift (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the sentiment for the reasons given, but is the word "Resulting" correct? The prime minister is not produced by the election - the balance of parliament is (and as we've seen in various states and federally where minority government was the result, even the government was a product of the negotiations, not the election.) An alternative word that does not have this implicit logic would work better, but I'm not sure quite what that would be - "new" wouldn't make much sense for a re-elected one, for example. Orderinchaos 11:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My thought is that if the prior one says "Prime Minister (etc) before election", then the opposite could be "Prime Minister (etc) after election"? Timeshift (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Incumbent" makes sense for the first one, others (asked friends on FB :P ) have suggested "-designate" for after. Orderinchaos 12:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Senate result boxes
Input would be appreciated here. Frickeg (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Full election results pages
I was just wondering what is the opinion on the creation of full election results pages for each Australian state and federal election? I've been thinking about the task ahead for the state election project, and concluded that thousands of new pages will need to be created for former electorates and their results. So to make things go along a bit faster, I was thinking that there could be 1 page per election with the results tables for all seats at that time. Then when that's finished, work on electorates and their results can proceed.

A further advantage of this would be the compilation of all results in that particular election without having to browse through each individual seat's page. I know that a disadvantage would be the massive size of these pages though. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 02:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It'd certainly be a useful reference. If they were split up by state, with an article for each state at each election, they should be a manageable size. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 13:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That sounds reasonable - basically what we'd be creating would be identical to the front (summary) pages of the results booklets that the AEC used to publish between 1984 and 1993, except formatted for Wiki. The AEC CDs have something similar for 1993-2001 as Excel spreadsheets (if whoever is working on this doesn't have them, just phone the AEC with your home address and they post them for free), while 2004-2010 are doable from the AEC website. The Drover's Wife's suggestion is a useful addition. Orderinchaos 17:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, having 1 article per state sounds good. I've also thought that instead of posting the full sized election boxes, we could make some sort of compact design for election boxes like they have with UK elections here: []. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * While I'm thoroughly supportive of the general proposal, I cordially despise the election boxes the UK has been using, and I wouldn't like to see them used here. I find them pretty unsightly, and I'm not sure it would actually save much space. Are they equipped for 2PP anyway? Frickeg (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No, the UK election boxes aren't equipped for 2PP after all, so that's that option out. I might get to work on putting up a page for the results for the NT election using the normal boxes and see how that goes. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've completed the page here: Results for the Northern Territory 2012 General Election by Electoral Division. Are there any suggestions for improvements on its format? Kirsdarke01 (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That looks excellent. Not sure about the name, though, although as Timeshift said over on the Senate page, it's difficult to find a good one. I'd suggest we settle on a format before creating too many of these. Otherwise, it looks great. As an aside, I don't suppose there's a way to align the election boxes to the right? It might be nice to be able to have summaries of the events of each race alongside them. Frickeg (talk) 01:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Like Frickeg, I think that looks great. I also think Frickeg's idea is excellent - alternatively, having a subheading for each electorate, and a paragraph under that, might serve the same effect. If we're splitting by state, it might be better to have subheadings for electorates rather than subheadings for letters, seeing as there isn't going to be more than two or three under most letters (if any at all). I also wonder if something like Results of the Northern Territory general election, 2012 or Full results of the Northern Territory general election, 2012 might be better titles to maintain consistency. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, another name should do, I'm not really happy with it as it is either. The full results option looks good. As for the aligning of the election boxes to the right, I'm not entirely sure how to do that. I think it has something to do with floating the tables. I'll do some experimenting to see if it can be done. Finally, having the electorate names as subheadings should work better. On another matter, should the results for NSW, Victorian and Queensland state elections be split up into separate articles as well, since there's about 90 seats to work with in those? Kirsdarke01 (talk) 04:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's see how big they turn out first. I suspect they'll be a bit huge, but for a lot of them (especially early elections), there won't be many candidates in each electorate, so that will bring down the size. NSW in particular will probably need splitting, and if it does I'd suggest using whichever title is chosen with (A-M) and (N-Z) after it. Frickeg (talk) 04:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I moved Kirsdarke01's example page to Results of the Northern Territory general election, 2012, and changed the subheadings to the electorate names - I think it looks better for it. I also think (especially now that I look at it) that it would really add to our coverage to add that electorate-by-electorate information on specific races into these articles - particularly in places like the NT where local factors play a huge role. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If we want to align them to the right, Template:Align looks like the way to go. I remember some vague discussions about greater coverage of individual electorate results a while ago, and this could be a great way to deal with them. It could also get some information about non-notable candidates who are still relevant to a certain election; that information has nowhere to go currently. Frickeg (talk) 08:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tried out a quick summary of Arafura over on the NT page. The format could do with some tweaking, but it's a bare bones version and could easily be expanded. How does it look - the only thing I'm worried about is that these will inevitably end up covering the campaign rather than the results per se, but I'm not sure if that necessitates a name change. Frickeg (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that looks terrific. It wouldn't want to get much longer (I think that's a pretty good length to cap it at), but it provides useful explanation for the results - explaining why it was an open seat, who the candidates were, and anything specifically interesting about the result. I can see this being easy fodder for a whole bunch of fantastic featured lists. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect this will depend a lot on the seat at hand. For the 2010 federal election, for example, you could write an awful lot about, say, Denison, and significantly less about some of the super-safe seats like Maranoa or Gorton. I do think that three paragraphs is a good basic skeleton, though - one on the sitting member and any retirement issues, one on the campaign and major candidates, and one on the results themselves. I might look at maintaining a set of these for each of the next elections in my userspace for everyone to build these in real time, since it'll be a lot easier to keep track of things as they happen rather than trawling through a bunch of links after the event. Frickeg (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks excellent now. And while yes, electorate descriptions that big might be problematic if applied to all seats, on the other hand, it's a great way to provide an overview on key seats in an election. And I agree with the name of the page and I think the electorate names as subheadings works decently as well, the means to navigate easily around big pages is a necessity. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Uh, can we keep the discussion at one place? Namely Talk:Australian 2010 election upper house results? Timeshift (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion there refers to the Senate election results tables. I'm proposing a different matter, that all federal and state elections get their own full results pages. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I had a go at making a results page for the Queensland election, but the system got cranky with me after about 75 election boxes, saying there was too many expensive parser function calls. It appears that most NSW, Queensland and Victorian results pages will need to be split after all. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 07:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've finished the results for Queensland in 2 pages, here Results of the Queensland state election, 2012 (A-L) and here Results of the Queensland state election, 2012 (M-Z). Kirsdarke01 (talk) 07:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice. If I may make a formatting suggestion, when these are fully expanded I expect the full results tables should be able to be incorporated into the lead, somewhat in lieu of an infobox. That way the lead can summarise the results of the election as a whole, with the statewide data there too. Frickeg (talk) 09:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, so something like this? I've attempted to align the table to the right, but that messed up the whole page, unfortunately. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 10:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That looks pretty good, but I think that you should include a specific link to the AEC page for each division so that people can easily verify the information if they so wish (and this will help to discourage random IP editors from fiddling with the figures!). Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree about the referencing, but I feel like it looks a little bit awkward with it in the place of a lede: I thought it worked much better as the first item below the TOC, with a brief text lede. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I was thinking along the lines of having it aligned to the right, with the lead text (several paragraphs about the overall result of the election) alongside, for when/if we ever get any of these to FL stage. Frickeg (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've finally aligned it to the right now using the style: "float, right" function for tables. It does modify the table a little (the borders disappear and it appears larger), but at least we know it can be done. Also, referencing would be okay for pages on the electoral commission websites, but for older elections in the 1990's and earlier, it might not be viable due to all of the results coming from 1 source (Antony Green's publications, Colin Hughes's books, etc). Kirsdarke01 (talk) 05:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it looks good now with the table alongside the TOC. Still probably a good idea to have clear referencing with the older elections - might take longer, but still makes it easier to check if someone's playing silly buggers. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay. I've made one more trial page, this time for a Federal election. Here it is: Results for the Australian federal election, 2010 (New South Wales) Kirsdarke01 (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks great. (Doesn't need to be a space before the citations, though.) On a similar note, we're happily ending up with quite a suite of election-specific pages - it's probably worth whipping up some individual navigation boxes for each election at some stage. Frickeg (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've now finished all of the state results pages for the 2010 election and added the links to the main full results page. And yes, navigation boxes like that would really be good. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 05:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Victorian local government
I've been trying to update the at times badly out of date Victorian LGA articles following the local elections, following the excellent work done by Rangasyd in New South Wales. I've run into trouble handling the parties, however. Unlike in NSW, the electoral commission doesn't seem to recognise parties or groupings (apart from, strangely, the City of Melbourne).

This causes problems anywhere there's a Green councillor (who are all officially endorsed, even if it's only mentioned in their candidate statement in some places), and in others where there seems to be an official Labor slate in an LGA where tickets aren't on the ballot (i.e. the City of Yarra). I'm reluctant to not make any attempt at a partisan breakdown, because I think it's a really useful aspect to the NSW articles, but I'm a bit stuck. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a very difficult question, and I believe NSW is unique (apart from Brisbane, of course) in helpfully having official endorsements for council candidates. My first thought was to do a significantly less formal-looking version of NSW, perhaps largely in prose ("The council is controlled by x councillors who are members of the Labor Party"). However it's also definitely worth looking at the individual council websites once the new councillors are sworn in. I was looking at Yarra, to use your example, and the political parties are mentioned in the biographies (although you have to dig through the prose, unfortunately). This is clearly different from, say, the NSW areas where no parties are endorsed and everyone is identified as "Independent councillors" even if they're known members of whichever party. If there are lots of councils like Yarra a simple NSW version might be possible. However this will all depend very much on the varying quality of the council websites. Media might help as well - references to people as "Labor councillor" or "Independent councillor" etc. could help us decide. I think ultimately as long as it's all carefully sourced a NSW-style situation should work in many of the councils. Frickeg (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Before seeing your post, I updated two Victorian councils today (City of Yarra and City of Greater Dandenong). I live in Yarra, and I'm pretty sure the HTV cards at the booths stated the parties of the candidates (could have just been similar branding, I didn't keep a copy unfortunately). Yarra Council did issue a press release which clearly stated the parties of the elected councillors here. As Frickeg says, I think it's just a matter of piecing together council material or local media such as the Leader papers. That said, Victorian council elections are notoriously opaque—councils which are voted in on postals are required to give an extremely brief written statement to constituents, but councils with polling booths do not, so it can be difficult to work out the allegiances and motivations of the candidates even if one is politically-engaged like me and tried to seek out this information. There is an article in The Age about council elections and the party system, and the lack of information. --Canley (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That seems like a reasonable approach to me in the circumstances. Anyone opposed to taking a piecemeal approach like this? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As an aside: could The Age really not find a more up-to-date image of how-to-vote cards than one that appears to be from the 2001 Aston by-election? Frickeg (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's pretty hilarious. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the positive feedback re NSW local government areas. Given that it would appear that the Victorian Electoral Commission does not choose to advise party details on their website showing results, it would be hard to complete with accurate details, unless references are sourced elsewhere. I have just completed one Victorian LGA, the Shire of Indigo, updating results from Saturday's election. This page provides candidate information including party disclosure, but only Jenny O'Connor chose to disclose that she was endorsed by The Greens. The others are, I assume, all unaligned candidates. Rangasyd (talk) 09:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

2CP/2PP
Just pointing out a discussion here should anyone be interested. Frickeg (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Concern about sources
Hi auspol folks!

Thought I'd raise this here first to see if anyone else had any thoughts about how it should be handled given the issue will likely get a lot more coverage in the near future. I'll not mention any specific articles or people (as much as possible) for the benefits of general neutrality (though given my comments elsewhere you could work it out fairly quickly without too much effort)...

There is currently an investigation under way into the conduct of a number of former and current Australian politicians. The investigation itself is based on the investigative journalism of a particular journalist and a range of other sources of information that have subsequently been uncovered by the investigative authority in question (this has been made clear during investigative hearings, the transcripts of which are publicly available).

The journalist in question has a long history of "investigating" the individuals involved and a long history of "reporting" the "results" of investigations. The reports haven't always been particularly accurate and I understand the journalist was sued (for defamation) by the individuals involved in the past and lost. Badly. The journalist's "investigations" of those individuals have become more fervent since.

This week, the questionable link between the journalist and the official investigation was highlighted (again, public transcripts) and the investigation was criticised for taking the journalist's "information" and launching an investigation without an evidential "killer blow" (albeit in a rival paper, so...) - just speculation and rumours from the journalist rather than proof of misconduct.

The journalist in question continues to "cover" the investigation. This is where I think it becomes a problem for us. The journalist's articles (historical and ones relating to this investigation) are still used extensively as sources for particular BLPs. There is at least one BLP where the journalist's articles represent about 50% of the sources. Most of them are clearly unfavourable (I think the article for which the journalist was originally sued is actually still being cited here which is a concern in itself given it was effectively found to be an unreliable source by a court).

The investigation in question is still ongoing but the journalist in question continues to cover the story in a manner that suggests their original investigative journalism was justified and vindicated and the politicians in question are clearly guilty.

It is not our place to make judgements about whether a particular journalist is biased or has a vendetta but we do have to make a judgement call about whether sources are reliable or not and the author of a source is clearly an element in that judgement call. Blindly referencing articles by this particular journalist and using them as sources for significant portions of particular BLPs would be, I think, particularly concerning. But I'm not going to unilaterally remove all such references from all such BLPs without some discussion first. Nor am I going to unilaterally declare all material from the journalist in question to be inherently "unreliable". I would like to get some thoughts from everyone else.

I've tried to keep my summary free of identifying material so we can discuss these issues in a conceptual sense. I'm happy to fill in the blanks for editors if there is consensus that leaving details out means discussion is impossible.

Cheers, Stalwart 111  01:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC).


 * I'm not sure this is something that can be discussed in the abstract if the articles have been published in reputable sources. I think we need to discuss the specifics. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Drover's Wife. Also, make sure you read WP:BLP before posting any details; if you have knowledge which isn't publicly available, you could end up blocked (or worse) if you publish any allegations about an individual not supported by published reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 09:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys - always appreciate good advice. To be clear - I have no "inside information" or anything beyond what is in the public domain. It was in the paper today and my reading the story and some associated stuff prompted this query. This essentially boils down to an otherwise reliable source having its integrity questioned (with regard to one particular journalist and a particular group of BLPs) by another media outlet and in an investigative hearing, the details of which are public knowledge. My query is whether we should take those integrity concerns into account when citing those sources for those articles. And if so, how should it be handled. I have since noticed the concerns have been raised (to some extent) here. Stalwart 111  09:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Unless you provide specifics of this debate in the media, it really isn't possible for other editors to give you a useful response. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Entirely fair enough. I'll try to collate some specifics and come back. Would obviously be a sensitive one so I'm in no rush to move on anything without advice. Cheers, Stalwart 111  11:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, so the original conflict seems to stem from a series of articles run in 2002. The journalist in question in fact won a Walkley for the series. Later, the subject of those articles sued the Sydney Morning Herald and won (coverage here and here). The Walkley people later said they wouldn't have given the award had they known the stories were inaccurate (coverage here and here). The substance of a more recent series of articles (same journalist, same subject, sample here) was referred to the ICAC who have since launched an investigation. But the ICAC has since been criticised (sample here) for launching an investigation based on the reports without have an evidential "killer blow". The relationship between the investigators and the journalist was called into question (I won't link to the transcripts) during the hearings. Other papers (reliable sources) have not out-and-out said "x is a poor journalist" or "x is in conflict with y again" and to draw those conclusions would be entirely unfair, a BLP violation here and obviously WP:OR (though this profile lists y as a "foe" of x). Again, I'm not suggesting that we should go through and strike every article by x about y. I'm just not sure we can faithfully and unquestioningly cite the journalist as a "reliable source" on the subjects in question without somehow qualifying it. I suppose acknowledging the history on respective talk pages is a good start (this has now happened for two of the articles). As above, I'm not going to undertake unilateral action without some advice and I accept there may not be a simple answer or simple advice to give.
 * The answer (I suspect) might be that we can't (or shouldn't) suggest a source is unreliable until we have a second source saying so. But I wonder if a previous court ruling and Walkley related commentary counts as enough evidence that the journalist (at least in relation to this subject) has a "poor reputation for checking the facts" (per WP:RS). Is that enough for a "reputation" to be called into question? And who makes that judgement? Us as editors, or do we wait for a secondary source to plainly and unambiguously say so?
 * At the end of the day it's not a big enough problem that it will "break" WP and as I said, I stumbled onto it after reading a particular article (having done some NPOV work on one of the BLPs in question). I'm just interested in how these sorts of things might have been handled in the past. Thanks for reading all my drivel and for making comments as you see fit. Stalwart 111  01:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There will always be questions about the reliability of sources (like witnesses), and whether they corroborate each other. Wikipedia is chock-full of tiresome uncorroborated 'citations', eg, about entertainers and sportspersons. Hopefully, most will be balanced or deleted in the fullness of time. It is both a strength and a weakness of WP that 'verifiability' often results in selective hunting for quotes. However, there is a big difference between a journalistic source (endorsed by a supposedly reputable large organisation) and say, an individual website op-ed. Moreover I understand, at least in Australian law, the truth is not a decisive defence in a defamation action. Truth and 'public interest' are criteria adopted by good newspapers but not necessarily by judges considering the law of defamation. That may have influenced the Walkley judges in standing by their choice.  Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You may be right (I'm not a lawyer) but I'm fairly sure defamation law has changed a number of times since so that probably muddies the waters anyway. I think the commentary from the Walkley people was basically, we've given it now so we're not taking it back, but had we know in advance, we might not have given it in the first place. But all that is probably irrelevant anyway - I note the journalist in question was awarded two Walkleys last week (one individual, one joint), so obviously the Walkley people have subsequently decided they trust her work (and I can only imagine they would have had to be very sure this time around). Given the coverage of the journalist in question and the (now) three awards (the highest honour for a journalist in Australia), I'm giving some thought to creating an article for the journalist in her own right. Thoughts anyone? Stalwart 111  01:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Katter's Australian Party
Just bringing to attention that this article appears to be about a year out of date, I did my best to fix it but there's a lot of mixed tense and also info which is now trivial in context of them since having contested a state election. A third MP, Ray Hopper, is reported by the Courier Mail newspaper to be switching across and there may be more so the article may be more watched soon. Thanks and keep up the good work 124.169.167.84 (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

National Action
Note: Articles for deletion/National Action (Australia). Article definitely needs work.--Grahame (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Templates, by-elections and casual vacancies
I'm currently working on List of Tasmanian House of Assembly casual vacancies, and I was thinking it'd be really handy to have a template tying together all of our "List of X by-elections" and "List of X casual vacancies" articles. Does someone who's better at templates than me feel like having a crack at creating one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Drover's Wife (talk • contribs) 12:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Supplementary elections
I've been doing a lot of work on the List of Victorian state by-elections article, which was pretty dismal up until a couple of days ago, but I've come across the issue of what to do with supplementary elections (which usually get referred to as "by-elections"). This most notably comes up in Victoria in the 1999 supplementary election for Frankston East, which resulted in the election of the Bracks government. How should articles on supplementary elections be titled? Should they go in the by-election lists? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Great job, I have also been working on this list (off-line) and have compiled a list I can check this one against and which goes back a bit further so I'll add a few more entries. I did include the Frankston East supplementary election in my list for completeness, but had noted that I was not intending to include it in the list of by-elections, but as a section in the 1999 Victorian election article—my reasoning was that it was supplementary to the 1999 election, and the 54th parliament had not yet been opened (3 November 1999) when the supplementary election was held (16 October). --Canley (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry to duplicate the work, and thanks for catching those errors and adding those few earlier ones. I think that argument makes sense for Frankston East - I'll remove it. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, don't apologise, I'm thrilled someone else is working on the topic and did all the wikifying of the table which I was dreading. The other issue to work out is where a by-election was called or writ issued, but did not take place either due to one candidate elected unopposed (e.g. Rod Hulls in Niddrie 1996, Barry Jones in Melbourne 1972, Harry Jenkins Sr in Reservoir 1969) or due to proximity of a general election (Pascoe Vale 1996, Ivanhoe 2010). Once again, I don't know if I would include them in the main list, but they may be worth mentioning in other articles or perhaps as notes or supplementary lists. --Canley (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I caught a few of those in going through that weren't already marked in the member lists. I think it's worth mentioning at least the former (but noting that they were unopposed) - I think this is what at least one of the others does. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Dunno if User:Orderinchaos/Vic BEs will be of any use here, but it's there anyway :) Orderinchaos 10:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this! I'll have to go about incorporating it at some point. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Electorates and Members in Qld
I have been planning a systematic attack on filling in all the missing Qld state electoral districts and then, after that, their members (basic details, not complete bios). I have already started this and completed an initial set of electorates. I am now being told that I must seek permission of this group to use precise dates in relation to member's representation of the electorate (I cannot see where this is documented incidentally). Frankly I see no benefit whatsoever in using only years. I can understand that people may have done that in other states because that was all the information available to them in their source material or whatever reason. However, I have precise dates authoritatively sourced from the Qld Parliament. With precise dates, a reader only interested in the year can trivially determine that information, but the reverse is not true. Without precise dates, it is not easy to understand what is happening with by-elections (which sometimes occur twice in one year -- apparently I am not allowed to use the word "by-election" either -- please explain), the concurrent membership of the multi-seat electorates that Qld had in the 1800s, and it does not provide anyone interested in using resources like newspapers to do further study of that election or by-election as you need precise dates to work with newspaper microfilms (trawling through a year's worth of newspapers to find what you are looking for is a ridiculous waste of effort when precise dates can be made readily available). I note that these Qld electoral districts have redlinked for years, so I would hope this group will wish to help rather than hinder in getting something done about them. 01:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't have a problem with listing full dates in the members lists in electorate/constituency articles, as long as they are consistent and verifiable (as you say, if this information is provided for all electorates by the Queensland Parliament website or similar, that should cover those issues). There are several other issues to consider however, and I think this is more the reason that you were referred here to discuss the matter rather than needing "permission" to list dates or refer to by-elections:
 * The definition of the dates of a parliamentary term is not consistent, and can differ between states/parliaments/Wikipedia editors. Some say the term begins on the date of election, some say it's the first sitting of parliament or "swearing-in". Some say it ends at the dissolution of parliament/prorogation of the house, others go up to the election where the member was defeated or resigned/retired. The Victorian MP database "Re-member" uses the election date for post-1900 MPs and the first parliamentary sitting for pre-1900 MPs. Where I have included full dates for parliamentary terms (usually in infoboxes in biographical articles) I have used date of election to dissolution of last parliament (or date of resignation/death in those cases), and I think many other editors use the same definition—if the QPH definition differs, then a decision needs to be made about whether to follow the same definition as other Wikipedia articles or to consistently use the Qld definition but list that definition in the article.
 * I'm not too keen on the date format you have used in the articles I've looked at (e.g. "25.01.1962"). Have a look at MOS:NUM for the preferred styling for dates—I would recommend spelling out the month in full or at least abbreviating to three letters which is OK for tables and lists requiring some conciseness. I suspect the conciseness is one of the reasons why year ranges have been used in the past, with the full dates of the term or dates of election included in the bio article or the Members List by term (e.g. Members of the Queensland Legislative Assembly, 2009–2012)—however, granted, these lists are lacking/missing particularly for older lists.
 * Regarding the use of the term "by-election", the term is very widely-used in Australian political articles and I couldn't see any mention on your talk page discussion of being "not allowed" to use the term, so I'm not sure where you got that impression.
 * --Canley (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I am in email contact with folks at the Queensland Parliament, so I should be able to get clarification on what the dates represent and include that in the articles. Actually I am not keen on the date format either, I'd prefer 25 January 1962 as it avoids the confusion between DDMMYY and MMDDYY (favoured by the Yanks), but I am told that there is a tool that will allow me to do a series of changes across a set of pages which would allow me to fix the lot very easily. Because of my disability, I like to use tools as it allows me to be more productive in the limited keyboard use I am allowed each day. But I don't yet know what this tool is; any advice here? As for "by-election", it was deleted from one of my articles without explanation; hence my question. Kerry (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I used to have the MOSNUM dates script installed in my vector.js skin, but it stopped working for me so I haven't used it for a while. If you can get it working, it it very useful for bulk formatting dates in the format of your choice. Hope you can get it working, I'll give it another try myself. --Canley (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I just managed to successfully install the script in my vector.js skin and ran it on Electoral district of Stanley – it did work for the most part, however it ignored the dates where the day and month were ambiguous (e.g. "08.09.1963"). However it should do the bulk of the work which should save you a lot of keyboard time! --Canley (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again I want to express appreciation for the work Kerry has been doing in this under-resourced area. With regards to the dates - I wonder if it might not be better to take after the British model, something along these lines:


 * This seems to me a bit more aesthetically pleasing than the method we have been using, and it also gets rid of those damn dashes that just take up endless amounts of bother. The Brits tend to list each re-election date too, although I'm not sure we need to do that. I'm not sure what the problem with using "by-election" is - I think just the word "by" after a date should be enough, though (we don't want to bloat these tables unnecessarily).


 * I also want to point out that this will be a lot of work to implement. If we do adopt something like this it needs to be across the board, and there are a lot of pages that would need updating. Thus I'm not sure if there's necessarily enough of a reason to embark on such a huge task - the exact date information is typically included in the infobox on the member's page. Frickeg (talk) 09:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I'm afraid I haaaate the option Frickeg just noted. I think it's about the most unclear way of depicting this information, and I've always been really glad we didn't use it. (Like, I actually hate this so much I would probably knock off creating/working on affected articles.) I don't particularly care either way about the dates issue, though I share Canley's concern about differing definitions of dates, and note that Kerry being in touch with the Qld Parliament won't cut it as far as reliable sourcing goes. I'm also far more concerned about Kerry's habit of adding consistently incorrect redlinks than I am about his preferences about dates. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know, I've always thought it was actually uite clear, and it certainly makes things much, much clearer when dealing with by-elections. It also keeps things fairly symmetrical; having full dates in the current column quickly has the whole thing horribly asymmetrical. I wouldn't push for it without full dates, though; to be quite honest I've always been quite satisfied with the way we do it right now; the full dates, I feel, are really best included in the articles on the individuals in question. Frickeg (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * My brain just finds it really hard to follow when the whole term isn't given. It also introduces inaccuracies where there's a substantial break between the end of a member's term and the election of a replacement. I have no opinions about full dates or otherwise besides what Canley said, which I don't think has been adequately addressed and needs to be if we take that course. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As I've said below, I take your point on this; I hadn't considered that aspect. I still like some parts of the above but concede it might be impractical for our purposes. Frickeg (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think a single date is sufficient; you do need the range. Representations aren't always "back-to-back", due to electoral districts being abolished and then resurrected. Also I think representation ends at death but the replacement via by-elections wouldn't start until later so there are gaps too. Kerry (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I take your point about the range. But the more I think about this, the more I think that this isn't the place for this information. I agree absolutely that it needs to be included somewhere, but with by-elections, etc., the dates should show up in the prose. I know a lot of the prose doesn't exist yet, but that's where it should be. These member lists are meant to be at-a-glance summaries. Personally I find it much easier to gauge the pertinent information from a simple (19xx-19xx) range rather than having to sift through various months and days. I just feel there are other, better places for this information. (The starting dates should, in any case, be linked, which should direct to a page on either the general election or the by-election in question, where the date will be listed prominently.)


 * Regarding Canley's point about parliamentary dates, which I'm only just having time to consider properly: I know that the federal parliament is actually quite consistent in this. It starts with the date of election (not parliament); for retiring members, it concludes on the last sitting day of the previous parliament; and for defeated members, it concludes on the day of the election. I wasn't aware there were inconsistencies with the state parliaments, but I've always thought this method eminently sensible as a basic standard. Having said that, where this is explicitly contradicted in the sources exceptions will obviously have to be made. Frickeg (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This makes sense to me. Of course, if we take this road, we also need to quite a bit of work in a) making sure the elections and by-elections are linked, and b) that the actual dates are in the members' articles. Would this resolve your concerns at all, Kerry? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * err, can someone summarise what the proposal actually is. It is not clear to me from the above. Kerry (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Electorate articles would have years only, but unlike at present, would be reliably linked to every election and by-election, which would reliably provide dates. (Thus allowing for easy access to full dates and a clear and brief member list.) Neither of the latter are true at the moment, but I see your points and feel that this could address those issues, and if you were on board with that I'd be more than happy to pitch in to get elections and by-elections linked and make sure the correct dates were in every election/by-election article. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't see the benefit to the reader here. If a person comes to an electoral district article, shouldn't they expect to find the key dates for the history of that electorate right in front of them and not hidden off on other linked pages? How would the reader know that linked to anchor text "1910" would be an article about a general election and click to follow? Surely they would most like think it would link to the usual year page 1910 unless the anchor text cued them to think otherwise e.g. Queensland general election of 1910 or Musgrave by-election of 1910. Also while a representative commences their representation with an election, they don't always end it that way, as resignation and death can end a period of representation. Where would the end years be linked in those circumstances? For a long-lived electorate, we would force the reader to click-through to a large number of other articles so they might manually compile a table which could have been more simply provided in the electorate article in the first place? I feel this proposal seems to be more about preserving a stylistic approach in the interests of editors than providing substantive information in the interests of readers. Kerry (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There's such a thing as too much information. In this case, the point being made is that, to the general reader, it is much clearer to simply read 1965-1973 (or whatever) than 22 January 1965 - 14 June 1973. A general reader, reading said article, probably will not want any more information than that. For more interested parties, the information will be merely a click away. As for links, well, we have to assume some intelligence on the part of our readers. Most of them, I assume, are capable of holding a cursor over a link and seeing the page it will send them to. The point about there sometimes being a gap is true, but incredibly trivial and meaningless in practice. The main point is that everyone agrees the information should be available, just not in the place you're suggesting. Frickeg (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Category
This WikiProject should not be in Category:Politics of Australia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Electoral district of Butler
This should be moved back to Electoral district of Mindarie and a new Electoral district of Butler should be created.--Grahame (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just moved it back to Mindarie, with Butler as a redirect for now. More broadly - with all other states, we've consistently had new articles for each new name. WA is the only holdout, which I kind of get since they have redistributions prior to every election and some seats change name every term. With that in mind, should the similar recent move from Electoral district of North West to Electoral district of North West Central be retained? Frickeg (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw and thought about reversing the same one. I think the NW one is slightly different - it should have a permanent name of North West and stick with whatever naming fad the WAEC have decided on this year :) We had North West Coastal, then North West, then North West Central which are all basically the same locale +/- a shire or two. It makes it a bit hard for people to follow if they're having to jump between different articles for very similar names. Orderinchaos 16:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Article titles for legislative bodies
I think we should have some consistency across the various articles about state, territory and commonwealth legislatures. I don't think "House of Representatives (Australia)" and "Senate (Australia)" are very useful, since they would not be the most likely search term. Personally I preferred "Australian House of Representatives" and I find the argument about 'official' titles unconvincing. At any rate, there is also inconsistency with "New South Wales Legislative Assembly" and "Legislative Assembly of Queensland". Can we get one format across these articles? My preferred format would be "Adjective Name", omitting words in parentheses or "of"s. Slac speak up! 23:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * As I recall, the move to House of Representatives (Australia) was done to conform to the other national bodies shown at House of Representatives. But even there, while the majority are indeed House of Representatives (country), we still have:
 * House of Representatives of Belarus
 * House of Representatives of the Philippines
 * House of Representatives of Puerto Rico and
 * United States House of Representatives.
 * So, there’s definitely room for individual formats. I always preferred Australian House of Representatives and Australian Senate. I support your call for all the other bodies to be like South Australian House of Assembly.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  23:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with you both. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I also support this. Orderinchaos 03:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thoroughly, definitely agree. I recall being fairly unconvinced by the arguments put forward for the inconsistencies. In any case all the member lists and such like are still at Members of the Australian Senate, Members of the Australian House of Reps, Members of the Queensland LA, etc. Frickeg (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Now the most recent House and Senate lists have been moved to "Members of the House of Representatives of Australia", etc. It seems that the consensus here is pretty definite. Any objections to them all being moved back to their original names (at "Australian Senate", "Australian House of Representatives", etc.). Frickeg (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Please do. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Frickeg (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

NT Chief Minister changes premature?
A whole host of articles have been changed to show Adam Giles as Chief Minister of the NT. Does the NT follow the state procedure where the premiers only take office when sworn in? Hack (talk) 08:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. In his brief press conference, he referred to himself and Tollner as (Deputy) Chief Minister-elect.  Terry Mills is still Chief Minister till he hands his commission in when he returns, and Giles & co will be sworn in tomorrow Thursday 14 March.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  08:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Haven't seen it written elsewhere but NT News on Facebook reported that Willem Westra van Holthe was the Acting Chief Minister until Mills returns. Hack (talk) 08:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The ABC says that Giles will be sworn in tomorrow: . This happens everytime there's a leadership change, change of government or ministerial reshuffle. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Infobox
What infobox are we supposed to be using in party articles? Infobox Australian political party is used in 47 articles, but Infobox political party is used in others. One or the other should be used. Interestingly, position, which is used in many Australian articles, is regarded to be a deprecated parameter in. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I thoroughly agree with the deprecation of position, which only leads to confusion. I suspect this could be merged fairly easily into the general template, since the links at the bottom of the Australian template are the only thing really distinguishing them and they're far from essential for an infobox. Frickeg (talk) 07:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Federal Ministries
In the course of working on a couple of the older PMs' pages, I've noted something curious about the pages on the ministries - specifically I cannot find verification for their demarcation in the older cases. I think there was some questionable research done/assumptions made some time ago and it needs to be corrected. My concern is my current project on Stanley Bruce, who is listed as having a first, second and third ministry; but I can't find any source for that, and the Australian Parliamentary Handbook which those pages cite actually states there was just one during Bruce's term. The dates picked for those seem to coincide with elections, which is logical assumption but actually doesn't require the formation of a new ministry. I considered proposing a merger between the three pages for one Bruce ministry page, but then realized the problem is replicated over several of the PMs. I'd like to correct this and am willing to do the work to update to actual listings, but there's a lot of merging/renaming work to be done and I thought that should be preceded by a general discussion and I'd like input on how to proceed from the group. Unus Multorum (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Having worked on these lists in the past, and discussed similar issues on this page, I can tell you, yes, the protocol being used here is to end a ministry list coinciding with a federal election (or other change of Prime Minister, e.g. Rudd–Gillard), technically upon resignation of the previous ministers and swearing in of the new ones. You've done the right thing bringing it here for discussion and clarification of the consensus, but I would disagree that is is definitely "a problem" that "needs fixing". I would be asking why the Australian Parliamentary Handbook lists one ministry for Bruce(–Page), but four for Howard and three for Gillard. I assume the key lies in the statement before the lists: "The termination date of each ministry coincides with the date on which the Prime Ministers submitted their resignation, and that of each of their ministers, to the Governor-General." The subsequent paragraph says that Hughes was the first PM to do this, and Bruce's ministry was after that, but it looks likely that Bruce did not follow this procedure and did not resign himself or his ministry until 1929, so it appears resignation and formation of a new ministry is at the PM's discretion. That's just an assumption though—the Wikipedia articles are following a consistent protocol at least (election -> new ministry), and are also trying to be somewhat consistent with the state/territory ministry lists, which use different definitions of ministry and term duration in their handbooks and references. I would be more convinced if we could confirm why some PMs have multiple ministries in the Handbook and some have a single one for multiple terms (unfortunately, it's more difficult to find a reference that a ministry didn't resign than to find a reference confirming that it did). --Canley (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for giving me that run down Canley! Well it's certainly the case that Bruce was quite flexible with his cabinet arrangements and had no problem with quickly dispatching ministers - there was no cabinet reshuffle/spill for positions during his term and there I cannot find evidence so far in any of the books I have that Bruce appeared before the Governor-General to recommission his government at any point. That does not mean that he didn't though. However I can only assume that Government House keeps records of such and that would be the basis for the handbook's information, but that's just an assumption. The reason I think it is a problem is that a) it doesn't conform with WP:NOR or WP:SOURCE - in effect an new definition of a ministry has been created by these pages; b) it does make in the Bruce case the pages a bit cumbersome and arbitrary - the changes to the ministry generally don't correlate with the election dates, and it would be a much clearer to understand and see the changes by having all the information in a table in one page; c) it does contravene the only reliable source available, which is a bit unsettling. I also agree though with your arguments: that the 'official' definition is quite vague and indicates ministries are somewhat arbitrary. It's rather difficult to understand exactly what the tradition was/is and why some government's recommissioned many times and others not at all. My curiosity is piqued though now, so my intention is to make a request to the Parliamentary Research Service, the Clerk of the House of Reps, and to Government House for official guidance. There are also a lot of possible ways to approach this too, not necessarily the overhaul I originally suggested, now that I've thought about it a little more. Hopefully more people will put in their two cents while I'm waiting for a reply from the experts. Unus Multorum (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for raising the issue though, and I would be eager to hear any confirmation of the practice from the official sources you've mentioned. I have started some preliminary work on splitting and merging the lists, in the case that other editors agree and can form a consensus to proceed, it may be a bit easier. I'll also browse Trove and some biographies around the time to see if I can find any mention of the resignation practice initiated by Hughes. One of the apparent contradictions that concerns me is that the "official" current ministry list on the Parliament website (as of the 25 March reshuffle) still refers to the "Second Gillard Ministry" (which corresponds to the Wikipedia naming/numbering convention)—going by the list in the Parliamentary Handbook, the Third Gillard Ministry formed on 14 September 2010, with the Second Gillard Ministry only lasting about 3 months, and the First just four days. The handbook is dated 2011 so I'm not sure what number it would assign to the current ministry. --Canley (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we should just have one "Ministry" article per Prime Minister, with subsections for each ministry. The subsections should be labelled by date range rather than number. That way we avoid having to have a precise definition of what constitutes a ministry - otherwise we'd need to consider elections, visits to the G-G, baton changes, party leader changes etc. My opinion is that our readers would be more interested in what the composition of a ministry was at a certain date, rather than whether it was the second or third Bruce ministry. --Surturz (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That seems to be the way the Victorian state ministries are done. There are second, third, etc. entries for some Premiers, but only where they resumed the premiership after ceding it to someone else. I agree, both the election and resignation "definitions" we're discussing here are quite arcane, and not apparent to the average reader, or as it happens, even hardened political wonks like our good selves! --Canley (talk) 03:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Surturz's solution is a really good one, and provides a way we can functionally roll out a consistent structure across the state and territory articles as well. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You can also redirect to article sections, so we don't actually lose the ability to nominate "Third Bruce Ministry" etc. Even for the case where a PM loses office then regains the Prime Ministership, I think we should have only one ministry article, and just mention the break in the sections (or even have a superheading for each term). --Surturz (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with this too, although I'm not as sure about the separate terms thing. That seems a legitimate page-breaking point to me. But the overall merging seems like a very good idea, and should allow for some nice meaty articles eventually. Frickeg (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the separate pages for separate terms in office thing makes a lot of sense, and it would make the Menzies Ministry page (to use an obvious example) a lot less complicated. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Any objections to rolling this out? I've got a bit of time to spare and wouldn't mind doing a few of these. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The main downside is the length and complicated nature of some of the resulting articles. At the end of the day an encyclopaedia is about readers. The Third Fraser Ministry for example is very different to the First, likewise with Hawke, Howard etc. And for whatever reason, federal ministries are significantly larger than state ones, so what works for state may not necessarily work for federal. Orderinchaos 07:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the proposal is sound and the safest bet, no matter what response comes back from the official sources I contacted. If we take the lead from the United Kingdom, there is just one ministry for each PM (except when they served non-contiguous terms, and for some reason Thatcher's was broken up). This includes quite long serving leaders with lots of reshuffles like Blair ministry and they seem to handle it fine. It is much the same for Canada. New Zealand has a similar issue to us in that there is some technical definition of ministry that has the potential for some PMs to have many ministries and others to have only one, but they have done something similar to what we are proposing and have just one ministry page per government. I think the consensus emerging here is that we should do the same and have just one ministry page per contiguous term of government, and the internal organization of the pages can be used to demarcate between different ministries. Unus Multorum (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

2013 Budget
Is anyone going to bother listening to the Budget speech tomorrow night? Virtually the whole thing has been leaked. I just don't get it, I have to say. Why all the hush-hush in the lockup tomorrow, and all the pretence of Budget-in-confidence, when they freely announce huge chunks of it in advance? Or announce that they are going to be making announcements - which amounts to the same thing. It gets worse each year. If they want to make policy announcements in the weeks and months leading up to the Budget, then let them do so as discrete announcements and introduce appropriate legislation straight away, and let them not pretend that they have anything to do with the Budget. --  Jack of Oz   [Talk]  11:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Public Domain source: "The Dictionary of Australasian Biography"
Hi all, I just thought I'd mention the The Dictionary of Australasian Biography (sub-titled: Comprising notices of eminent colonists from the inauguration of responsible government down to the present time. [1855-1892]) was proof-read and validated last month at Wikisource. It has about 1,650 entries and might be a good source of material for those who create articles about old politicians. Diverman (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyone for Knopfelmacher?

 * Work is urgently needed on Frank Knopfelmacher. See talk page. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 07:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Second Rudd Ministry
Mustn’t an article be prepared on the Second Rudd Ministry, being formed now? 138.16.109.170 (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * At 22:46 AEST, my understanding is that Rudd hasn't officially been commissioned as Prime Minister. He is presently Leader of the Parliamentary Labor Party (despite him claiming that he is PM in his media conference). He needs to be commissioned by the Governor-General. Once commissioned, he can then form the ministry. The same exists for Albanese; he's been elected Deputy Leader of the Parliamentary Labor Leader. The G-G needs to commission him as Deputy Prime Minister. Rangasyd (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Question about articles in Category:Governments of Australia.
I understand the division between ministry articles and government articles (e.g. First Rudd Government and First Rudd Ministry). However, right now, all the articles in the Governments of Australia category have no main list where they are compiled, making them hard to find. The ministry articles, on the other hand, do have a list (i.e. List of Australian ministries). I was considering adding links in the List of Australian ministries chart to the government articles, so that they are more visible. Does this sound like a good solution? My propose way of doing this would like this: Please do comment. RGloucester (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I like this option very much, but how will it cater for instances where there is more than one ministry per government (as is the norm post-1917)? Frickeg (talk) 04:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was planning on putting a link in each ministry box that has a government article, even if the government article is the same for two successive (or more) ministries. It isn’t the most elegant solution, but it is simplest and accomplishes the goal. RGloucester  — 📬 13:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Member lists
A user has moved Members of the Australian House of Representatives, 2010–2013 to Members of the Australian House of Representatives, 2010–13, citing MOS:YEAR. The user has stated that they don't feel too strongly about it but we should have the discussion about where we want them, I guess. My opinion is that we have used the full dates for a long time, and that it is common practice to do so, at least in article titles. Thoughts? Frickeg (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. For one thing, that particular rule is ignored so often, it shouldn't even exist. -Rrius (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I moved it back. It stood out like an aching opposable digit. WWGB (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Doctored Image
I came across File:Kevin07b.jpg on Kerry Rea's page and couldn't help but notice that the head of the man in the red baseball cap behind and to the left of Kevin Rudd looks photoshopped in (and check out the description the author gives the image). Do we have a policy on this type of photoshopping? --Roisterer (talk) 06:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a crude photoshop of File:Kevin07.jpg - and it's been in the article since 2010! (added by in his first and only edit). I've just removed it from the article and nominated it for deletion on Commons. Nick-D (talk) 06:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

List of Whips
I am compiling lists of whips for the major parties. So far I have finished the Liberals (though I do not have exact beginning dates for Reg Swartz, Henry Pearce, Bert Kelly or Ross McLean). I anticipate that, even though they are older, the Labor and Nationals lists will take less than the 2.5 months the first one took. All the same, I am at a point where one is completed and could be copied, with a bit of polishing and drafting of a lead, to a new page called List of Liberal Party of Australia Whips, or something like that, and create similar lists for the other parties as I complete them. Or, I could wait and create Whip (Australia) with all three lists (and possible future lists for the UAP, Nationalists, etc). In either case, I hope add Senate whips, though that is a project for later. I await your guidance. -Rrius (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the list can be seen at User:Rrius/Sandbox 1. -Rrius (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Bravo! This is outstanding work. Maybe start with the Whip (Australia) page, since it shouldn't be too long with just the three parties and it can be split later. I notice Canada calls their page Party Whip (Canada); it may be better to have something along those lines since the main page is at Whip (politics) and this will be a subpage of that. Once there are lists for everyone, including Greens, Dems and DLP, it'll probably be splittable. Since state whips are also of interest, I would say we go by state, so this list would end up at List of whips in the Australian Parliament (or something to that effect). Frickeg (talk) 04:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Everything Frickeg said. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above comments - great work. It sounds like something that would be very useful either as a separate article ("List of whips in the Parliament of Australia") to go with a Whip (Australia) page (which should be linked as the main from Whip (politics) section, or as a section of Whip (Australia) (depending on length).
 * One thing to note is that Whip (Australia) would need some prose introduction - another issue to consider is the coverage of state and territory parliament whips vs the federal ones. It may be that state and territory whips are not sufficient notable to warrant separate articles or lists. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * While it's true that they may be harder to track down, I very much doubt they'll not be notable. Frickeg (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Despite the fact that the Labor and Country/National parties are older than the Liberals, I think the lists will be reasonable enough that we can just put all three at whatever we name the article. Once we expand to the Senate, the defunct parties, and (god help me) the states, some sort of split will be needed. I suspect it would be better when the time comes to do List of federal Australian Labor Party Whips, etc., than to do a House list with all of the parties and a Senate list with all of the parties, but again, I'd like input.

As for the prose, my plan is to borrow from the passage at Whip (politics), and add in a few things I've found along the way. -Rrius (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * My main reason for thinking the lists should be grouped by parliament is simply that otherwise we end up with at least 30 separate lists, which just seems like a bit much. At the very least the Coalition should be grouped, and UAP/Nationalist included therein. (This will be especially important in places like Queensland, what with the merger and the state's past history of mergers.) I'd also feel a bit weird about grouping all the unrelated minor parties together (although there aren't many states where this would be a thing), and equally weird about separating them off. Since whips, while certainly very party-based, also have a lot to do with parliamentary procedure, I think grouping them by parliament makes sense. But it's not something we have to worry about for a while; who knows, maybe the pages will be so monstrous that splitting will become necessary after all. Frickeg (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you are probably right, and trying to think of a name for the right-wing article helped crystalise that for me. What would it be, List of anti-Labor party whips in the Australian Parliament? "Coalition" wouldn't really work because the Nationalists would only sort of qualify, the earlier parties wouldn't. I'm not even sure if "anti-Labor" would comfortably encompass the Protectionists. Anyway, it's a problem.


 * The other problem is that a list of House and Senate whips would be too long, especially with the length of the prose. The solution to both problems is three articles. What I have now (close, but not quite ready for prime time) would make up the first two: Party whip (Australia) or Whip (Australia)—we still need to choose—and List of party whips in the Australian House of Representatives. A corresponding Senate list, the third article, would come later.


 * I don't think filling out the HR list will be too hard. I know the names of the other two whips at Federation (aside from the Labor one), and there just aren't too many years to be dealt with, so it should be fairly quick, especially since I already have a head start on the Nationalists and UAP. I'm not sure whether I'll finish that before taking it live or after, but either way I'll come here first to ask for people to give it a looking over. -Rrius (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this sounds very sensible. Having separate pages for each house of parliament does seem to solve both problems admirably. (Does early Hansard list who the whips are? The later ones certainly do.) Frickeg (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha! I wish! Leaders didn't even start announcing the whips at the beginning of sessions until the late 1960s or mid 1970s (a Coalition government, but I don't remember which). Mostly I've used news articles and, for more recent MPs, Australian Parliamentary Library write-ups. Trove has been amazing for both. Frankly, the Hansard records aren't that reliable. When Janelle Saffin replaced Jill Hall late last year, Hansard never noted it in the list of parliamentary officeholders. When the Labor whips resigned en masse following the spill that wasn't, Hansard added the two replacements for the junior whips, but bizarrely kept Hall as a third whip right up to the end of the Parliament. -Rrius (talk) 09:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I have completed Party whip (Australia), List of whips in the Australian House of Representatives, and List of whips in the Australian Senate. While I was at it, I created Leader of the Government in the Senate (Australia) and Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Australia) (which I intend to fill out as lists going back to 1901, and should be easier than the whips) and Template:Parliament of Australia, which provides a place for all of those offices as they don't really fit at Template:Politics of Australia. The template allows for a navigational tool that brings together the officials and officers of Parliament, as well as the list of senators and MPs and some key procedural and electoral concepts. There may well be other articles that should be linked to from it, so have a look. -Rrius (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to repeat myself or fawn unnecessarily, but this is really great stuff. A few suggestions: how about a final row for defunct parties to show when the party ceased to exist? You've done really well with the defunct party whips too - the only ones I can see missing are the Australian Labor Party (Non-Communist) and the Australian Labor Party (Anti-Communist) (HoR), although I'm not sure if they had whips or not? Finally, I wonder if the UAP and the Nationalists might not be better under the "Coalition" heading, which perhaps could change to "Coalition and predecessors"? Just a thought. Frickeg (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As best as I can tell, those splinter Labor parties had no whips (probably for the same reason Lang had no Senate whip—there weren't enough of them to bother). A better plan for the defunct parties might be to note the years of existence in the lead. I think in the Senate one I made a late change of putting the years in the heading. Tell me if that suffices. If so, I can just copy the headings from one article to the other. Otherwise, we can do something like I did for the whipless but extant parties in the Senate article.


 * As for the UAP and Nationalists, there are a few problems that led me to put them in a separate category. The first is that you either put the old parties ahead of the Liberals, which tends to draw focus from the extant parties. The other option is to put them after the Nats, which puts them in essentially the same place as they are now.


 * Another problem is one of definition. The Nationalist/Country coalition had material differences from the modern one, and the UAP went into government without them. Also, the coalition tended to dissolve on losing government, which it has only done twice since 1949: from the fall from Government in '72 until the 1974 double dissolution and during the Joh for Canberra debacle. Finally, the Liberals and Country Party didn't enter a coalition at all until 1949 (except in the Senate, where there were two Libs and one Country senator (the latter was Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and the Libs were Deputy Leader and Whip).


 * So the modern Coalition has roots in the agreements between the Nationalists/UAP and Country Party in the '20s and '30s, but didn't really enter its current form until 1949 (or arguably 1974, when they agreed they would stay together in opposition, but with the Liberal deputy as Deputy Leader of the Opposition instead of the Nats leader).


 * On another matter, I reverted the CLP change. I think adding that this member is CLP or that member is LNP just doesn't add anything and potentially gives rise to confusion about the parties when the lists only really deal with the federal parliamentary parties. Also, if there are to be Nats notes, I think they should have their own ref group ("n" for Nationals is what I used in the HoR article). That way, the Liberal info stays right with the Liberal table, aiding the reader. The defunct parties' tables are small enough this didn't seem an issue for them. -Rrius (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually the Senate ones are already done, with "none" as a row when the office is defunct. I think that is a good way of doing it. You make a good argument re: the Coalition; fair enough. I take your point regarding the Nationals, although I would say the same should apply for the defunct parties regardless of how small the lists will be. With the CLP - first of all the CLP are a different case from the LNP as the parliament lists LNP members as Liberal or National but CLP members as CLP (likewise the electoral commission has the LNP as a branch of the Liberals but the CLP as a separate party). The CLP is a federal party in every sense of the word, and I think it's right to note that certain party whips were not technically members of the Liberal or National parties.


 * Further to this point - why is there a note for future Presidents of the Senate (and Speakers)? I'm not sure how this is relevant; how do we decide what roles warrant recognition in this way? Ministers? Deputies? And one final point - I've just noticed that the pages are treating the original DLP and the current DLP as the same. There's conflicting evidence on this, but I would suggest it's wise to at least equivocate the language a little. Should the new DLP ever get big enough, it would definitely need a separate table - but now I'm straying into academic distinctions. Frickeg (talk) 02:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Retirement date for federal MPs, 2013
Re this edit. A couple of points:


 * Tony Windsor has announced he won't be contesting the election. Those members who are retiring end their service to the parliament at the dissolution of the parliament, which happened yesterday 5 August (see Australian federal election, 2013).  If he's true to his word and doesn't change his mind, he will be shown in the official records as the Member for New England until 5 August, not until 7 September.  It's only members who contest but are defeated who get paid until election day.


 * To address HiLo's point about the work of an MP being more than sitting in parliament: I suspect those who have formally retired are allowed some time to pack up their offices, and probably most of them continue to serve their electorate until election day, albeit in an unofficial capacity now. But that may depend on whether they have any paid staff after the parliament is dissolved, which I very much doubt; they may have to rely on volunteers.


 * It's possible Windsor, or someone else who's said they're retiring, could change their minds. Stranger things have happened.  In 2010 Malcolm Turnbull said he would not be contesting the next election (this one), and then changed his mind three weeks later.  To be certain, we have to wait until the close of nominations on 15 August, to see who has actually chosen not to nominate.  There could be others who have not yet announced their retirements.  Peter Slipper gave what he called a "conditional valedictory speech" in parliament in case he chose to retire, but as of today he's still vacillating.


 * Once we know exactly who the retirees are when the nominations are released on 16 August, we can then update their parliamentary service to end on 5 August 2013. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * All done now. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  08:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Candidates
I'm looking at moving my userspace list of 2013 candidates across to mainspace fairly soon, but wanted to ask if anyone could help out with some of the ex-candidates. Some of them are just waiting on some cites from me but others (particularly the raft of ex-Palmer candidates) I have no idea on and were just summarily replaced without so much as an announcement. If anyone knows of coverage in local media that I might have missed I'd appreciate it. (I'm aware the Senate is out of date but I may wait until nominations close to do a proper update, since it's ridiculously fiddly.) Frickeg (talk) 02:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice work, but does the Palmer Party really warrant its own column? It's electorally untested and not doing well in polls so this could be giving it too much emphasis given that the other parties with columns were successful in getting representatives elected to both houses in the last election. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was a tricky decision. It usually goes on the number of candidates rather than success as the main thing (the main idea is to limit the size of the table), and Palmer was the first of the minor parties to really get them out there. I'm open to swapping him with someone else, though, probably Katter. This is the first time it's been an issue in this way, as we've never had so many parties running in every seat. Frickeg (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Palmer is clearly running enough candidates to warrant his own column in my book, and I'm not sure any of the others are close enough to every seat to warrant the same (though there's room for at least another column). The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * For some reason I had in my head that Katter was closer to having a candidate in every seat than he actually is. I know he's said he intends to, but this late I doubt it. If he did, then there'd be an argument for having him replace Palmer where there's a space issue since Katter does have a sitting MP in himself. Frickeg (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I've completed the page following the declaration of nominations and moved it to the mainspace. With the columns, I've ended up going mostly on number of candidates, especially since I'm pretty sure a record was broken with the number; if they were running in every seat and there was room, they got their own column. Everyone have at it - I'm sure there are people with articles I missed, and there are still plenty of ex-candidates without the stories (if any) that go with them. Frickeg (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Stanley Bruce FA Nomination
Hi guys, I pretty much rewrote the entire Stanley Bruce article from scratch earlier this year and slowly but surely, it's almost at FA status, but I need more reviewers/eyes to get it perfect! If so inclined please visit the nomination page and add any comments, support or criticism you might have. It's a top-importance article and it would be great to get this one over the line if it deserves it. Unus Multorum (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd note that people with an interest in Australian politics will find this article to be a fascinating read. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Landslide in Australian terms
There is some dispute over the scale of Kevin Rudd's 2007 victory. It is commonly referred to as a landslide and seems to be on par with other election victories so described in Wikipedia, except in List of landslide victories, where it is described as a "Ruddslide". Given that thousands of Wikipedia articles use the term, many of them within the Australian politics sphere, I'm wondering how informed editors would define the term. There is some discussion going on here, but obviously any decision to remove the term there will impact on similar Australian political articles. --Pete (talk) 06:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Forum shopping again, eh? And misusing the language to boot. The "some dispute" you describe is actually "nobody agreeing with you". And, if you've come here to find "informed editors", does that mean that you think that those who disagreed with you in that other thread are uninformed? Hmmmm. HiLo48 (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm just looking for wider input. There are thousands of articles. Dozens, possibly hundreds relating to Australian politics, and this is a bigger question than two or three editors can decide amongst themselves. I think that editors informed on Australian politics could be found here, and I seek their opinion alongside yours and mine. Naturally I will abide by any consensus found, but it is going to be a big job to remove the term from so many articles, and we can work together on this. You'll note that I have not expressed an opinion on one precise usage - whether Rudd's 2007 victory should be described as a landslide. There are broader implications here. --Pete (talk) 06:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-election pendulum for the Australian federal election, 2013
I think that Articles for deletion/Post-election pendulum for the Australian federal election, 2013 would benefit from input from editors who are familiar with the workings and conventions around Australian elections. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

APH info for every election since 1901 (and 2PP since 1919)
I came across this resource which may be of interest for those looking on info for each election since 1901. This should also conclusively settle 2010... "The ALP could only win 72 seats but the Coalition could not better that number when the WA National, Tony Crook, chose to sit on the crossbench." Timeshift (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Good find. This Mumble piece is related. --Surturz (talk) 06:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * lol mumble, and even more lol I put 1937-onward TPP results together myself at places like Australian House of Representatives and election articles more than a year ago using this ref. Pity mumble doesn't supply a ref. Kudos however to the person who does come up with the 1919-1934 TPP estimates, can't wait! /psepho-nerd Timeshift (talk) 06:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Well look what I came across, 2PP since 1919. Some figure estimations seem to be different through and RM doesn't say what the source is. Eg for 1946, 54.1, 53.8, 52.2 - even though two of three of those were apparently sourced from Mackarras. I note that the record 2PP result in 1943 of 58.2 percent still beats RM's 1931 result of 58.1 percent :D Timeshift (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Dennis Hood
Ouch... anyone want to try and fix this mess? Orderinchaos 06:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Good luck with that. There's contributors with what I suspect are Family First WP:COIs on both Dennis Hood and Robert Brokenshire. Timeshift (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Image copyvio
- How does such a senior politician's official APH image and therefore a copyright violation manage to avoid detection/deletion for 6 years and counting..? Timeshift (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow! "PD-Australia", yeah, sure! I've tagged it as a copyvio on Commons. --Canley (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Started stub
Peta Credlin - I am sure enthusiasts who have this page on watch might wish to elaborate on the bare minumum stub started satusuro 12:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Notability of politicians
What is our current position regarding the creation of articles about local government politicians, especially mayors, in Australia? I notice that only has 68 pages in it and I seem to remember some discussion on this some time ago. Examination of the articles in the category show a large percentage are about MPs or former MPs and many others have otherwise established their notability in other fields but then there are several who are, apparently, just mayors. These include Clinton Mead, Jeff McCloy, Aaron Rule and John Stuart Tate. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The "gold standard" is WP:NPOL, which states in part: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage [are notable]. Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate. Deleting a biography in these cases instead of merely redirecting it makes recovering useful information from the page history difficult, and should be done only when there are relevant reasons other than lack of notability for removing the article from the mainspace."


 * Looking at Clinton Mead for example, I think that is a classic case for merge/redirection to City of Campbelltown (New South Wales). WWGB (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Largely echoing the above, I believe we've generally had the approach that mayors are not inherently notable but can (and sometimes do) meet WP:GNG (with the exception of the capital city Lord Mayors, none of whom would have any trouble meeting GNG anyway). I don't really like the redirecting thing WWGB talks about above - there is generally no actual information about said person on the page, nor do I see how there could be. Looking at your examples, without doing a ton of extra research, I would be inclined to say Mead and Rule don't qualify but McCloy might and Tate definitely does (he's had plenty of coverage). Frickeg (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As an aside, what is the plural of a lord mayor in Australia? Hack (talk) 05:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * lordmayors.org/??? WWGB (talk) 06:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not Lords Mayor? Hack (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Oxford standard plural for 'lord justice' is 'lords justices', but 'lord mayor' (of whom there's only one at a time) is not mentioned in Hart's Rules. I would choose 'lord mayors' since ín this case 'lord' has more of an adjectival force. Originally, of course, mayor was itself derived from the Latin comparative adjective maior. As usual, cap initials would only be used in a person's title, not in the common noun. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "I believe we've generally had the approach that mayors are not inherently notable" - That's what I remembered, which is why I asked. Regarding redirection, I agree with Frickeg, but the same argument didn't work with Matthew Timmons. At the RfD in 2011, although I argued that List of recurring characters in The Suite Life on Deck contained no biographical information on the actor, it was decided to keep Matthew Timmons redirected to that article because that was what he was most known for. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

There shouldn't be inherent notability for mayors, but Tate is extremely notable and McCloy shouldn't be challengeable either. I don't see notability for Rule or Mead, but I can think of numerous cases of suburban mayors who would. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 09:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the consensus here that they're not inherently notable, but can be if they meet the notability guideline as individuals. (Raises an interesting BLP point as undoubtedly some would qualify primarily through their misdeeds becoming renowned...) Orderinchaos 06:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If Wayne Dropulich of the Australian Sports Party is not elected in what is presumably an upcoming WA Senate election and he does not take his place on 1 July 2014, should he still have an article? I'm in two minds, there's a good argument for and against. Timeshift (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In my mind he clearly has inherent notability under WP:POLITICIAN. He was actually declared elected, after all, even if it's subsequently declared void. Frickeg (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's why I say there's good arguments for and against. Though when I read WP:POLITICIAN, it states "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[12] This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.". If Dropulich never takes his seat, has he actually "held office"...? And does it apply for "elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them" if he will never assume it? Unlike the HoR, Senate terms start from 1 July. Timeshift (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I started an article about Barry O'Sullivan, the LNP nominee for Barnaby Joyce's Senate seat who was a day or so away from being appointed by the Queensland Parliament last year, however his appointment has been postponed at least twice by Campbell Newman due to an ongoing CMC investigation and is now supposed to be February 2014—I'm starting to wonder if it will ever happen. Anyway, I don't mind if it gets deleted if he isn't appointed and the LNP nominates someone else. --Canley (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * O'Sullivan, I suspect, probably meets WP:GNG independently for his role in the LNP. We are woefully underrepresented when it comes to unelected party functionaries (party state presidents and secretaries, etc.), at least some of whom are notable, and O'Sullivan has not only received a lot of coverage for this individual event but was a significant figure well before it as LNP treasurer. However, I don't think he qualifies under WP:POLITICIAN because the Queensland Parliament has not actually nominated him to the vacancy and therefore he isn't "elected". Dropulich, on the other hand, has been elected, and in my view whether or not he ever assumes the seat is irrelevant. (Heather Hill is the other example that springs to mind.) I would say that his ever assuming the seat is quite unlikely, but I don't think that disqualifies him since he was elected to the office. Frickeg (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think having been declared elected to an office should be pretty much a hard-and-fast guide to notability. There are always going to be material about people in that boat (Victorian MP Tony Van Vliet, who was unambiguously elected to parliament and then dropped dead pretty much straight after, is another example). O'Sullivan at this point probably passes the general notability guideline in his own right so I think that question is moot. I think Dropulich will be similar assuming there is a revote and he loses since there's already enough profiles and specific coverage of the man to pass general guidelines. The more interesting question in my mind is Zhenya Wang, who was initially thought elected, had a decent amount of personal coverage on that basis (though perhaps less than Dropulich since he's in the Palmer bloc and makes less of a news story), and stands a much better chance than Dropulich of being re-elected given a few more months. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Election box templates
I noticed that the colours and some of the formatting had disappeared from the tables in almost all Australian election result articles yesterday. The issue appears to be this change on 2 January, which removed the table formatting from the header and instead uses the standard "wikitable" class, and this appears to cause the colour template at Template:Australian politics/party colours to fail. It appears there has been discussions going on for some time at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Elections Manual of Style/Results tables (mainly between two editors though, and more about formatting and style, so I'm not sure there is consensus for altering a widely-used template unless there is another discussion elsewhere). I reverted the edit and left a note on User:Number 57's talk page anyway, so I may hear more from them about their plans and intentions. --Canley (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Renamed ministries / Penny Wong
I was looking at Penny Wong and found something I find a little odd. I don't know how you deal with renamed ministries in Australian politics (actually I'm not sure how any deal with it), but I find it a little odd that the succession box at the bottom refers to her as  'Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency'  a position which if I understand her article and Minister for the Environment (Australia) correctly, she never held. (The ministry went under 2 different names during her tenure, neither of which were that name.)

Perhaps more confusing is the fact that  'Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency'  isn't even the final name for the ministry, that appears to be Minister for Climate Change.

Both the Penny Wong and Greg Combet article in the succession box call it  'Climate Change and Energy Efficiency'  whereas Mark Butler calls it  'Climate Change' . It seems to me it would be better to either call it  'Climate Change'  in all 3 succession boxes, or call it  'Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Water'  (the final name under her tenure) in Penny Wong's succession box.

But it could be there's something I'm missing. For example I believe the  'Water'  portfolio bounced around, I'm not sure what happened to  'Enery Efficiency' , whether it was no longer a specific portfolio but shared by appropriate ministers or was still completely under the purview of the Minister for Climate Change and the rename in the final Rudd cabinet was more of a branding thing or what.

So I'll let those more familiar with the norms here sort it out.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Going on the Parliamentary Bio, the official names for the ministries were:
 * Minister for Climate Change and Water from 3.12.07 to 8.3.10.
 * Minister for Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Water from 8.3.10 to 14.9.10.
 * Minister for Finance and Deregulation from 14.9.10 to 18.9.13.


 * The "Energy Efficiency" portfolio was added in March 2010, and when Greg Combet replaced Wong, the Water portfolio went to Tony Burke, the Minister for Sustainability (+ Environment, ... Population and Communities). I've added Burke to the succession box for the Water portfolio. They could be split but as Wong held the Energy Efficiency portfolio for only 6 months, I have included it as bracketed. --Canley (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Peter James Madden
I just stumbled up on this disaster of a page. I'm far from convinced about notability - what do people think? There seems little point in attempting to salvage it otherwise. Frickeg (talk) 06:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like a candidate for deletion Notability. Diverman (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Stock politician images being uploaded en-masse
It seems this gives the green light to use parliament.curriculum.edu.au photos of politicians, however some appear to be from 10-20 years ago. Do we use a modern photo or an older but clearer photo? bear little resemblance at all. It's been an issue before but until now an isolated one. What to do? Timeshift (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's good news, of course. Regarding the old vs. new, I think, with regret, that the newer photo has to belong in the infobox, despite the fact that the other is better quality. The Plibersek and Macklin photos show clearly that the older ones simply don't represent these people as they are now, which is what we need the infobox to do for current politicians. Where there are no newer ones the older ones will have to do, I guess. The older ones can go further down the article anyway. Frickeg (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Timeshift (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Cairns Mayors
I recently stumbled upon a clutch of articles about Mayors of Cairns, almost all of which are of dubious notability. John Coxall in particular seems like a definite non-notable and I've prodded him, but I wanted to see if anyone had anything further on Tom Pyne, Val Schier or Bob Manning. Richard Alfred Tills appears to have a mass of sources but almost all of them are from local press. The only one that I think really approaches notability at the moment, Kevin Byrne, has such a toxic mess of an article that I'm tempted to say that TNT is the best option. Thoughts? Frickeg (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite OK with the TNT option too - I stumbled upon this about 2 years ago and clearly nothing much has changed since. Orderinchaos 14:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm of the opinion that at least Pyne, Schier and Manning are notable. Cairns is a decent-size city, and I don't see a justification for ruling out the North Queensland press (especially big dailies like the Cairns Post) as sources. There's enough about those three mayors in reliable sources that I know a fair bit about them all and I haven't been to north Queensland since I was twelve. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think if they are notable enough, the articles should stay and hope they are improved. I don't see a good reason to take away information (other than where it might be a problem for BLP or similar). Not great, but better than nothing. Kerry (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

South Australian electoral districts
Hi all, I've been working on creating and editing articles of former districts, Template:Former electoral districts of South Australia, there's still a few to do so if any feels inclined, have a go at creating missing ones. Use an existing one e.g. Electoral district of Albert (South Australia) as a basis for a new one. There's also the Electoral districts of South Australia article that needs some more table editing if anyone feels keen.

I also created a template for using the S.A. Former member database. see Template:cite SA-parl; can be useful when creating or editing articles for S.A. politicians. — Diverman (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are months being used? None of the other state district pages (or federal ones for that matter) use months. Otherwise, great job so far. Frickeg (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Frickeg — thanks for the feedback. Months are useful to distinguish how long a person was an MP for, e.g. 1902–1903 could mean as little as a week (Dec 1902 – Jan 1903), or as long as two years (Jan 1902–Dec 1903). Another example of it's usefulness is in Electoral district of Barossa where there was a period (Mar 1864 – Jun 1864) in between members where one seat was vacant. Without using months, it's difficult to portray the vacancy period.


 * Other examples of districts where months are used are:
 * New South Wales Legislative Council: Town of Melbourne
 * Victoria Legislative Council: City of Melbourne,  Central Province,   South Eastern Province
 * Victoria Legislative Assembly: Richmond, Gippsland South,  Upper Goulburn
 * Queensland Legislative Assembly: Mitchell,  Wide Bay,   Ravenswood and Stanley (which also have the day of the month).
 * Aldridge-Brownhills (UK Parliament constituency)
 * I've been using the three-letter month abbreviation in tables as per Manual of Style — Diverman (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't agree, I'm afraid. In my view the proper place for the extended dates is the infobox on the MP in question's page; the members tables should be a brief summary, and I really think it's easier to comprehend "1902-1903" at a glance than the month version. I understand your point but from a consistency point of view I do think we should stick to one or the other, and the overwhelming majority use simple years; I just don't see a compelling reason to change that. General practice in these sorts of things across Wikipedia is certainly against full dates. Frickeg (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking (dangerous, I know !) about the issue recently, many of the members listed in the district articles are redlinks — so there is no other record of the month and year of their term. I don't think we should be censoring out information, Wikipedia is primarily an encylopedia and information should win over 'look and feel'. However, I know that readability is an issue and have come up with a compromise which may suit. See South Western Province (Victoria), I have the plain years in the left hand column for readability and the extended dates in the far right-hand column. That serves another purpose to track dates when looking at members in the right-hand column to see when the start/end date was. Let's know what people think.


 * By the way, having the "Term" in the far left column seems to be the standard, it's needed in multi-member tables, like my example above, and has been used for many years in the UK constituency articles e.g. Aldridge-Brownhills, Aldershot etc. — Diverman (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no particular opinion on including the years or not. I do think having two versions of it as in South Western Province is messy and unnecessary. As for the "term" in the far left column - while it may be the standard in the UK, it isn't here on our hundreds if not thousands of articles, and its ugly as hell. The most important piece of information in the member list is the members, and then their parties. The dates are context, so it makes about zero sense to list them first.


 * While we're on the subject of SA (and Qld) districts, could you include the parties? You're leaving them out even when they're accessible in two seconds on state databases, and leaving quite a task for someone later to come and make them fit with the rest of the project. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Having a list with years in the left hand column is very common in Wikipedia articles. For examples, see List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry, List of Nobel laureates in Physics, List of Nobel Memorial Prize laureates in Economics, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Chichester (UK Parliament constituency); Australian science articles: Clarke Medal, Prime Minister's Prizes for Science, Australia Prize; Australian sport articles: List of Brownlow Medal winners, List of Magarey Medallists, List of Australian Football League premiers; etc. etc. etc. Happy to change to years not being in the left-hand column if you get all the above "ugly as hell" articles changed that use the "zero sense" years first, and there is general agreement in this discussion.


 * As for some district articles I've created without parties, I never claimed to always produce 100% finished articles. Many I created recently do have the parties e.g. Electoral district of Townsville North, Electoral district of Woolloongabba, Electoral district of The Tableland, Electoral district of Rosewood etc. Many of the districts were old ones that existed before the party system was introduced anyway, e.g. The Burra and Clare, so there's no party info to add. The state databases don't always have the party info e.g. Jules Langdon has "unknown". You appear to contradict yourself, either the party information is "accessible in two seconds" or it is "quite a task" — which is it?. Certainly it's less of a task than it was for me to create the dozens of missing district articles from scratch in the first place. Someone appreciated my work on the missing S.A. districts enough to award me a barnstar, so I feel your criticism is unwarranted. Diverman (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * All of those examples above (or at least the Australian ones) are examples where the year is the most relevant information. For annual medallists and annual prize winners, not starting with the year would be dopey. For the same reasons, starting a "members" section with information only there for context, instead of with the actual members, is dopey. Listing members with the actual member at the end of the line is much the same as having an article on the Brownlow Medal winners with the year at the end.


 * Don't get me wrong, your work on the missing SA districts - as with all of your work - is fantastic. I get leaving them out where it's difficult to find (especially for early SA districts), but for 1970s+ SA districts, and Qld districts (because of Re-member) the information can be located in two seconds. It's just frustrating when I then have to go back and work out how to add in the missing fields in tables when I'm not real good with them, and I don't understand why they're being left out to begin with. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Tips to add party info: Take a look at my recent edit to the Queensland Electoral district of Maree; adding the party information is basically copy and paste from another article (say Electoral district of Woothakata because it has a few different parties). Do a compare of revisions on Maree, and see the wikitable changes. See that I pasted in a new header from another article, pasted in the relevant colour template before the member and pasted the party name after the member. The double vertical lines  ||  are the column separator. The last member, Louis Luckins, was a little trickier because he represented three different parties. I just used a rowspan for his name so it spread over the three rows. — Diverman (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Diverman. The use of just years, while more compact in tables, does lead to confusion and, in the case of Queensland articles, loss of members elected at by-elections (they get overlooked if their by-election occurred in the same year as a general election). Since elections occur on a day, the correct precision is day-month-year (this is plain old information modelling as taught in any university). I see no reason to withhold information from the readers of articles on electorates or lists of MLA/MLCs by insisting on hiding the full dates elsewhere. Let's try to make the articles as useful as possible, not cripple them because of consistency with some other articles. Why not create a new and better standard for these articles and aim to get all of them to that standard? Also, thanks to Diverman, we now have articles for all the Queensland former electorate articles! Kerry (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Fiona Nash and healthy foods website issue
This story is all over the news. An IP added material but it was unsourced. Question is, how best to word and source it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Election infoboxes for "Liberal" have been broken and I can't figure out how to get to the template - help!
See articles like South Australian state election, 2014 and Tasmanian state election, 2014... it seems that "Liberal Party of Australia" party coding has been broken. Can someone get in to the appropriate template and fix it up ASAP? Timeshift (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'm on it. --Canley (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm getting really confused now... the two examples above are now fixed but others (ie: SA and Tas 2010 and prior) aren't, and I don't see any new contributions from you that may have fixed anything. I'm so confused with what's wrong with this template lol! Timeshift (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It was in Template:Liberal Party of Australia/meta/color, but someone fixed it 2 minutes before I got there. If you are still seeing the problem, put "?action=purge" after the URL. --Canley (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thankyou! Timeshift (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Someone changed the colour value in the template from "darkblue" to a hex value, but didn't know you have to put nowiki tags around the hex value or MediaWiki interprets it as an ordered list. --Canley (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me if Tasmanian state election, 1996 is broken for you too? I'm doing the purge function but I keep seeing pages I haven't navigated to broken... it seems election articles that I haven't navigated to are broken all over the place still. Timeshift (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Tas 1996 looks fine to me. --Canley (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh hang on, no it's not. --Canley (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's all over the place. South Australian state election, 2002 as another of many many examples. :( Timeshift (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Now looks fine after your revert on the template, same with SA 2002. --Canley (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, i'm not going to navigate to SA 1993 so you can see it. I think the server is refreshing after affected articles are navigated to but I really don't want to go through *all* election articles. :( Timeshift (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I went back to the previous SA one and saw it. Purged it and it worked, I'm not sure how these templates cache, but that sounds likely that it refreshes when navigated too so if you see the error I don't on the same page. --Canley (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So how do we fix every affected article? It seems we either have to go to every single affected article and purge or wait for an unknown amount of time for the error to correct itself and leave them broken in the meantime. Neither option sounds attractive. Almost makes me wish we had a prot or semiprot on those sort of templates. Timeshift (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, my mild and undiagnosed OCD can't handle it anymore, i'm manually purging them all :P Timeshift (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Timeshift (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Western Australia Senate election, 2014
Talk moved to Talk:Australian Senate special election in Western Australia, 2014 --Surturz (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Date location and format in electoral district articles
OK, time for a consensus view here. A couple of issues to sort out it seems: where does the date information go in the list of members and what about the detail dates (which could be "month year" or "day month year").

I propose we use the established Wikipedia-wide standard of having the plain years in the left column of the member table. In the Manual of Style/Tables all of the four examples containing dates have the years listed before the person, three of the four have years in the left column, the fourth still has the year before the person.

Having years in the left column is used by all these district articles for other countries I could find, see: New Zealand electorates, Scottish Parliament constituencies and regions 1999 to 2011, List of United Kingdom Parliament constituencies, List of parliamentary constituencies in Northern Ireland, List of London Assembly constituencies (for those articles that do have a member table). Canada is slightly different, see List of Canadian federal electoral districts they have the number of the Parliament in the left column e.g. 17th, then the year, then the member, so still have the year before the member. As I mentioned above in the discussion under 'South Australian electoral districts' there are numerous other (non electoral) articles with lists of people that have years in the left hand column.

The other issue is about the extended date information, I propose it is kept (as does Kerry) - I don't see the point of removing that information and getting peolpe to search for it elsewhere, often it doesn't exist in Wikipedia; there's many redlinks in these articles. I also propose to show it in the rightmost column see South Western Province (Victoria) as an example. This has the plain years (not extended month & year) in the left column so it's easier to comprehend as stated by Frickeg, and has the extended dates that often do not appear in any other article in the right column. For multi-member tables like the example it also serves to more easily find the dates when looking at Member columns 4 and 5.

I'm not the only one who has created an Australian electoral district article with dates in the left column, see Electoral district of Murray (South Australia) That one has extended dates in the left (I did tidy it a little to use abbreviated months).

Does it help general readability (less emphasis on the detailed date) if its text is smaller in the far right "Term (detail)" column? - see User:Diverman/sandbox. I've done the first ten or so lines the right column as a comparison. It would be good if there was the ability for a collapsible column entry in the wikitable (so the detailed date could be optionally displayed) but there doesn't appear to be so. I think having a detailed date footnote for every plain year row entry would be too cumbersome. I'm going to hold off editing further district articles for now. Let's try and get a consensus. Diverman (talk) 07:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned the two date column format should be a non-starter. It makes our previously clear tables into a confusing mess, and it's completely unnecessary. I am not particularly fussed over whether we have single years or full dates, but for the love of god pick one.


 * As for the left-hand column issue, we've been using the same format without issue for years and across hundreds if not thousands of articles, and I see little reason to change them. Your manual of style examples are not analogous, and there's plenty of examples of places doing it the Australian way: Massachusetts's 5th congressional district, Governor of Ohio, Adilabad (Lok Sabha constituency), Warsaw I (parliamentary constituency) and Potong Pasir Single Member Constituency. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, looks like the two date column format is a bit on the nose, so I'll scrap that idea — for the love of God :) . It also looks like the preference is to maintain the Australia districts standard of dates in the right-hand column, so let's stick to that. I've been modifying articles I've edited earlier to dates on the right (and adding party info where appropriate). Most people seem happy with full dates (where known), using abbreviated months in the table (as per MoS) keeps the years lined up, so that aids readability. Diverman (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Very belatedly, since I was unexpectedly awol: not happy with full dates at all, as they impair readability. The full dates can be in the text of the subject. Frickeg (talk) 12:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Opinions if election candidates Bill Denny (officer) and Rob Atkinson (surgeon) are noteable?
Are Bill Denny (officer) and Rob Atkinson (surgeon) noteable? I checked with an admin several days ago, they said on brief glance one looked barely noteable, the other not noteable (I can't remember which way around). They also seem to have been created by an editor with potential for WP:COI (based on timing, their userpage content, these are the only two articles the user has created so far, and user's own photos used in the articles). Opinions? Timeshift (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think Denny isn't notable and Atkinson is borderline (because of his high military rank) but I wouldn't be at all fussed if it were deleted. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've raised Articles for deletion/Bill Denny (officer) and Articles for deletion/Rob Atkinson (surgeon) to AfD, let's see where consensus takes it. I won't take an issue with any outcome to either AfD. Timeshift (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has many articles for people less notable than both of these gentlemen (eg, minor football/baseball players, etc, and piddling pop musicians, film actors, etc). The articles in question seem rather woolly and in need of encyclopedic pruning, but should be allowed to stand. I would, however delete all references to their election candidatures, per the rules on advertising. Their political interests will, of course, become notable if and when they are elected as politicians, at which time their WP articles would be updated. Bjenks (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS :P Timeshift (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, point taken. I've had a go at pruning both articles, which I think removes most of the content which created alarm. We may have to join ranks to keep the election propaganda at bay. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Bill Denny is clearly heading for deletion, seeing as we're in the middle of an election campaign and shouldn't be giving non-noteable candidates articles, is it possible for that AfD to be closed now and delete rather than waiting the 7 days? I've removed the link to Denny at Candidates of the South Australian state election, 2014 in the meantime. Timeshift (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If Atkinson is indeed notable, though (and it seems he probably is), then his candidacy should still be mentioned - it's a notable thing about him, even if it doesn't confer notability on him. Frickeg (talk) 02:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Other SA notability questions
Frankly I have bigger questions about Glenn Docherty and David O'Loughlin. May be worth waiting until after the election, but thoughts? Frickeg (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * They're both fairly prominent local mayors, and particularly in O'Loughlin's case I think the sources are there considering the way he's being talked about in the press. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I see the point, and I don't dispute the sources are there, but I'm not sure that notability follows, since most of those sources would be at local level. Either way, the Docherty article's a blight. Frickeg (talk) 12:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Can someone move Terry Mills (politician)
Can someone better than me with article moves, move a previous head of a government, Terry Mills (politician), to Terry Mills, and move the basketball player to something else? Timeshift (talk) 03:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why? I doubt it would be uncontested. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  05:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Somehow I don't think you'll get support for a short-term provincial head of government as the primary topic over a ten-year professional basketballer. Hack (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sad, but almost certainly true. See Systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

If a head of a government doesn't trump some average joe basketball player, well... Timeshift (talk) 06:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Feel free to propose it on the basketballer's Talk page. I'd certainly support the move. It would be an interesting discussion. But I'd suggest ultimately fruitless. HiLo48 (talk) 06:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Surely we could at least get a disambiguation page at Terry Mills and the basketballer moved to Terry Mills (basketball player)? Frickeg (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Glenn Druery
Can we please have more eyes on this article? An IP who I suspect to have a WP:COI keeps trying to whitewash the article. The article has a long history of this. Timeshift (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Minor Party Alliance :) It's a basic article at the moment but lists the parties involved. Hopefully I haven't started something where randoms try to remove it from the party articles. Timeshift (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the veracity of some of these lists is really questionable. The Party for Freedom example was one for me - how, in October 2013, was a party that wasn't registered and didn't run candidates in the 2013 election participating in the Minor Party Alliance? They're making a lot of claims with nothing besides the list to back it up. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Why does a party that's been involved in the MPA necessarily need to run candidates in 2013, or be registered? Does a party have to be registered and run candidates at the 2013 election in order to be involved in some level in the MPA? Where does it say that? Timeshift (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * But the source is from October last year. If there was a source saying they were involved now, that would make a little bit more sense. I totally agree that the articles on each party involved in the MPA should reference that involvement but I am really suss about the veracity of some of these massive lists of parties with no details (and especially that one because it fails the logic test). The two sources in the Minor Party Alliance article don't even agree with each other. It's important information but it doesn't help us if we put up information that's unreliably sourced. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I still don't understand where you're coming from. Even if the party isn't registered and didn't contest the 2013 election, who's to say they didn't participate in MPA meetings at some point? The wording doesn't say involved at the 2013 election, or involved now. Just that they were involved. Why are we questioning an ABC article just because it isn't in the Daily Telegraph article? Why do you deem it unreliably sourced? Do you know something we don't? Timeshift (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * How is the Party for Freedom even notable? They've never been registered anywhere, as far as I can tell. Peripheral involvement in something like the MPA is hardly grounds for notability. Frickeg (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * We have other unregistered parties with articles. Do they need to be registered to be noteable? Timeshift (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily, but they have to be registered to be inherently notable without otherwise passing WP:GNG, or that's been the practice in the past. I can't see that the Party for Freedom has anything like the necessary coverage. Frickeg (talk) 07:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the Party for Freedom is getting there and will probably get there in short either, either through registration or press coverage. But the ABC list isn't supported by your other source and doesn't smell right (an unregistered party with no candidates being involved in an alliance which exists purely for preference-trading is very odd in the absence of other sources and this does seem like a likely error), and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect something which in these cases, if true, is probably the most significant thing about the party, to be actually reliably sourced. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Why must a single source's list be exhaustive? The Sports Party isn't in the ABC link but we know they were part of the MPA. As for the Party for Freedom being involved, who's to say they didn't attend meetings and discuss preferences but not actually get involved in running candidates and trading those preferences? Who's to say they weren't there to influence other like-minded parties on how/who to trade with to better their cause? If you're so concerned, why don't you email the investigations ABC email address directly below the list of parties? Timeshift (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Or why don't you find a better source? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Why don't you answer my question? Your objection is subjective. Timeshift (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a dubious source - it doesn't match the other source used in the article, and neither of them contain any information about on what basis they were included in the list, for what is - if true - a key piece of information. It's not on me to contact the ABC to ask questions about a weak source - it's on you to back the assertion up (and improve the referencing) if you want it to go in the article. We really need good information on the Minor Party Alliance, but this is just not it. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Why is it weak just because the Daily Telegraph, the bastion of accuracy (lol), doesn't mention it? The ABC doesn't mention the Sports Party but the DT does. I don't know why it's such an issue when we have a RS available. Does the DT link say they aren't part of the MPA? Timeshift (talk) 08:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If we've got two sources that don't agree, neither of which have any details about the parties' supposed involvement in the Minor Party Alliance beyond a list, then neither of them are particularly great sources, and all I'm saying is that we should tread carefully. Many of these it's pretty obvious and I have no particular objections going into the articles, but where it's questionable (and I'd also include Wikileaks as another example here because the existence and extent of any ties with Druery is clearly a subject of public debate) we shouldn't rely on these two lists alone. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Anyone doing a candidates page as the WA Senate paper draw has been done?
See here for candidates/draw. Timeshift (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll whip one up now. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It's done but I can't for the life of me work out what's wrong with the last row of table. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Creation date of electoral districts/divisions
As someone who does/has done a lot of Australian electorate infoboxes over the years, I am curious as to the consensus (if there is one) on the creation date listed in that infobox, and the subsequent "establishment in Australia" category. So in South Australia for example, the last redistribution took place in 2012, and the boundaries came into effect just before the 2014 election. My initial protocol was to list the year of the election in which the boundaries come into effect (specifically the date when the assembly is dissolved before that election), however there seems to be a widespread view that the creation date is the year in which the redistribution was carried out or completed. I followed the latter for the SA infoboxes, although I don't really agree with it—my reasoning being the MP is still member for the old boundary or name until the assembly is dissolved, and I don't think the two districts can really co-exist at the same time. Anyway, would be interested to hear any thoughts, opinions, or links to previous discussions on the matter... --Canley (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. I think it would very confusing to the ordinary reader (and also potentially difficult to verify for a lot of older electorates) to have a creation date other than the time at which it first began to be represented. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I also agree - the redistribution creates the divisions taking effect from the next election. Up until that time, the old divisions are still in every sense in existence. To give one example - on 29 October 2007 we had a redistribution in WA, ahead of an election then planned for February 2009 (it happened in September 2008 instead). On 24 January 2008, the member for Murdoch died, and a by-election was held on 23 February 2008. This by-election was on the old boundaries, so clearly the new seat of Bateman hadn't been created yet, even though the redistribution had taken place. Orderinchaos 04:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I forgot about Murdoch, but that's a great example. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed with everyone. The Murdoch example is a great point. Also it's not as though the representation changes until the next election; there's still a member for Murdoch, and no member for Bateman. Frickeg (talk) 12:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC happening over infobox at Australian Senate special election in Western Australia, 2014
See here over whether to include an infobox. Timeshift (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Some pedantic(?) editing by new user Taikomochiyarichin
User:Taikomochiyarichin, who created an account only last month, has been enthusiastically changing articles (over 50 of them so far) on Australians who used to be politicians. I use that language advisedly, because the edits involve changing the wording "xxxxx is a former Australian politician..." to "xxxxx is an Australian former politician...".

While I can appreciate that the new wording may be pedantically correct, it's not normal, common Australian English. A couple of the edits have been reverted, and I have asked the editor, on their Talk page, to please stop.

I'm happy to discuss this, especially with the editor involved, but would appreciate others' thoughts and input please. HiLo48 (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with HiLo. Timeshift (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Excluding Wikipedia usage, "former Australian politician" gets over 12 times as many Google hits as "Australian former politician" (2.12 million to 168,000), so I would say the usage of the former is extremely common. --Canley (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There's an old (2010–11) on-Wiki discussion here (only two posts): Wikipedia talk:Elements of Style improvement project. --Canley (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with HiLo. "Australian former politician" is pedantic and unnatural, and "former Australian politician" is equally correct. (Nice work on the reverts, btw).  IgnorantArmies  14:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

ICAC
I think it's really time we broke out the ongoing ICAC inquiries in NSW into one or more articles, considering the breadth of the scandal and the amount of people implicated in some way. I'm not sure what would be the best way to organise this, though. Any ideas? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

What classifies a seat's demographic, ie: metro, outer metro, rural.
I found it troubling that Electoral district of Finniss and to a lesser extent Electoral district of Heysen and Electoral district of Kavel in South Australia get classified in the infoboxes as "metropolitan". I've changed them to outer metropolitan, but I can't reconcile calling Finniss outer metro, Heysen and Kavel less so but still ruralish. I've looked through ABC and ECSA sources for any classifications they might have but I couldn't find any. Timeshift (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No objection here, I guess that would have appeared when I added the infoboxes? I'd have to look around to see if I got the classifications somewhere—I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have just made a call on it, I hope I would have just left the classification out if I didn't have a government source. Anyway, I'll have a look around and let you know if I find a source—maybe remove the classification if it's not clear. --Canley (talk) 04:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Heysen and Kavel really are borderline outer metro/rural and Finniss is rural. I haven't taken it that far because I don't have a source and don't want to be arbitrary. Timeshift (talk) 04:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The Election Statistics report for the 2010 election does contain a location classification (m = Metro, c = Country) in the enrolment table. Finniss = c, Heysen = m, Kavel = c; however the next section states "The 47 House of Assembly districts comprise 34 metropolitan and 13 country districts. Two country seats, Kavel and Light, are classed as peri-urban due to urban development and proximity to Adelaide and its infrastructure." Maybe I just got Finniss wrong, or copied it from another district (quite likely!). --Canley (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, in the absence of any other reference, i'll change to conform. If there's no Antony coverage with inner and outer, I suppose we shouldn't be using it. Timeshift (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, looks like ECSA use just the two classifications. Should those match as well, do you think? i.e. change "Rural" to "Country"? --Canley (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Eh. I thought that, but it's the same thing. We've got the classification right. 'Country' can be vague. IMO. Timeshift (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Where do you get your km2 from for SA state infoboxes? Timeshift (talk) 02:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * They were in the PDF profiles here. --Canley (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahh thanks! Also, could you correct this for me? Timeshift (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, some wiki-fu required! It is done. -Canley (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Timeshift (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone want to volunteer to update the suburbs amongst the Electoral districts of South Australia? Many seats are still using 2010 and earlier boundaries. :P Personally i'm against the listing of suburbs (sadly) in electorate articles when they're changing at every election. It makes 47 articles out of date every four years :/ Timeshift (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have started to do some preparation for the Victorian state election, 2014, and to take into account the 2013 Vic redistribution and the 15 abolished/new districts I worked out a semi-automated, somewhat easier way of doing this (listing suburbs and partial suburbs in a district) as a by-product of something else I was working on. I can feed in the SA geographic data and see if it works for them as well, I don't see why it wouldn't. I'll keep you posted... if it works I'll update the articles (electoral districts first, maybe suburbs articles if they have changed). --Canley (talk) 05:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I set up a PostGIS database for South Australia, imported the electoral district boundaries, then imported all suburb boundaries for South Australia. I ran a query of all suburbs completely contained within each electorate, and it worked well, I will now run a query for the partial overlaps. Then I can use the lists to produce a standard listing of suburbs in an electorate (I will check against the boundary commission impact report and Antony Green's summary of changes). --Canley (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks :) Timeshift (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

To move or not to move Independent (politician)?
See Talk:Independent (politician). Timeshift (talk) 03:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Electoral results smaller than seat-level
We have a lot of these around wikipedia, location-based electoral results. Unfortunately nobody seems to update them anymore. I started a discussion there as to if we should just remove them if they aren't going to get updated, but with little to no success. I removed the results from that article as both state and federal are two elections out of date and looks biased as they stop at the Labor high water mark, but it was reverted as I didn't have consensus to do so. What should we do with these sorts of smaller-than-seat-level results around wikipedia? Timeshift (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not convinced these are necessary. I appreciate the intent, but not only do I think this is going into a bit too much detail (I mean, do we record them all the way back?), booth-based results are not that reliable in that you can vote anywhere in the electorate with no problem. The linked example also combines five booths in what is bordering on WP:OR. By all means comment on the seats that the suburbs fall into, but I don't think we should be recording exactly how many votes they received in a certain polling place each year. Frickeg (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not overwhelmingly attached to them because of the reasons Timeshift9 points out, which are very valid, but I do think they serve a useful purpose if kept up to date. For me, having a politics section based on the data about how the booths in that locality have voted over the years is useful information and something I would be interested to know about any particular locality. This says considerably more than merely listing data at the electorate level (i.e. for a working-class suburb in a safe Liberal electorate). I agree that the data has its limitations (i.e. as Frickeg said, people can vote anywhere in the electorate), but it isn't as if booth-level data fluctates wildly beyond the general swings, and I disagree that that makes it not useful. I do absolutely agree that conflating booths is WP:OR and something that we shouldn't be doing. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Like most things, there are costs and benefits; I believe the benefits outweigh the costs. Also, I think some of the costs are being overstated.
 * Yes, it is indeed unfortunate that nobody seems to update them anymore. However, this neither means that nobody will update them in the future, nor is it some sort of reason or justification for their removal. They record historical fact (not opinion) - I'm not aware that the passage of time causes historical fact to become out-of-date.
 * I started a discussion there as to if we should just remove them if they aren't going to get updated, but with little to no success. - You didn't start any sort of discussion at all. You simply posted the question "Nobody updates these anymore. We're two elections out of date for both state and federal on this and many other articles. Should we just remove them?", and before any relevant discussion occurred, you removed them. When I reverted your unexplained deletion, pointing out that you had no consensus, you (for want of a better expression) "threw a tantrum": So we're going to have 1993-2007 results but nothing since? Ok. But looks terrible, not to mention biased as they stop at the Labor high water mark. At least I can't say I didn't try. Rather than waiting for a response, you came here, presumably because you could see that I did not agree with you, and you could see that I didn't see any reason for what you want to enforce on the community solely on the basis of your opinion. In response to your posting:
 * So we're going to have 1993-2007 results but nothing since? - a) Not necessarily. b) That's 14 more years of data than we will have if you delete them.
 * But looks terrible a) That's your opinion. I don't share that opinion. b) Presumably, if you think it looks terrible now, you've thought it looked terrible before. Why haven't you mentioned it before?
 * not to mention biased as they stop at the Labor high water mark. - Again, that's your opinion. I don't share that opinion. They record what happened in the period.
 * What should we do with these sorts of smaller-than-seat-level results around wikipedia? - Why is it "necessary" to do anything? They serve a useful purpose, and have done so for years. Has something suddenly changed that means they no longer serve a useful purpose?
 * Yeah, I'm not convinced these are necessary. - There is nothing in or about Wikipedia that is "necessary", including Wikipedia itself. What is it about these tables that causes you to form the opinion that they are any less necessary than anything else in Wikipedia?
 * I appreciate the intent, - In which case, does that mean that you think they are not achieving that intent? Please expand.
 * but not only do I think this is going into a bit too much detail - Well, that's your opinion. The fact that such tables exist, and have existed, on many pages for many years, suggests that there are many other people who do not share that opinion.
 * (I mean, do we record them all the way back?), - Sorry, I don't understand the question. Please clarify.
 * booth-based results ...  - addressed by Drover's Wife.
 * In summary: They were originally put there for a reason, and have been there for years. They record useful historical fact, and although they are not perfect, their presence provides considerably more useful information than will their absence. Pdfpdf (talk) 06:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

So only one oppose so far? Timeshift (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose what? There was a post about an issue with no proposal, and three replies giving feedback. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose removing them from the article. You said "I do absolutely agree that conflating booths is WP:OR and something that we shouldn't be doing". Timeshift (talk) 06:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought you were referring to removal all booth level results, and since Pdfpdf didn't respond to the issue of merged-booth results, removing the conflation of booths as blatant OR seems to be like a step that should be uncontroversial. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps Pdfpdf had better understand what you (plural) mean, and perhaps then he should express an opinion? So, please can one of you explain why combining five booths is "bordering on WP:OR", and also, as it hasn't been a problem for many years, explain why you (plural) suddenly seem to think it's a problem now? As Drover&#39;s Wife said, "For me, having a politics section based on the data about how the booths in that locality have voted over the years is useful information and something I would be interested to know about any particular locality. This says considerably more than merely listing data at the electorate level." - If the way it has been done has problems, is there a way that the data can be presented that does not have these problems? Thanks in advance. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that booth results have value as information, but that their continued usefulness in articles depends on whether we can address some of the issues Timeshift9 initially raised. Combining booth data, on the other hand - which may include booths shared with other suburbs or in other suburbs, through calculations made by Wikipedians to try to come up with simpler data than the real figures is WP:OR - it's the very definition of it. It should have been raised as a problem when it first happened, but it's just something that's been missed. The obvious solution would be to ditch these figures and use the original booth data, and I am also of the view that - especially where there are multiple booths - more than the immediate past election is overkill. But that's a conversation that needs to be had separately from culling the conflated figures. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

2014 Australian federal budget - seriously in need of expansion
I've added an incomplete tag as this article requires serious expansion - it is almost all pre-budget. I've added the under 30s Newstart bit and linked ABC's winners/losers in external links that can be drawn on for article expansion. There's a lot that still isn't covered. It also wasn't linked anywhere in a wikipedia article except Australian federal budget and templates so i've linked to it in Abbott/Abbott govt articles. Timeshift (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Consistency with lists of members of state electorates
I'm just a bit concerned lately that some old seats in Victoria and Queensland have had the format of the dates in the list of members changed, for example, here, and here.

I know that there was a discussion about it last year that didn't seem to reach a conclusion, and I'm a bit reluctant to go about changing them back to the standard format of just having the years that each member held the seat since there seemed to be a bit of heat in that discussion. So I was wondering if there could be an agreement of what the format should be.

I'd prefer to change it to the year alone with a link to the election or by-election in question that the seat changed hands, like how most NSW seats are done, examples here and here. It keeps the tables simple and neat and the election in question where the new member won is easily accessible. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * IMHO it should be listed in years only. DD/MM can be added to the MPs article. Timeshift (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Frickeg (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Whitehouse Institute of Design
What do you all reckon? Include Abbott's daughter hoopla, or not. A certain user's trying to get me blocked, so I won't be contributing, but some more eyes would be nice. 124.169.104.184 (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I reckon the material is notable and well referenced. Particularly given the number of France's fellow students who when they asked were told that there was no scholarship for their program. Alans1977 (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * My first instinct was to say not, because I think there is serious danger of undue weight on BLP issues here, but I think the current coverage in the article is good and quite reasonable for what it is. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Australian House of Representatives
Input is requested regarding a change to the graphic in the infobox depicting the party makeup of the House. Frickeg (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Politicians change party - what about the seat?
Prompted by this discussion. This has been sort of a background disagreement for many years now and I think it's time we sorted it out. When a politician changes party affiliation during their term, how should we treat the electorate when dealing with gains/losses, seat counts, maps, and pendulums?

My view is that, for the purposes listed above, the seat should remain with the party it voted for at the previous election. For example, I would consider Dobell and Fisher to be a Labor hold and an LNP hold at the last election, respectively. Likewise I would consider Kennedy to be a KAP gain from an Independent (since KAP did not exist in 2010). This is because, in the instances listed above, we are dealing with parties, not MPs. When we are colouring maps, I would consider we are first concerned with party designation, not MPs. A party that did not exist at a previous election cannot "hold" a seat at a new one. I think we should be distinguishing between party gains/holds and MP gains/holds. For example, the seat of Dalrymple was a gain for KAP at the last Queensland election, but a hold for Shane Knuth. Frickeg (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

For the purpose of a map and pendulum for a future election - ie South Australian state election, 2018, it should reflect current affiliation. Waite is now represented by an independent MP, not a Liberal MP. In theory the voters elect the person, not the party, so i'm not sure why the party should be hard-coded until the next election if the MP changes affiliation. Of course the 2014 article should remain as-is though. We have enough precedent for this. Timeshift (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * But these are not about the person, they're about the party. The map is all about what party the electorate voted at the last election, not who exactly they voted for. The pendulum is designed to show swings in party terms. Of course member lists and things should show changes in affiliation, because they're about the MPs, not the party. I don't see any precedent for this at all, actually, and I certainly know any page I've worked on regarding this (and there are a few) have ignored defections for these purposes. (For pendulums, I would suggest the "MP" column be coloured differently, but the rest should stay the same because it's about party. The same for redistributions.) Frickeg (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree with redistributions. If a seat were to become notionally Liberal and with that meant it was then held by a Liberal MP, i'd agree with you. But the MP would still be Labor so it should still be coloured as Labor. Anywho - who says the next election maps are "all about what party the electorate voted at the last election", rather than current affiliation of an MP? Similar pendulums can be seen at Pre-election pendulum for the Victorian state election, 2014 (Geoff Shaw), Post-election pendulum for the New South Wales state election, 2011 (Webber, Spence), Post-election pendulum for the Queensland state election, 2012 (Palmer MPs). Timeshift (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I find all of those pendulums utterly absurd, I'm afraid. They all clearly imply that, for example, the margin in Yeerongpilly is 1.4% PUP vs ALP, when it is, of course, 1.4% LNP versus KAP. I know all the pendulums I've done for federal elections have ignored defections. As for the maps, they're about party designation - that's why they're coloured according to party. If they were designated with a little photo of the MP, or the MP's name, then that might be different. For redistributions, the only way it can be done logically, as far as I can see, is on notional designation. How otherwise does one deal with new seats? Frickeg (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * They imply that the margin for the candidate is x.x% vs other candidate, which is still correct. As far as i'm concerned, future maps should be coloured according to the MP's affiliation. In a redistribution, the MP's affiliation remains the same. In a new seat where there's no MP, then there's no option but to colour as per notional margin. Timeshift (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * But we can't do both, with the redistribution thing. We have to be colouring it on how the corresponding area voted at the last election. In 2010, for example, you can't say "oh, Wright is a new seat, but the corresponding area voted LNP at the last election, so we'll colour it LNP", and then say "this redistributed Dickson voted ALP at the last election, but it has a sitting LNP MP so we'll colour it LNP". It's completely inconsistent and renders the maps useless. The maps are not supposed to be representing parliamentary makeup - they are about elections, which is why they are on the election pages. Your approach, taken to its logical conclusion, means that would should be only recording swings for candidates; that Craig Thomson in Dobell 2010 should be listed as having a -42.27% swing, with Emma McBride treated as a new candidate and given +35.11. That's not how we do things, though; we use party swings. As for the pendulums, they are grouped according to party and coloured according to party - they clearly imply that PUP (or whoever) won the seat at the last election, when they didn't even exist'. Frickeg (talk) 03:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Results/swings are different. They are not future maps/pendulums. Timeshift (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've mostly been going by the rule that how the seat at the election is either held or changed hands depending on how the voters voted at the previous election. For example I'd say Dobell was just a plain Liberal gain from Labor and Fisher was an LNP hold in 2013.

But in redistributions, I admit that I've been going by the other argument, that if the seat has no current member I'd go by the party vote in the new boundaries (eg - Wright 2010 as a LNP hold, Flynn 2007 as a Labor gain from National), but if it does and the seat becomes notionally held by another party, I'd consider it still held by the member (eg - Dickson 2010 as a LNP hold, while Macquarie 2007 as a Labor gain from Liberal as a sitting MP was defeated). Just I've been doing that so that it can be more easily identified that a seat has changed hands rather than saying Macquarie 2007 was a Labor Hold. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Speculation in The Australian
Talk:Martin Hamilton-Smith - input appreciated. Timeshift (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Same editor now putting speculation in to Vickie Chapman. I've requested they follow WP:BRD but they won't listen. Again, input appreciated. Timeshift (talk) 08:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, the "do not contact me again" IP. I ran into a spot of bother with him/her at Peter McLellan a while ago; wouldn't mind a second opinion on that, too. Frickeg (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Only using Newspoll for state elections
An issue has come up at Victorian state election, 2014 regarding the sole use of Newspoll for state election articles, and I'm inclined to agree with the reverted editor that it's very strange to exclude non-Newspoll polling. I can't think of another example anywhere on Wikipedia - and I follow election articles at a bunch of levels in a bunch of countries - where a set of articles cherrypicks one particular pollster at random and insists on using them and only them. This is removing a massive swathe of good, reliable polling data - to use one thirty-second example, it wipes out the last five polls taken of upcoming state elections around Australia. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Adopting Drover's suggestion ensures the most up to date polling information available. Considering it's done for the 2016 federal election article, I can't think why excluding at least 3 alternate polling firms is at all appropriate. Point of disclosure though, I am the reverted editor at Victorian state election, 2014 in question, so no doubt other wikipedians will need to be as convinced as I am in order for a new consensus to be reached Jono52795 (talk) 04:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There should be no restriction, although it should be largely confined to reliable polling agencies - things like Westpoll and privately-commissioned ReachTEL polls are inscrutinable. Very few agencies actually do state. Orderinchaos 04:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I want to echo these sentiments, if polling agencies other than Newspoll are to be included, then those such as ReachTEL and other's like it that have about as much reliability to them as an online poll should continue to be excluded. The Tepes (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm chiefly concerned at this point with Galaxy, Essential Research, and in Tasmania EMRS, which are the three obvious ones that come to mind, and which would boost the amount and frequency of state polling we have significantly. I am a little bit vague on Westpoll but if I remember rightly I can understand why you'd exclude that, but impugning ReachTEL is new to me so I'm curious why you both think at least the latter should be excluded. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * My concerns with ReachTEL stems from the disparity between their results and the results of others, though I must admit my exposure to them has been rather limited, so it may not be the case for them on the whole. Just the results I've seen them produce compared to the results of more reputable and established sources makes me question the accuracy and quality. However I'm willing to admit due to my limited exposure to them I may not be the best to judge.
 * If others who have greater exposure to them, such as yourself I'm guessing, and believe them to be trustworthy then I will withdraw my objection. Though I will still oppose the trifecta of dodginess that you have pointed out. The Tepes (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you mean by "trifecta of dodginess"? I'd also be interested to hear more from Orderinchaos about his issues with ReachTEL polling. I am not swayed either way, just wanting to know more about the rationale before supporting cutting those out. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Most ReachTEL polls I've seen have been paid for by interest groups (and often state this somewhere in the survey), so are inherently compromised. Orderinchaos 07:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see why polling conducted by agencies other than Newspoll would be excluded, especially since this is the only article I'm aware of that only uses one source for polling. Other mainstream agencies should, and must be included. The Tepes (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * So long as the polling agencies have effective methods and experience, I can't see why we should exclude them. But if we are talking online and phonein polls, where the responses are self-selected and prone to stacking, then they are of little encyclopaedic use. --Pete (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No one's advocating including those. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Good-oh. Looking at this diff, it seems to refer to some established consensus. Perhaps Timeshift could expand on this? --Pete (talk) 06:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry? I said "we only use newspoll for the states. if you disagree then you'll need to get a consensus on the talk page". For a disputed change away from the status quo, consensus will be required. It's not that i'm against including polls other than newspoll, it's just that we've only ever used newspoll for the states, so I didn't want state polling to begin a journey to a dog's breakfast. I'm not against using other polling firms in principle, we just need a uniform approach to it. Timeshift (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. Newspoll's history and methodology are certainly valuable commodities for our encyclopaedia. There's always a veritable canine feast of polls for a state or territory election, some of them very dubious indeed. --Pete (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of political polling, have you seen that Nielsen are no longer doing public polling? --Canley (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Not very surprising. They've had a reduced presence in recent years as newer pollsters like Essential Research have taken some of their thunder. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That is actually really depressing. They were great. The Tepes (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm more then happy to include more polling results, assuming they are from reputable sources. The fact that Nielson will no longer be doing public polling is a huge loss, in my opinion they were the best. I should also state that I too have some concerns about some of the more "dodgy" polling sources. But all the same would like more updates, again as long as the sources are reputable. SultanNicole (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You're the second person here to talk about "dodgy" polling sources, and I'm curious which outfits you're talking about. Australia has a bunch of reliable polling sources that I've never seen challenged anywhere, and apart from Westpoll and (per the discussion above) perhaps some of ReachTEL's polling, I'd like to know what you're talking about. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I meant more in the sense using sources that aren't established. SultanNicole (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Consensus reached?
Well, considering the response which appears to be uniformly in favour of additional polling data from 'reputable' firms which don't rely on online responses, I move to include recent polling data from Essential Research on the Victorian state election, 2014. Link for most recent Victoria data is here. Why? -Qualifies as reputable: About this poll:

''This report summarises the results of a weekly omnibus conducted by Essential Research with data provided by Your Source. The survey was conducted online over 4 weeks to 27th May 2014.''

Sample sizes were NSW 1,293, Queensland 737 and Victoria 1,005. LINK: See here (under State voting intention - NSW subheading)

I haven't encountered any other polling firms running regular polling of state election voting intentions for VIC or any other state or Territory, though I haven't been looking for them either. Im suggesting that we adopt a new policy with respect to polling data inclusion criteria for state/Territory election pages, that being - when published on Wikipedia's state/Territory election pages - they are ''' All in favour? Yae or Nay? Jono52795 (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * From an established polling company utilised previously on Wikipedia federal election articles
 * Include a statistically significant sampling size
 * '''Firms which exclusively or predominantly utilise online and/or phonein polling methodologies, where the responses are self-selected and prone to stacking, should not be regarded as 'reputable' and thus should not be included. Newspoll data should no longer be the only polling firm cited and published on Wikipedia state/Territory election articles.


 * Yay! --Pete (talk) 09:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this is good as a broad way to go forward. I don't know where this leaves in particular ReachTEL though, where we don't seem to have a consensus either way. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would replace "no longer" with "not", as it never was the case beyond this one article, but otherwise entirely agree. Orderinchaos 07:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * So can someone clarify what polling firms would be included? Timeshift (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hajnal Ban
Can some more editors please keep an eye on this page? An editor is repeatedly adding claims that Ban has ties to far-right organisations, cited to an Australian article that doesn't actually remotely support the things claimed. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Will add Hajnal Ban to watchlist. --Pete (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Just had a look. Who is the editor you say is repeatedly adding these claims? Are you talking about User:WWGB? If so, you are incorrect. The source indicates that the Australian Tea Party supports Black/Ban, but as you rightly point out she hasn't admitted it. --Pete (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, if you look at the edit history WWGB had an edit conflict trying to fix a grammatical error that led to the stuff being re-inserted. This has actually been sitting on the page since at least March 2012, and the editor involved appears to be User:Ddball, who has been editing the page ever since. The statement is very clear that she "openly acknowledges" being backed by them, which is not remotely supported by the source. They did back her, yes, but I'm far from convinced that is notable since she does not appear to have acknowledged them in any way. Frickeg (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What Frickeg said. The editor is also making claims about Ban having ties to the Australian Defence League, which is a considerably nastier organisation than the "Australian TEA Party" and doesn't seem to be mentioned in the source at all. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was my take. It doesn't seem to be an ongoing issue though? --Pete (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The ADL and the Australian Tea Party are the same organisation. Under the leadership of David Goodridge the Australian Tea Party was created to tap into the US political funding cycle .. which is something he told me in a phone conversation while he was trying to recruit me. The issue is neither here nor there, Hajnal came out as the most senior member of that party having been elected. The ADL is a brother organisation to the ADL in the US which is from the EDL .. and BNP .. Those details are not in the article, but truths which Goodridge goes to great pains to obscure. The article should correctly position Hajnal's politics and connection to the far right party .. note, the EDL in UK style themselves occasionally as conservative too .. it doesn't make it true. ADL/Tea Party politics are reactionary anti immigration and opposing cultural pluralism while conservative politics is not. DDB (talk) 08:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But, even if that were all true, none of it is supported by the source you were citing. For something as controversial as this, it is even more important to have accurate, reliable citation, especially on a BLP. Your own experience is all well and good, but not a reliable source, as I'm sure you're aware. If you can find a reliable source indicating all of that, then, maybe, if it can be established as notable, we could think about including it. Frickeg (talk) 08:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact is fact and I am at arms length to the subject and the issue. I know neither Hajnal nor deal with the ADL/Australian Tea Party. The article was made with Hajnal's permission/cooperation. It was a puff piece at a time when the group were hoping to leverage support and the court case seems to be relevant only to her. My sole aim with the edits was to be encyclopaedic and accurate and precise. It is a wilful mislabel to cal Hajnal conservative .. she is not. Maybe Hajnal does not endorse the realities of the Australian Tea Party .. that is almost certainly true even if she were trying to adhere to their extremist dictates. I have no hidden agenda here and will happily ignore the page from now on. However, I respectfully point out it neither wrong, nor biased, to accurately portray the public position of a public figure. DDB (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is basic wikipolicy to cite a reliable source. If an editor uses their own personal knowledge, it is Original Research and may not be used. Especially not in a BLP. Anything unsourced is subject to immediate removal. --Pete (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite. Not to mention it's hardly a public position if there's no reliable source for it. Frickeg (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Australian Politics At Wikimania 2014
Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to: Project leaflets Adikhajuria (talk) 10:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Is Ferguson Left still a thing?
If it isn't, then asking on the talk page there probably won't gain any useful responses. Maybe it's called something else now. I dunno how Labor factions work, so if someone knows what's what, that might help. --Pete (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if it isn't still a thing. It might be useful to keep for historical purposes. Alans1977 (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that it was still a thing, but I'd love to have some reliable sources for what's happened to it. Unfortunately all Google News turns up for "Ferguson Left" "Labor" is an article called "Camping For Christ", that I'm venturing probably isn't about Martin and Laurie. The best 2014 source I can find in a quick Google is this Poll Bludger article that says "O’Connor rose through Labor ranks as an official with the Australian Services Union with factional backing from the Ferguson Left, which is now more likely to be identified under its formal name of the Independent Left." The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be divine if "Camping for Christ" was relevant. I'm thinking a name change rather than deletion might be the go here. "Independent Left" may be a longer lasting label than "Ferguson Left", especially if MF has taken up other, possibly outdoor, activities. --Pete (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Put forward the name change then. Alans1977 (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm seeking wider input from experienced editors. DW has been helpful, and I trust others will add their thoughts. There seems to be no particular need for haste. --Pete (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, much as I love William Bowe, I'm not voting to rename the thing off a very passing mention in one of his electorate profiles. I don't think deletion could be justifiable for this one - they've had a major role in just about every Labor factional intrigue of the last decade or so - we just need to wait until we've got enough sources to cover its recent progress. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of meaningless and unreliably sourced ideology...
List of political parties in Australia... what a dog's breakfast. Thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Lot of unsourced material there. Some of the articles linked to are unsourced rubbish. Some of the listings don't have the same information as the articles they point to. I guess we should be looking at what use a reader would make of such a list, and what springs to my mind is comparisons. Things like membership numbers, federal and state/territory representation, activity periods. The question is how complete we make such a list. Some microparties pop up at each Senate election, but including them in the same list as (say) the Greens, is a bit of a stretch. Some of these things are little more than a post office box. And what do we make of defucnt parties, even those once influential, such as Protectionist. For a complete listing, all we really need is to point to a category and make sure all Australian political parties belong to that category. --Pete (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the list is probably splittable into active and defunct parties. I think the basic structure of the current articles is OK, although of course it needs thorough sourcing and possibly a complete rewrite. With a split I think we could easily include something on all registered parties at the very least, with unregistered probably on a case-by-case basis. Frickeg (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the attempts to include descriptions of the parties' ideology and the names of the microparties' leaders is a hopeless dogs breakfast and should all go, and it should go back to just being a list of parties. The unregistered parties should also either be deleted or go back to the defunct section unless there are sources for their continued existence (i.e. the Progressive Labour Party). The basic structure of the article is fine in my book, and it wouldn't look nearly so bloated if all of the half-empty tables were trashed and returned to lists. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI I wasn't bringing up anything except for the meaningless and unreliably sourced ideology in the first table of parliamentary parties in the article (section: Federal parliamentary parties and their leaders). But now that I look at the table more, party positions too? And some party votes use lower and some use upper (Coalition 45% and LDP 3.9%?) And using post July 2014 Senate seat numbers already? Dogs. Breakfast. Table needs a heavy overhaul. Timeshift (talk) 04:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Content dispute at Paul Keating.
Other views would be appreciated. Timeshift (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It's happening again :( Timeshift (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, I'm so glad I was away for most of that. What an utterly bizarre approach to Wikipedia that IP had (I mean, not that that attitude is rare, but taken to that extreme it's unusual). Frickeg (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A week this time. Alans1977 (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

List of Australian electorates contested at every election
I loathe articles wholly based on factoid trivia like this one. Should this article exist? Timeshift (talk) 04:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with its inclusion. It does come up at times - the AEC in particular doesn't like abolishing 1901 electorates where avoidable, and it does raise a bit of a fuss from some corners when they do. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think we need some sourcing for this being at all significant, because otherwise I'm inclined to agree that it seems pretty trivial. The AEC has an actual provision in their guidelines that federation divisions should be retained where possible (which is why we have nonsense like North Sydney still but not East/West/South, or Werriwa miles away from Lake George, although I assume the latter will be renamed for Gough Whitlam when the time comes), which is here, but I don't see that as sufficient for us to have a whole article on them (let alone the state ones). Frickeg (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * See, while it's obviously far from the most ragingly important topic, the reasons you illustrate are pretty much the exact reason I fall on the side of keeping it. I think it has verifiable if minor significance, is going to be of interest to some people, and don't really see the point of removing it. Hardly something I feel strongly about though. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Electoral results smaller than seat-level
Per archived discussion here, I've given it more than enough time. Added outdated|section tag. I still question whether they should be included at all. Timeshift (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've changed my mind on this after doing a lot of work on Victorian localities. While I still think they're useful information, and they're something I think is good in GA or FA articles if referenced and kept up to date, these are really, really not something I'd want being rolled out across the place. It'd be a nightmare to keep up to date, the fact we've got a bunch of localities whose state and federal electorates or LGAs aren't exactly correct, and that we've failed to keep updated other changing data such as climate, I say delete 'em. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Very marginally useful. Not sure about OR in the Adelaide City Centre example; presumably those five booths cover some definition of city centre, which in Adelaide's case is well defined. I think there'd have to be a very good and specific reason to include them. The booth by booth information is presumably available somewhere that isn't likely to be abandoned any time soon? --Pete (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, there's two issues here. The merged booth results, which aren't published anywhere official and are entirely dependent on the OR calculations of Wikipedians, have always been unjustifiable in my book and should have been torched if they haven't been already. The individual booth results are verifiable, but they're very difficult to keep up to date, and have been kept up to date nowhere that I know of where they have been added. It's the latter that I initially defended but have come around to removing. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Pdfpdf is removing the outdated tag without any talkpage contribution, and appears to be ignoring the fact that everyone but him either agrees it should be removed from all articles, or at least should be removed from Adelaide City Centre as the combining of booths is WP:OR. Timeshift (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Disappointing, but is not the first time Pdfpdf has refused to heed other editors and Wikipedia policies generally. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Bullshit!
 * a) The original statement is false and a complete misrepresentation of what I actually said.
 * b) Drover's wife: Your response is false. What is your evidence for that extremely offensive comment? Either provide evidence immediately, or withdraw and apologise.
 * All: I'm having problems with my ISP and am not able to actively edit Wikipedia. (e.g. It's taken me the best part of an hour to get to the point where I have been able to read this persecution.) Please keep this in mind if you do not get a timely response to your false accusations. I will reply to the conversation when I have the services of an ISP the will let me do so.
 * BTW: Despite your false statements, I don't necessarily disagree with any of you - it's just that I have a point-of-view that seems tangential to yours, and it seems to me that very few of you have the ability to accommodate anything other than your own point-of-view.
 * I'll be back when it doesn't take me forever to do so. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You need to read, familiarise yourself with, and if necessary re-read again, Original research. Taking a bunch of published data for various booths, and a Wikipedian compiling that information into new figures based on their own calculation, is basically the definition of what that policy bars from being added to Wikipedia, and it's one of Wikipedia's oldest and most bedrock policies. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * More irrelevant bullshit!!
 * I see no evidence, nor do I see a withdrawal and apology.
 * You can make all the false and irrelevant accusations you like. (Refer to Josef Gobels if you need help.)
 * I repeat: Either "put up" or "shut up". Pdfpdf (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * ... waiting ... Pdfpdf (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

... Am I to understand that this is still in dispute? I thought we settled this months ago, with the Adelaide one at the very least. (It goes, of course; OR of the most ridiculous kind.) Frickeg (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Pdfpdf is continuing to revert the removal of the OR. I'm damned if I know why, but this is probably something that needs dealing with. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Fucked if I know!! Logic forced me to agree with you then, and thus it's not altogether surprising that I still agree with you now. Honestly, I have no idea what these WP:Dicks agenda is, but there is NO WAY I'm going to put up with the bullshit they're pushing. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Drovers wife: ... STILL waiting. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Timeshift: It's only now that I realise that you haven't ever made stupid accusations. (I think that's a compliment - your choice.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OMG!! What on earth would cause me to make that stupid comment!!!???
 * Hey Timeshift, I realise you ain't the devil incarnate. Obviously, the late hour and Optus are distorting my sense of reality.
 * Manyana. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Pdfpdf, do you seriously expect other readers will look favourably upon your view when you often swear and type in caps and bold? Why is it that relatively small things turn you all nasty? Timeshift (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Timeshift: Good questions! (Thank you for asking them, but more particularly, thank you for causing me to think about them.)
 * do you seriously expect other readers will look favourably upon your view when you often swear and type in caps and bold? - Well, before you asked, my opinion was that I didn't care. Now that you have asked - well ... a) Good question. b) You make a good point.  c) Thank you.
 * Why is it that relatively small things turn you all nasty? - Goodness gracious me! Excellent question! (How simple it has been that you have completely changed my opinion of you.) Sorry, I don't currently have an answer, and now that you have asked, I realise that I DO need an answer.
 * What can I say? "Thank you" seems inadequate. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why must every reply be a drama/saga? Is it to wear others down in an attempt to 'win' the debate? Timeshift (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Pdfpdf, discounting all the emotion and stuff, I'm not seeing any coherent reasons to keep these low-level numbers. I can accept that there might be some particular circumstances to do with a precise locality - Oaks Estate in Canberra is always interesting - but I'm seeing no good arguments to either common sense or wikipolicy. Consensus seems to be against you, and disruption ensuing. --Pete (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

So three users agree the booth results should be removed from the article for varying reasons, per above. One user is constantly re-inserting the booth tables when removed by various users. Nobody appears to want to budge. When does majority become consensus and how do we proceed when the only objector keeps re-inserting the table? Timeshift (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm actually not entirely sure there is any disagreement; Pdfpdf has advanced no arguments in favour of keeping the booth-level results and I think I understand from his comments that he is not opposed to removing them (I believe it was a consensus-related reason). I would say we have more than adequate consensus at this point. Frickeg (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I had that impression from Pdfpdf's comments as well - but ten minutes after that comment he went and reverted their removal, so I have no idea what he's doing on this. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Gentlemen! (Apologies if there are any ladies involved). Pdfpdf (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Timeshift: Why must every reply be a drama/saga? Is it to wear others down in an attempt to 'win' the debate? - Ignored. (Adds nothing to the subject).
 * Pete: Pdfpdf, discounting all the emotion and stuff, I'm not seeing any coherent reasons to keep these low-level numbers. - It's good to see that there is at least ONE person capable of accurate objective analysis. I can accept that there might be some particular circumstances to do with a precise locality - Oaks Estate in Canberra is always interesting - but I'm seeing no good arguments to either common sense or wikipolicy. - Agree.
 * Timeshift: One user is constantly re-inserting the booth tables when removed by various users. - Arrant BULLSHIT! ONE user removed it ONCE, and I reverted ONCE asking for more information. Once again Timeshift, I am, in public, calling you a liar. If you want me to emphasise how unimpressed I am with your lies I will. Don't doubt it.
 * Frickeg: I'm actually not entirely sure there is any disagreement - A second person capable of accurate objective analysis.
 * The Drover&#39;s Wife: I had that impression from Pdfpdf's comments as well - You were spot on the money. but ten minutes after that comment he went and reverted their removal - Indeed I did. so I have no idea what he's doing on this. - Well, MAYBE if you had read my edit comment, it would have been blindingly obvious to you.


 * it might help, for next time, if we could lose some of these snippy comments. Criticism aimed at the person is rarely helpful in discussion here. Trust me on this; I've tried it and it doesn't work real well. The Drover's Wife say's she's female and I'll take her word for it. There may be an itinerant pastoral labourer involved as well. Timeshift has a sardonic sense of humour I treasure, even if we rarely see eye to eye on which political team deserves the "Best and Fairest" awards. Like me, you can probably discount anything that isn't immediately obvious - it may very well be a clever or impenetrable jest. Anyway, we're all in this mess together, might as well try to get along. Accept or reject my advice, it's fine.
 * I may have entirely the wrong end of the stick here, as I'm not an Adelaidian, but it seems to me that Adelaide is unique in that its city centre is well-defined and distinct from the surrounding urban areas, and that therefore any polling booths within that distinct area can be aggregated to give a political atmosphere at each election distinct from those of electorate level. Of course, voters may come from elsewhere on a Saturday morning to combine shopping with voting and get two unpleasant tasks out of the way at once before returning to their more or less distant homes and cracking a bottle of Barossa's best, so there may be some distortion going on, but even so… --Pete (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * In an affectionate, non-attacky way, Pdfpdf comes across as a cranky cantankerous old man in real life who can't adjust his attitude in the virtual world. I guess we'll just have to live with it, because I don't see it changing any time soon. Hell, I know I can come across as negative to say the least on wikipedia sometimes, but at least I try to maintain a semblence of a half-decent attitude. I guess Pdfpdf just doesn't see his poor online attitude and how it detracts from what he otherwise says, because the swearing, caps, and general anger continues without let-up. Again, not a personal attack, just telling it how it appears. Timeshift (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow! The outdated election tables are gone! And Pdfpdf seems ok with it! What changed?! Timeshift (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Political parties in Australia
This category seems like a bit of a mess. There's a bunch of random party-by-ideology categories, some categorisations of which are a bit questionable, a bunch of party-by-state categories, and various people running bots have ripped various parties out of the main category and stuck them in random subcategories. More helpfully, someone is running around putting the defunct parties in a defunct party category, which is past time. I feel like a way of sorting this out would be a) to put all current parties in Category:Political parties in Australia, b) creating a holding category for the party-by-ideology categories if people feel strongly that they should exist, and c) find and add that category tag that stops silly people with bots messing up the place by deleting stuff from the main category. Thoughts? -- The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Adam Marshall
This article could do with some eyes. There's an editor trying to include some serious negative claims in a BLP article without any citation at all and I'm getting fed up with reiterating the same ground. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)