Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics/Archive 7

Kathy Jackson
There has recently been coverage by The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/how-the-friend-kathy-jackson-never-knew-revealed-creditcard-abuse-12-years-earlier/story-fn59noo3-1227006472214#) about Kathy Jackson's knowledge of Craig Thompsons activities for a long period of time before she choose to come forward. There are some who are currently attempting to sensor the addition of that coverage in her page for anyone who is interested. AlanS (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you might want to talk this one out before throwing around suggestions of censorship. I largely agree with you on the factual issue but what you wrote is not what the source said. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you can safely infer being supplied with secret credit cards coerced out of a business as misuse of position. AlanS (talk) 04:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The source is very carefully worded. The article text repeatedly removed is less cautious and is a BLP vio for reasons noted on the article talk page. Please refrain from reinserting it unless there is consensus to do so. --Pete (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there any reason in particular that material on Jackson being sued by her own union is not included anywhere on her page or for that mater any of the revelations coming out from the ongoing royal commission? AlanS (talk) 06:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPCRIME applies here, and we need to be careful that allegations aren't given undue weight or presented as fact. Given the number of allegations which have been made against Jackson, and articles such as this which state that at least some of them are considered credible, they should be noted in the article. But so should her responses to them. Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The article badly needs to be updated regarding the Royal Commission and the litigation between Jackson and the HSU. There are tons of references for both things, and both should be very easily able to be summarised. The story you're attempting to add, however, is one very carefully worded story which you're very not-carefully and quite inaccurately summarising in the article, hence the controversy here. I keep having to rein lefties in on the articles of people I thoroughly dislike and it's annoying. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My opinion of her (which has nothing to do with the material I've added) would be much the same if I leaned the left or right of the political spectrum. In any case I've started a section on the royal commission. It's nothing fantastic and rather short at this stage. I hope its inclusion is far less controversial. AlanS (talk) 08:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

State MP numbers in lead infobox of political parties
Why are we starting to do this? Eg Australian Greens and Australian Labor Party. For starters, there's not even a consistency in layout. Timeshift (talk) 06:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have generally thought that this has worked where I've seen it done elsewhere: Palmer United Party and Shooters and Fishers Party being two good examples. I think especially for these smaller parties, it maps out their current electoral standing nicely, and is in my book a helpful addition. HOWEVER, the adaptation for the two articles you cited is a mess. In the Labor article, "state and territory parliaments" is too big a conglomeration to be useful, and I'm guessing is probably a maths job a Wikipedian did and thus OR. In the Greens case, it's too sprawling - for one, the NT and Queensland shouldn't be mentioned since there are no MPs there, and I'm not thrilled with adding the two houses together as I think it would be confusing to non-hacks. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I essentially agree with all you've said. Additionally, with the Greens, it's a duplicate of the boxes further down the article which I think worked nicely as was. Timeshift (talk) 08:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the boxes further down the Greens article are a much better way of doing it in their case, but ugh that whole article is such a sprawling mess that I had trouble finding them. Can I suggest as one alternative that we draw an arbitrary line and use these state infobox fields where it's simple and helpful, and just don't use them for Labor, Liberal and Greens? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with that suggestion. Smaller parties yes, major parties + Greens no. Frickeg (talk) 08:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Should we keep the Greens HoR table? This one. Seems pretty pointless to have one for a party that's only got one HoR seat. We don't and shouldn't have it for Palmer or Katter. Timeshift (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with keeping it, since it also includes useful information like the primary vote. Not too fussed, though. Frickeg (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Electoral funding for a 4%+ primary vote in a lower house seat
In the SA Electoral district of Fisher, Family First got 4%, or 3.982%, of the primary vote. But the candidate here claims "We got 4% of the vote in Fisher, just enough to get the $3000 nomination fee back from the Electoral Commission". How is 4% calculated? I would have thought 3.9999% is not enough but 4.0000% is? Timeshift (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As a question, do independent sources confirm that they received the fee reimbursement? Nick-D (talk) 05:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I did use the word 'claim' :) Timeshift (talk) 05:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * He's just talking about the return of the deposit, though, not electoral funding. (I couldn't find any evidence of there even being public funding of elections in SA on the ECSA website, but I may have missed it.) The HA candidate handbook says that you need "more than 4%" to get your deposit back, so I think the candidate is probably mistaken. I couldn't for the life of me find an official list of returned deposits, and it might not exist. The AEC always publishes a list detailing the amount of public funding given out, but if SA doesn't do public funding it probably doesn't need to disclose much. Frickeg (talk) 06:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This might be a question worth asking the Electoral Commission directly, since it's not something that needs to be directly cited in any article but would be useful to know. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Mike Baird (politician) as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - your opinion/vote required
See Talk:Mike Baird (politician) and add your opinion/vote please! Timeshift (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Article link change from a bot required please
Can someone get a bot to go through Mike Baird (politician) links and change them to Mike Baird as he is now WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this necessary? They'll all redirect anyway. The only ones that really matter are the navboxes, which I've just done. Frickeg (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirects aren't ideal though. Certainly it's not necessary enough for someone to put the time in to it, which is why i've asked if someone can get a bot to do it. Timeshift (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Should we have election links in leader infoboxes?
Per here. I think we should have links to leaders' elections in infoboxes to give readers an area to quickly navigate to their respective election articles and don't need to read through the article in the chance they may come across the election link. Elections are central to the outcomes of leaders. Thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree there should be a navigation list of election campaigns led. What we don't need is a strange separation like this where campaigns led as PM and opposition leader are listed separately. WWGB (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Many articles include the election links in the infobox, however it would be good if we had consistency amongst the articles as to whether or not we include them. Do we include links to elections where they lost office as well as those they won? Do we also include the elections where they were Opposition Leader? And do we divide those elections between the box for Prime Minister and Opposition leader? A consistent approach should be agreed upon.
 * They used to be a permanent fixture of the infobox, then some began to vanish while others remained. I don't see the issue people have with them, they are rather helpful and highly relevant. The Tepes (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * IMHO if they were a leader at an election then there should be a link to the election in the infobox. Timeshift (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If we are to go ahead with including the election links shall we agree on a format? I propose that in cases of Prime Ministers all elections they led the party in are to be included within the Prime Ministers box, even those they lost. As for Opposition leaders who have never been Prime Minister, they should have the links in the Opposition leaders box. This should address what WWGB was getting at I think.
 * If anyone has any other ideas I'm all ears. The Tepes (talk) 05:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. Timeshift (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, that kind of separation is exactly what I DON'T want! For example (e.g.) Whitlam led five election campaigns 69/72/74/75/77 and they should all be listed in the one list. The average reader won't know to go looking elsewhere for campaigns led from opposition. WWGB (talk) 06:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's what I meant. Sorry poor phrasing on my part. I meant we include all election links in the Prime Ministers box, I meant in cases such as Bill Hayden who never made it to Prime Minister we place it in the Opposition Leaders box. Only in cases like that.The Tepes (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's how I read it. Timeshift (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually inclined to disagree here. This seems exactly the kind of thing that is better in the text than in the infoboxes (most of which are already monstrous and could use pruning). Open to being convinced, though. Frickeg (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Monstrous infoboxes are a seperate issue, election links are just a half-size line of space. I mean, adding Bob Hawke's 3-day stint as Treasurer of Australia to his infobox? Really? Timeshift (talk) 05:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Links to elections take up very little space in the infobox, however when they are only available in the text, they are frequently separated. The Tepes (talk) 06:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Exactly. And they're not always obvious. For example in the Bob Hawke article lead, the link to the 1983 election is "landslide election victory". Not exactly clear. Timeshift (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

And he's back, reverting, and not discussing. Why must we deal with such a recalcitrant and intransigent editor? Timeshift (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Frickeg. There is no point adding this in the infobox as it can be found in the text. It also looks untidy and is distracting. Also, if it is so important to add something as irrelevant as this in the infobox, then why would you not add truly important pieces of information in infoboxes on other pages, such as the political position and ideology of the Liberal Party. That is something that is actually important and should be included. Seems you are doing one thing one one page, but doing the complete opposite on another. Incompetence from Timeshift once again. Andreas11213 (talk) 07:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Stop being WP:POINTy please. And make a valid comparison while you're at it. Why must we deal with such a recalcitrant and intransigent editor? Timeshift (talk) 07:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not "disrupting wikipedia to prove a point". In fact I am not disrupting wikipedia at all. You have support from three users, and opposition from two users. You have not reached consensus to add this. Also you are just proving my point in regards to what I said on the Talk Page of the Liberal party, which was that Wikipedia has been held ransom by a totalitarian regime run by a small group of arrogant, smart-ass users like yourself, who whinge hysterically when they do not get their way. I don't have to be dictated by what you do or say and excuse me but I do not need to change my views for you, or for anyone. Andreas11213 (talk) 07:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Mate you need to settle down a bit, I'm happy to take differing input into account, but you need to town down the hyperbole and drama. It would be best not to make rather personal attacks against other users. The Tepes (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how the elections a Prime Minister or Opposition leader has led a party into is irrelevant to that section of the info box.
 * Also the inclusion of ideology for Political Parties infoboxes is a discussion for another thread and has no bearing in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SultanNicole (talk • contribs) 08:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I hate Infoboxes at the best of times. They are repositories of dumbed down information. Simple "factoids" to appeal to simpletons. The less they contain, the better. HiLo48 (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree entirely, I think they provide a necessary condensed summary of the individual and what offices they held/hold that deem them relevant. I also think they provide the collection of links all in one place that are most relevant to the subject of the article. IMO The Tepes (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Elections they contested/won are unnecessary and irrelevant in condensing the information of an article into the infobox of a politician. The infobox of a politician must include important things, such as the offices they held and their personal information, not the elections they won/contested. This information can be found in the text. It looks untidy and distracting in the infobox. Also, if you think that infoboxes are used to condense information to provide a summary of an article, then would you support adding the most important piece of information in the infobox of the Liberal Party, which is the party position and ideology? Andreas11213 (talk) 08:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree, as I previously stated, links to the elections are spread out and hard to find within the body of text. It's hardly distracting, it's one line of small text.
 * As for adding ideology to the infobox,that is a completely separate matter to this. It also is the source of much debate in academic fields, often seeing conclusions that their is either no ideology, or that their is no specific ideology. It also is an area that never gains consensus.
 * As for the whole Left-Right position, that is an entirely outdated formula. It's also so subjective, what is Right to someone may be Left or Centre to someone else. It adds nothing to an article.
 * However I this is an entirely discussion and we should stay on topic. The Tepes (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Please let's stay on the topic at hand. Editing the page for the Liberal Party has absolutely no relevance to this matter. If Andreas11213 wishes to discuss the matter, he should begin a thread on his talk page.SultanNicole (talk)

So SultanNicole, Frickeg and myself oppose the inclusions, where as The Tepes, Timeshift and WWGB support the inclusion. There is an equal amount of users opposing and supporting, so consensus to include it has not been reached. Therefore, I am reverting it and restoring the original infobox, without the elections included. Andreas11213 (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Consensus to remove them has not been reached either. I support their inclusion, which would tip the balance to retaining them. I think before further action is taken we wait about a week before their removal. I noticed your reverts have themselves been reverted by users not included in this discussion.
 * Considering that they are often included in State Premiers infobox's, as well as having been included in many Opposition leaders box's for quite some time, I think they should remain included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SultanNicole (talk • contribs) 08:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Even though they actually look quite neat, don't take up a lot of info box space and serve some purpose, I'd be inclined to remove them on a technicality - Australian prime ministers are not elected to office in a general election. They are elected as members of parliament and selected by their respective parties as prime minister. They may have contested many elections, but not all as prime minister, or to become prime minister. What do you do with Gillard, for example - she became prime minister, but did not contest the previous election as a pending PM? Unless the elections relate to all elections contested as a candidate (and by extension, this is included in the info box of all election candidates, then I think it's actually not correct to have the list. It would be very different with an American president, for example, where the office is won by winning the election. This is not the case with the Australian parliamentary system. Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Technically correct, but Australian federal elections have been increasingly presidential in style, with the focus on the Labor and Liberal leaders. We have the same presidential-type debates. We see limited coverage given to other candidates. Even ministers are given limited exposure. The Health Minister (and Opposition spokesman) will present the party health policy for example, and then they are quietly wheeled back into their electorates, referring everything back to the party leader. The leader and the election results are now all but inseparable. --Pete (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what that's got to do with a link to the election in their infobox. Having the link there doesn't say voters voted for them as PM, does it? By that logic we shouldn't have infoboxes on election pages with the PMs and their images, hey? :) Sorry but it's an invalid point. Timeshift (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I think it is a valid point, actually. We don't want to be reinforcing the misconception that Prime Ministers are elected by the people, when they aren't. Having said that, wow, this wall of text all about something like this? It's not that important. Frickeg (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Election links in PM infoboxes is no different to PM image/link in election infoboxes when it comes to whether the people elect their MP or the PM, does it? If so, how? "Re-inforcing the misconception", if true, would be the same with PM infoboxes as election infoboxes. Timeshift (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, up to a point. I think there's a big difference between including the party leaders on the page about the election campaign, and doing so in the infobox for Prime Ministers. In relation to the election it's highly relevant, but in relation to prime ministership I'm not sure it's enough of a huge thing to be including it in the infobox - and it is, of course, unofficial. Frickeg (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as "Australian prime ministers are not elected to office in a general election" is concerned, there is no difference. Timeshift (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

For the record, Skyring/Pete supports including election links in leader infoboxes, but his support was removed due to an "interaction ban"? Timeshift (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I support it to a point but how on earth would it work for Menzies? Orderinchaos 04:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The way it currently works at Robert Menzies.. Timeshift (talk) 05:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

A quick look around Wikipedia at David Cameron, John Key, Manuel Valls, Narendra Modi, Shinzō Abe and Stephen Harper shows remarkable consistency - no links to elections in infoboxes about politicians who are Prime Ministers. NebY (talk) 11:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Correction - David Cameron has one such link in the caption of his picture. His immediate three predecessors - at least, I haven't further back - do not. NebY (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Other country leaders are irrelevant. We are referring to Australian leaders. There is no blanket requirement for a change to affect every such similar world-wide. Timeshift (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think a big issue is the fact they keep disappearing then reappearing, the lesser visited pages of former State Premiers, and Federal Opposition leaders tend to maintain their inclusion. Not just within Australian pages, but other nations political leaders too (on the pages they have been included at least). It appears to be the more popular pages where there is this constant conflict as to whether or not too include them. In my opinion the best way to resolve this issue is if they were included on all the pages in a broad effort, rather then the current arrangement where some always have them, some never have them, and others have them depending on the month. SultanNicole (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

So we're back here again... Timeshift (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Evidently. Given that they have been in all articles for over a month, without any removal since Andreas11213 was banned, I'm surprised to see this return as an issue. The Tepes (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I fail to see what the issue with them is. They are not at all messy as claimed and provided a quick way to navigate to particular election campaigns that previous and current PM's have stood in. AlanS (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't exactly contributed to prior discussion on the topic but my opinion is that elections listed under Prime Minister assume that he was Prime Minister at the time of that election. Elections listed under Leader of the Liberal party would make far more sense given that he was not Prime Minister at or before the 2010 election. While the links to the elections - I can concede - would be beneficial for some users - they should not be confusing. Which they are. Simply, list the elections under the 'Leader of the Liberal party', since his position as leader is more relevant than the executive position of PM. Communistgoat (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as "SultanNicole" was a sock puppet of The Tepes, could all users who support retaining the links of elections in the infoboxes please make themselves known. If not, I will revert, seeing as the only reason consensus was gained in the first place was because one extra user, SultanNicole, agreed on adding them in, and seeing as that user does not exist, I think it should be reverted. Andreas11213 (talk) 08:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Here we go. Like a dog with a bone. On the point of SultanNicole, had any effort been put in the investigation it would have shown SultanNicole was not a sock puppet.
 * Timeshift,AlanS, Pete, others and myself have all put forward our arguments. While you're at it whant to bring up adding ideology in the infobox again? The Tepes (talk) 09:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Political Party "Full Names"
It is unnecessary to include the full name of the political parties of Australian politicians on both the full page and the infobox. If they are an Australian politician, it is fairly obvious they belong to the Liberal Party of Australia, not the Liberal Party of Canada. It looks silly having the full name and can sometimes cause the infobox to appear wider because the name of the party is so long. This is the case for some politicians belonging to the Australian Labor Party. The full name of the party does not necessarily have to include the country in which it belongs to; the Liberal Party is still the full name. If Liberal or Labor was simply wriitten, like on the pages of British politicians where Conservative or Labour is simply written, then there would be an issue. All other pages of politicians have the party, but not the country. The Republican Party, The Christian Democratic Union, The Communist Party, The Justice and Development Party. And honestly, don't give me the "Other Stuff Exists Excuse", because that is really lame. Making Australian pages completely different to other wikipedia pages is not necessarily a good thing, maybe its time we start putting in line our pages with other pages. Finally, consensus was never actually reached to add "the full name of the party", so maybe you might want to either agree with me or put your case forward before actually reverting every edit I make. Andreas11213 (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Full party names. Timeshift (talk) 01:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That is actually the most pathetic thing I have ever seen, but I'm not surprised. You never come up with any valid counter arguments or arguments of your own. As I said, consensus has not been reached to ADD "full party names" so I will start reverting unless you or someone else comes up with real, valid points. Andreas11213 (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see any point changing it from full party names, I would vote to maintain the pages as they are.The Tepes (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I prefer the full names, I certainly don't think it looks silly. Do you have an example of where the full party name has pushed out the width of the infobox? Because I thought they wrapped like any other text... --Canley (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * They do wrap around. The Tepes (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I cannot see that this matters either way. Andreas is right to say that the possibilities for confusion are slight (although not altogether non-existent, since there are politicians who have served in multiple countries - George Reid, for example), but I see nothing particularly wrong with having them at the full names either. To be quite honest I've been doing them interchangeably for years, and I'm not the only one. I usually shorten them when more than one party is involved, because it does start to get a little hard to follow when you've got years and party names going down on separate lines, etc. But I don't know that this is really a case where consistency matters that much, and we certainly don't have consistency now. (I would avoid going halfway, though - i.e. "Liberal Party", rather than "Liberal Party of Australia" or "Liberal".) Frickeg (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit: actually, I do think Andreas is operating under a bit of a misconception here when he says "The full name of the party does not necessarily have to include the country in which it belongs to; the Liberal Party is still the full name." This is not true. The Liberals' full name is "Liberal Party of Australia", nothing else. Frickeg (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It also gets historically confusing as we've had multiple "Liberal" parties. I also have basically done the two interchangeably. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

First, Andreas doesn't point out who they were addressing their initial post to but it wasn't me. Second, Andreas, you don't ever learn from experience, your continued recalcitrance has become intolerable, so basically i'm done with you. From now on i'll just state what I support and ignore time-consuming but fruitless engagement with you, and let consensus from the masses take its course knowing my belief has been lodged. Timeshift (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Historical Liberal Party in WA
I've noticed from many sources that the Liberal Party in Western Australia in state elections was known as the Liberal and Country League of WA from 1949-1968, only changing it formally to the Liberal Party (WA division) in '68. Should we modify the relevant articles from WA state politics in that period to reflect this? (as the case for the LCL in SA, and the LCP in Victoria). Or just leave it as is for now? Kirsdarke01 (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As someone who knows practically nothing about WA politics in this period, I'd say change it. It's like the LNP in Qld now. If we ever really get the state articles in order, there's even an argument for carrying it over to the federal ones (I know the parliamentary handbooks have them under the state names most of the time). Frickeg (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, change it. Good catch. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Current NSW state Liberal numbers
Ok, it seems the NSW Liberals are being sucked in to a vortex where every second day, another one disappears. I think it's happened so much that people including me are starting to lose count. Per this edit, are there now 10 current independents in the lower house? The issue is that every time the number changes, an editor will usually only edit one article. When in fact, there's six areas that need updating for this change. The infobox at Parliament of New South Wales, the infobox at New South Wales Legislative Assembly, the table at New South Wales Legislative Assembly, the mini state infoboxes at Liberal Party of Australia, and in Coalition (Australia), and of course, Next New South Wales state election. What are the current numbers? Timeshift (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I've been missing a few of those - also, don't forget Template:NSWCurrentMLAs, Members of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly, 2011–2015 and the individual electorate page. The current ex-Liberals on the crossbench are Bassett, Baumann, Edwards, Hartcher, Spence and Webber, plus Gallacher and Ficarra in the Legislative Council. Add Piper and Greenwich and that gives us 8 independents in the lower house. Maybe Owen and Cornwell are confusing things, but that edit is wrong - unless there are two more no one has heard about, there should be 42 remaining Liberals. I also know the media has been including all of the ICAC Liberals in a round figure of ten, but that includes the LC and Owen/Cornwell, so that's probably a big part of the confusion. Frickeg (talk) 07:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would venture the confusion is for the reason Frickeg notes (I was just typing out the same thing then I realised he'd already said it). Considering that there's now six places that need this info updated, most of which I didn't know about (as one of the people doing the updating), maybe it's worth creating centralised templates for this stuff. I also still think this might be less confusing if we had an article on Operation Spicer... The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I was just fairly astonished to discover that Gallacher's crossbench status was not noted anywhere on Wikipedia, despite it dating all the way back to May. None of the LC pages had been updated for him; the LC page itself wasn't even updated for Ficarra! There are just so many places where updates need to take place after a defection; I like the idea of a template but I'm not sure how it could work, given the various different formats the information takes. All for the dedicated article; it would be great to have one on the ICAC that brought Greiner down, too, and all the others. Frickeg (talk) 08:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Help with vandalism at Annastacia Palaszczuk would be appreciated.
Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 06:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've just blocked the offending IP account Nick-D (talk) 06:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the various death threats in his contribs even on Jimmy Wales' talk page. I think anything less than a perm ban is inadequate. Timeshift (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I missed that, and have extended the block. However, as the IP traces to the State Library of Queensland it's not feasible to block it for a long period unless this becomes a long-running problem. You may want to send the SLQ an abuse report - they might be able to track down the computer responsible (and maybe more depending on what their internet access arrangements are). The SLQ is a Wikipedia-friendly organisation, and I imagine that they'd take this kind of thing seriously. Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks but i'm not interested in following it up. Sounds kinda like the thing an admin should do... :P Timeshift (talk) 06:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention
This is a notice about Category:Australian politics articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

When is a by-election article no longer considered a stub?
As someone who often edits on by-election articles, i'm not sure at what point an article is no longer a stub. Thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 02:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Good question. I guess you could use the rule of thumb for WP:DYK eligibility: at least 1,500 characters of "readable prose"—which excludes references, tables and infoboxes, so most of the content of many by-election articles! --Canley (talk) 05:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"theyvoteforyou.org.au" link being added to many current MPs articles
My watchlist today is not only filled with Whitlam but also many dozens of MPs articles who've had their "theyvoteforyou.org.au" link added to their external links. Should it be added en-masse? Timeshift (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Same observation here. Doesn't seem to have been discussed anywhere. It does seems a bit spamish. Well intentioned, but still spamish. HiLo48 (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it's not a particular useful resource in a country with binding voting. It's an awfully long way of saying that a tiny bunch of Coalition MPs crossed the floor on one vote each, and spelling out the voting history of the independents. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. This kind of thing is tremendously useful in the US and the UK, but not so much here. Plus this looks like a pretty new website anyway; we'd need something more established to be putting in every external links section. Frickeg (talk) 07:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Some more of these links were added overnight. HiLo48 (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * They appear to be re-added as quickly as they're deleted.The Tepes (talk) 11:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Vern Hughes
Just bringing the AfD of this person to the attention of this group. I don't want to vote on it because I've only just started editing on this account and it seems that there's an issue over there with a sock puppet. Looking at the article it looks like it should be gone, but I thought I would run it by this project and there appears to be a dispute over the definition of notability. The IP (who is being accused of being a sock) accuses two Keep voters of a conflict of interest but I don't know why even if their interpretation of notability is wrong as Delete voters are indicating and very determined as well. I'd prefer to leave this to more experienced editors at this point who have a better grasp on matters and have more edits on the clock in this area. BritainD (talk) 09:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As one of those Keep !voters, I will say this: apart from the sock (the IP), this has been a pretty run-of-the-mill AfD. The sock is certainly vehement, but the rest of the delete votes have been reasonable ones even if I disagree with them. The COI accusations are, of course, nonsense and indeed rather inept attempts at a smear, but I certainly wasn't going to respond to the sock directly. Frickeg (talk) 11:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough with the IP, but I think the delete voters with accounts have been just as adamant over the notability issues and I think they have a point. The only difference seems to be the conflict of interest. I don't think this deserves to be closed as "No Consensus" (which I think it's heading to at the moment) and it's why this needs more input from other members here. BritainD (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Another user has renominated this for deletion, after (as I predicted) the previous one ended up as no consensus. Two users are trying to derail it again. We need more input. BritainD (talk) 08:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * How about you assume good faith? No one is trying to derail anything, except that the whole thing seems pretty pointless. No objections to more input though. Frickeg (talk) 08:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Background colour for 2PP columns in election polling tables being changed
I notice Andreas has taken it upon himself to start going around and removing the red or blue from the 2PP columns in various fed and state election tables as an indicator for which party is trailing. Why? Both columns should contain both colours. Timeshift (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's fairly self explanatory, it's easier to distinguish the winner of the two party preferred if their number is highlighted. It makes sense and other polling pages do it. Andreas11213 (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I can understand the argument made by Andreas11213, but really Andreas you know better then to make such broad changes with out taking it to the talk pages.The Tepes (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Election links
I accept that there is a consensus to include election links in infoboxes, however, I have a question. Which elections should be added there? For example, in Tony Abbott's infobox, underneath Prime Minister, it says 2010, 2013. He contested both elections as Leader of the Opposition, not Prime Minister. On Gough Whitlam's infobox, under Prime Minister is says 1969, 1972, 1974, 1975 and 1977. He only contested one of these elections as Prime Minister. So, I think it is misleading to put elections in the infobox. Thoughts? I think it is just too confusing to decide so it should just be removed completely, because besides, infoboxes for politicians are supposed to be about offices they hold, not about elections they contest. I will not change anything until someone replies, but if no one does I will start removing election links. Andreas11213 (talk) 02:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you'll take some advice, I really wouldn't be delivering ultimatums about stuff like this; it just gets people's backs up. On this one I actually agree with you completely and would prefer that they were gone altogether from the infoboxes, this uncertainty being one of many reasons. I mean, gosh, Whitlam was involved in every election from 1954 to 1977 in some capacity, wasn't he? Frickeg (talk) 04:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah exactly, and as HiLo48 reverts my edits when I don't get the chance to reply, I will do the same here, as no one has replied. Andreas11213 (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WTF? HiLo48 (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether I agree with you, Andreas, you're still the one in the wrong here. Establish consensus FIRST, and then make the changes. Frickeg (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I can't actually gain consensus because no one other than you has said anything, and since you agree with me, I will take that as consensus and start editing. Andreas11213 (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that is not consensus. You made that post yesterday - it's hardly surprising it hasn't got a lot of attention just yet. Wait. Frickeg (talk) 02:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A day is quite an adequate amount of time. No one has argued against removing the links and I have received the support of another user in doing so, so unless someone wants to say something I will continue removing election links. Andreas11213 (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the concept has my support. Your actions absolutely do not. Consensus takes time, and a day is certainly not adequate, especially in a comparatively little-frequented area. Sit back and relax, and wait. There's no rush. If, say, a week goes by, and still no one has commented, that might be an appropriate time to go ahead. Frickeg (talk) 07:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's time to come to Frickeg's support. He is right Andreas. Wikipedia has no deadline. There is no rush on this matter. I also happen to agree that the information you want removed from Infoboxes could be removed. I prefer minimal content in Infoboxes. This stuff clutters them up. But, please be patient. HiLo48 (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I strongly support their inclusion, for reasons that were stated not that long ago in the last section on this page. I'm not opposed to only including the links to the relevant office, such some in the Prime Minister section when relevant, and others as Opposition leader, though I would argue having them all together is more convenient.
 * While I accept that the information is in the body of the article, often at times such links are difficult to find and spread through out. An election is one of the most important aspects of a leaders history, especially since it has become more presidential.
 * Again every argument I made can be accessed in the archive, and were made not that long ago, so this is likely all I will say on the issue.The Tepes (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Also Andreas11213 it really is a basic courtesy to inform those who have previously contributed to the matter that you are bringing it up again. It really takes no effort.The Tepes (talk) 06:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Andreas11213, any edit you make to remove those links will be reverted on the grounds that you have not obtained consensus. Does it need to be made any clearer to you? Consensus is that the links to elections that they fought, either as Prime Minster or as Leader of the Opposition, stay. Either obtain consensus or find a policy reason why the links ought be removed, in which case you'll need to obtain consensus on your interpretation of any relevant policies. AlanS''talk 11:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the way we do things. I'm not seeing any consensus for removal. Federal elections are nowadays seen as "Presidential" in style, and always have been to some extent. Sure, there were other candidates in 1972, and sure, the two leaders were just contesting their own seats, but 1972 is the year that Whitlam defeated Gorton. We see each election as a contest between the two leaders, and others, even minor arty leaders, not so much. It is useful to include direct links in the infobox to those elections. --Pete (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The year Labor defeated the Coalition, more accurately. If you can't even remember the Coalition leader (McMahon in this case), that undermines your argument a tad. I just think this is way too much information for an infobox, which are already ridiculously bloated. This information will all be found in the text. Frickeg (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course. Whitlam defeated McMahon. That's why he's revered as a giant-killer. I was thinking of the 1969 election, when Whitlam lost to Gorton. Nevertheless, I support links to elections in infoboxes. --Pete (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately to a few of you, I'm going to support the removal of the election links underneath 'PM'. I think if you wanted to include it - it should be under the title of leader of their political party. Really, you don't compete in an election as 'the PM' nor seeking the prime ministership specifically, you compete individually and as the leader of your party seeking a majority to form government. I think it creates an assumption that, for instance, Tony Abbott was PM going into the 2010 election and competing as such. I think it's also rather odd that the elections are listed, rather than the parliament in which they served as PM. A more accurate link then would be, for instance - under Tony Abbott's 'PM' title in the infobox, would be '44th parliament' or similar - but the '28th PM' vaguely does that already I guess. Discuss. Communistgoat (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have also previously supported the removal of the links. The Prime Minister does not become such by virtue of contesting an election, and there are many examples of an individual assuming the office while his/her party is already in government. Moreover, the links are misleading as most individuals who become Prime Minister, have contested other elections than those linked. In Australia the elections are to form a government. The selection of a Prime Minister is a separate process. If the links are to stay, I believe that there should at least be some clarification that they are only those elections contested by the individual while serving as a party leader are listed. Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is nothing misleading. The links are for elections fought as sitting prime minister or as sitting leader of the opposition. Nothing to misinterpret at all. Anyone at all familiar with the way election campaigns are fought in Australia ought to get it without much, if any at all, explaining. AlanS''talk 12:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Although I still think it's too much information for an infobox, either of the above two suggestions would be better than the ridiculous situation we have now. Frickeg (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Election links should stay. Timeshift (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with Frickeg, they should go because they add too much text to an already full infobox. Also, it is a matter of opinion as to whether Australian elections have become "presidential like", which I completely disagree with. Elections in Australia are much more about the party, not the individual leader. We don't even have Presidential elections. The links to elections aren't that difficult to spot in the text, and even if you feel that strongly about it, maybe add a section to the page listing the elections they have contested or something. The main argument for removing the links is that it causes confusion as to weather they were Prime Minister during the election linked in the infobox. Tony Abbott wasn't Prime Minister in 2010, Kevin Rudd wasn't Prime Minister wasn't Prime Minister in 2007, John Howard wasn't Prime Minister in 1987, etc. So I strongly support their removal. Andreas11213 (talk) 06:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

No because it still doesn't solve the issue of overcrowding the infobox. It looks really messy and it isn't even that important. It can easily be found in the text, and if you want to make it easier, why not add a new section to the page listing the elections that they have contested and add some brief information about it, rather than sticking it in the infobox where it looks very messy. Andreas11213 (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record, I also support retaining the links, as they're a useful point from which one can look at each of the elections they contested as leader. Orderinchaos 07:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Should they not go then as part of the "Leader of the Xxxx Party" section of the infobox? Frickeg (talk) 07:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * They do not overcrowd the infobox. They are links to years, the year given being a four digit number. The most crowded being Whitlam or Menzies and even then the links are in small font taking up minimal space. I'm sorry Andreas you don't have an argument on any grounds that overcomes consensus. AlanS''talk 12:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree that they have any impact on overcrowding the infobox. It's one line in a smaller font, or in the case of Menzies, two lines. Their removal really makes no difference to the size of the infobox.
 * Just to address some propositions others have made or inferred as to altering them, I am not opposed to them being moved to the "Leader of party" section.
 * As for the issue that the process for becoming Prime Minister is separate to the election, yes those who have raised this are technically correct, but I would argue that it is indisputable that the leader is more or less the central factor in Australian elections, especially since elections resemble a Presidential system more then anything else for over the past 50 years. The election really is the practical process of becoming PM.
 * There really isn't anything any of us can add that we haven't all already said last time this was brought up not that long ago.The Tepes (talk) 09:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I had the distinct feeling that this was an attempt to make a change "under the radar". Political subjects are touchy enough without emulating the behaviour of politicians. I'm not seeing any change to consensus to keep election links. --Pete (talk) 09:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well considering Andreas11213 began making the change within a day of making this post, and failed to inform any of the individuals involved in the previous debate. I would have to agree with you Pete.The Tepes (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I just counted and I'm pretty sure it's five against five, so I'm not really sure what happens here... who wins? 09:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Nobody 'wins'. No consensus to change. Time to move on. By the way, allowing only 1 day for discussion and claiming it as ample is hilarious. Timeshift (talk) 10:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We ignore your count, because we don't vote here. HiLo48 (talk) 10:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * While it's good to see you are now taking proposed controversial changes to talk pages, do you still not understand what consensus is?The Tepes (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I've avoided this discussion so far, but wouldn't it make sense to put the election links in the party leader section of the infobox? This has been suggested by a couple of people above but seems to keep getting lost in the argument about whether to have them at all. I really don't care that much either way, but it would seem to be a solution that removes a lot of the confusion of having them in the PM section (i.e. the Whitlam example, which would be confusing as hell to people with less political knowledge than us). The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 13:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete them all, as these kinda links aren't in infoboxes of other PMs & party leaders, like Stephen Harper, David Cameron, Ed Broadbent, Michael Ignatieff for example. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

While there is still great disagreement about keeping them or removing them, would people be okay with the proposal of moving them to the "Leader of Party X" Section? As this seems to be the suggestion of a few. Personally I'm equally fine with both where they are now and this proposal.The Tepes (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * While my first preference is still for them to be gone, if there is no consensus for that then I would strongly prefer this option. Frickeg (talk) 06:28, 2 November 2014
 * Splitting amongst PM and leader parts of the infobox sounds good until we consider the winning election. Should hawke not have 1983 under PM? Howard in 1996? Should fisher only get 1913/14? Should rudd only get 2013 and whitlam only get 1974? Timeshift (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the point of this change would be to take them out of the PM section entirely, since it's always going to be confusing in that context, whereas elections contested as party leader is clear and obvious. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 09:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That would just hide them. Infoboxes are crowded enough as it is. Therefore i'll support remaining as-is. And GoodDay, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. What exists on other articles does not dictate what appears in said articles. Quite a bit of australian politics here is done it's own way, as it should. Partly because as far as politics goes, Australia is well-represented on wikipedia so much tweaking and customisation has occurred. Timeshift (talk) 10:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the point of having information that's confusing and misleading just for the sake of it being more visible? If this information goes in the leader section, it is unambiguously correct. If it goes in the PM section, it's highly confusing to people without our background knowledge. I think anyone who needs these links can afford to scroll down a couple paragraphs. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how it's misleading. Nowhere does it say the leader contested those elections as the PM. I think for casual readers without said background knowledge, they wouldn't look that far down the infobox. The more prominent, the better. If a reader fails comprehension to the point where they can't see the from and to date of the leader's PM-ship in the infobox, or the text in the lead that says it, or the election page itself, one would have to wonder. Timeshift (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a pathetic argument. Maybe instead of trying to make ALL Australian political pages different to international ones, we should start making them similar to them so that consistency throughout Wikipedia is maintained. It is embarrassing and looks stupid when all other world politics pages are in unison and Australian ones are completely different. Also, I believe there is now an equal amount of consensus to retain and remove the links, so what happens now? Andreas11213 (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no need to call arguments "pathetic" Andreas. And again, consensus is not a vote. We are not even close to having a clear majority of support one way or the other, so the status quo consensus remains. Try reading policies some time. It's like banging my head against a brick wall with you Andreas. I get the impression you prefer to just do things rather than discuss points of difference... over time i've got the clear impression you always feel it's a bother that you have to discuss things. It's not that you don't know you need to discuss points of contention, you've come through loud and clear for a long time now that it's more a case of, you can't be bothered discussing. You know better, but you often just can't be bothered. But that's not how wikipedia works. Wikipedia is a collaberative project. Perhaps you should reflect on that and your presence on wikipedia more broadly if that's the case, over such an extended period of time. If it took this long to get you to 'sometimes' go to talkpage for consensus discussion rather than edit war, how long exactly is it going to take for you to get up to speed on wikipedia's policies? Scary. Timeshift (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the infoboxes are crowded & would be less so, if those election links were removed. We wanna be different, isn't a good reason for keeping them. GoodDay (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not as if removing them would de-crowd the infobox, the election links are but a half-line in size. Nobody said it's different for the purpose of being different. The links serve a valid purpose and have been there for a long time. Timeshift (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I, and many other users just simply disagree with you. Andreas11213 (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Andreas11213 you really don't know what consensus means, do you?The Tepes (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I do, you mustn't. If you read above you would know that there is even consensus to both remove and retain the links. Andreas11213 (talk) 07:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not what consensus means mate.The Tepes (talk) 09:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I'm sick of adding to this conversation, it will just remain a deadlock. And I'm not your mate. Andreas11213 (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure no one needs to remind you that in the case of a deadlock there is no consensus for change and that unless a policy reason can be found for the change (in which case you would need to gain consensus for your interpretation of policy) that the status quo is the order of the day. AlanS''talk 12:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Andreas11213 has returned, this time obsessed with religion
He's adding religion to Infoboxes all over the place for Australian pollies who don't have it listed yet. In Gough Whitlam's case, he added that Gough was agnostic. I reverted, because agnosticism is not a religion. Andreas11213 reverted back, saying it exists in other articles. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS means this is not a valid reason, but this is Andreas11213. I await his response. Can I ask other editors to keep a watch on Andreas11213's current campaign please? I don't want to go near 3RRR HiLo48 (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * He's been doing this for public figures all over the world. One look at his talk page and edit history shows it filled with warnings for edit waring over such changes. I'm sure he will eventually be blocked again. The Tepes (talk) 06:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * He did it again yesterday to Andrew Robb and Mathias Cormann, with an Edit summary saying it was sourced and relevant. I reverted, asking him to demonstrate relevance. For most Australian politicians, I don't believe it is. HiLo48 (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I confess to being a little bemused about why this is a problem. I mean, I get the "Religion: none" stuff, but surely someone's religion is a basic biographical detail? Its inclusion is pretty standard in things like ADB, and also in most parliamentary profiles. As long as we don't make a huge deal of it, what's the problem? I mean, most people's birthplaces are pretty "irrelevant" too, but we still include them. Frickeg (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a problem because, firstly, in Australian politics it's usually (with some obvious exceptions) irrelevant to the political behaviour of a politician and, secondly, it's too often a point scoring exercise to highlight someone's alleged religion. Most "Catholics" I know never go near a church, and ignore some of the most fundamental rulings of their faith, such as on contraception (to stick to a safe one), so describing them here as Catholic is misleading, or at least irrelevant. Yet others, who want to highlight and hence boost the size of how many many adherents their faith has, love including it. Alternatively, given Australia's huge historical divide between Protestants and Catholics, they want to highlight how evil someone is because they're a Catholic. And because the simplistic way such an item appears in an Infobox allows no scope for further explanation, it becomes just a simplistic label for simpletons to eagerly misinterpret. None of these issues apply to where someone was born. HiLo48 (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't really get this argument. If someone identifies as Catholic, then it's not up to us to analyse or question how far they agree with Catholic doctrine or how often they go to church. It's also completely irrelevant to say that it doesn't influence people's behaviour - that's not why we would include it, we would include it as a basic biographical detail. I honestly don't see how there is any problem with simply including a statement of someone's self-identified faith, and I do think it is information someone might reasonably expect to find in a biography. Potentially nefarious motivations are not a reason to exclude something, merely a reason to keep a close eye on how it's done. Frickeg (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You say "we would include it as a basic biographical detail". I know you would. Others are not so ethical, nor so clear thinking. The Infobox entry gives no latitude to indicate whether a politician's religion has a massive influence on his policy position (certainly true for some), or whether it's just something he was born with, and hence makes no difference (obviously true for others). It's not actually useful information, and can be easily misinterpreted. HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I mean, regardless of any ulterior motives, it seems simple enough to me: if there is a verifiable source, include it; if not, don't. I'd definitely see it as useful information regardless. Frickeg (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * What's it useful for? That's as much of a cliché as Andreas saying it's relevant. HiLo48 (talk) 02:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It's useful because it's basic information about someone. What's useful about parents' names? Birthplace? Burial place? They're basic facts about people, which is supposed to be what we're in the business of. Frickeg (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Parents' names, birthplace and burial place are rarely controversial, or in need of further clarification. The Infobox, where no clarification is likely to happen, is the wrong place for religion. HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I would have thought, in general, that controversy would be the exception rather than the rule for religion too. If there's an issue or it's unclear, then obviously that would need to be dealt with, but a blanket rule against religion in infoboxes seems a silly overreaction. Frickeg (talk) 03:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Controversy" was probably the wrong word. Others such as "influential" and "overarching motivating force" might better reflect my concerns. One of Andreas' targets for the label today was George Brandis. To me, none of his policies and public philosophies are strongly influenced by his Catholicism. Compare him with another government member who has also been at at least shadow ministry level, Cory Bernardi. The latter's public views and utterances would appear to be strongly driven by his devout religious beliefs. To simply label them both as Catholics in the Infobox tells little of the real story, and is, in fact, quite misleading. HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Isn't that kind of editorialising on our part, though? I'd agree that Bernardi certainly comes across as more religiously motivated than, say, Brandis, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't list them both as Catholics in the infobox. This kind of information is what the infoboxes are for. Any further context can be provided in the article. (I get the sense that we've both hit a bit of a brick wall with this, though. Maybe some other input?) Frickeg (talk) 07:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm neither for nor against their inclusion. Just so long as such an inclusion is adequately sourced, given it's potentially controversial nature. I would argue the standard should be at least a direct quote from the individual identifying themselves as a practising adherent of said religion. Any lower standard would likely result in misrepresentation of individuals, intentionally or unintentionally.The Tepes (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * A discussion is also underway at Talk:Mathias Cormann. WWGB (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * For reference to others the discussion at Talk:Mathias Cormann really applies to the topic as a whole and not just Cormann, just fyi if you wish to see various arguments.The Tepes (talk) 12:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Heidi Victoria
Extra eyes appreciated. Frickeg (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Continued, very persistent insertion of dubious and unduly weighted "Controversies" section from an anon IP during an election campaign—hmmm. The points are referenced at least, but it's still a list of extremely minor incidents with no lasting consequence, and the anon's determination, focus on one particular subject's article, and accusations of "censorship" to editors who question or revert the inclusions demonstrate a general disregard for Wikipedia principles. --Canley (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed. The anon has surely breached 3RR by now, as well. Frickeg (talk) 07:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

'popular vote' on election pages
I only just realised/looked at it - that in the infobox on election pages is 'popular vote'. This confused me because 53.5% people did not vote for the LNP and it doesn't mention 2PP. I figured even though fixing it up to say it was 2PP was easy - I figured I better talk it out here first. I just think it oddly suggests that he achieved a majority of votes which isn't the case. Might I add, not just Abbott, this 2PP 'popular vote' and % goes back through previous election results. Communistgoat (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The infobox should contain the 2PP, not the meaningless primary vote. Timeshift (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, but it shouldn't say "popular vote", because that's completely misleading. It should say "two-party-preferred vote" or something similar. Frickeg (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be OK with a renaming, but I don't agree "popular vote" is "misleading". Can you provide a reference that says popular vote only refers to the primary vote? The term is used as a contrast to things like the US electoral college vote. A 2PP/2CP is still a form of popular vote IMHO. It could even be said that in Australia, the 2PP/2CP is more of a popular vote than the primary, because it's the 2PP/2CP that elects candidates to seats, not the primary. Timeshift (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say incorrect, only misleading; it clearly has two potential interpretations. It's not commonly used in Australia anyway, so a change makes sense. Frickeg (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

So that's agreement to modify the wording of 'popular vote' to perhaps '2PP vote'? Communistgoat (talk) 04:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You'll have to make sure it doesn't affect other countries, since they won't have 2PP. I presume you're suggesting "two-party-preferred vote", since 2PP is not a well-known abbreviation generally. Frickeg (talk) 06:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2PP would be the correct term for what's listed but I'm not sure of a better way of describing it. That is, without confusion having a potentially unknown acronym versus misleading 'popular vote' title. Ideas? Communistgoat (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Victorian reshuffles
Would someone be able to go over Bracks Ministry, Brumby Ministry, Baillieu Ministry and Napthine Ministry and delineate their reshuffles, as with the federal ministries and other states? These four articles all show ministers who dropped a portfolio during a term as never having held it, and it's really confusing. I can have a shot at it later, but things involving tables freak me out a bit. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, they did have start and end dates for reshuffles (I remember doing the Napthine one in May), but it looks like the same editor who moved the Napthine Ministry article to Ministry of Victoria (Australia) also helpfully "cleaned up" that list by removing the ex-ministers—Delahunty, Powell and Hall—entirely (I'm guessing to make it show the current ministry—which was pretty strange as the Napthine Ministry was only around for two more days!). But do you mean separate tables for each reshuffle? I'm pretty comfortable with tables so I could have a look at it, I'm pretty busy at the moment but I'll do what I can. --Canley (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Aha. That explains the problem at Napthine Ministry, and a revert has fixed that. I've also found a source that fleshed out the reshuffles at Kirner Ministry, which makes that article make much more sense. There seems to still be some problems with Bracks Ministry and potentially Brumby Ministry - like the changeover in Aboriginal Affairs between Hamilton in Jennings is listed as happening in 2006 when it happened in 2002, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's other similar errors. If someone could find some clearer sources for the Bracks-Brumby government that would be awesome. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've got state ministry lists going back a while somewhere on my computer, I'll try and dig them up and fix them up. --Canley (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are fabulous. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"Government" in Australian English
An editor is disputing the fact that "government" can refer to the successive ministries (collective executives) in Australian English, e.g. the Abbot government lost the election. I've provided a variety of sources, including the Macquarie Dictionary, but it doesn't seem he is keen to cease and desist. Third opinions would be appreciated. Please chime in at Talk:Government. RGloucester — ☎ 23:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've posted a link there to Infosheet 20 from House of Representiatives Practice which refers to "the Executive Government (often simply called the Government or the Executive)" in this context. --Canley (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is completely silly. This is obviously verifiable with any Google search of any government in Australian history, and I think the editor is being a twit for the fun of it. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what I was thinking, as he's been trying to name numerous articles away from the word "government" because he says that "government" doesn't mean "government" in American English, and therefore can never appropriately be used to describe an executive body anywhere. Of course, I've provided numerous reliable sources in dictionaries and elsewhere, but that's not enough for him. For him, "the vast majority" of English speakers won't understand a translation of Gouvernement de la République française as "Government of France". They'll think that "government" cannot possibly mean the executive, and that instead the article must be titled "Cabinet of France", even though the French government is not a cabinet, as it includes junior ministers. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * He's reverted the inclusion of this definition again. I suppose he really thinks Australians don't know what a "government" is, given that tons of sources don't placate him. RGloucester  — ☎ 07:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

NSW and Qld candidates
For those chomping at the bit for more electoral politics after the excitement of Victoria, I've started draft candidate pages in userspace for next year's elections in NSW and Queensland. I feel it might be a bit early for them to be in mainspace, but feel free to make any additions or corrections in the meantime. Frickeg (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

An interim leader is not a Leader of the Opposition
Some help would be appreciated please. Robertson stood down as Labor leader on 23 December 2014, with Linda Burney serving as interim Labor leader. The Labor caucus will meet on 5 January 2015 to elect a new leader to succeed Robertson as Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition can only be so once elected by the party. Neither Burney, nor Chris Bowen, are/were elected by their party as leaders and are/were thus not Leaders of the Opposition. There would be many many interim leaders, federal and state, who aren't listed as Leaders of the Opposition, nor should they be. Some seem to have difficulties grasping this. Am I correct or not? Timeshift (talk) 08:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree after checking the parliamentary sources. I wasn't sure in Bowen's case in particular (because of the delayed period during the leadership election) if he'd been formally recognised as Leader of the Opposition, but the parliamentary website just lists no one for that period. I can't find an equivalent list for NSW, but for the states I can it seems to be the same. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I can understand the confusion arising, since the new Labor rules federally mean the interim leaders stand in for much longer than they used to. I looked up Harriet Harman to see how the Brits do it, and I do quite like their system with "acting leader" underneath the deputy leader section of the infobox. (It would appear that for the UK the acting leader is the official leader of the opposition, so that may be contributing to the confusion too.) Frickeg (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Broken navigation boxes
The navigation boxes between lists of members of individual parliaments used to be centred, and were designed that way. Now, though, the code doesn't seem to work and they are left-aligned, and look quite strange. Any chance that someone who is a bit more technically aligned could fix this? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 09:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Which template(s) is it? I can't see the issue in navboxes like Template:AusFedMPs. --Canley (talk) 10:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That template shows as left-aligned on my machine (when it is in place on a page, that is), and has been for a long time. If that's not a general thing...that's an issue I've never seen before. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * They look normal to me too. Do you mean that the entire box is left aligned, or that it's left aligned within the box? Frickeg (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Entire box. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Poll Bludger as a reliable source
Following a discussion on Timeshift's talk page, I realised the other day that we'd never had a discussion about whether The Poll Bludger is a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes.

I strongly feel that it should be: William Bowe is probably the second foremost election analyst in the country beyond Antony Green, the foremost on the areas Green doesn't cover, and the ABC's stand-in when Green isn't available (such as when there are simultaneous state elections). He's a well-regarded academic source and I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to cite him directly. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree on this one, should we also consider Antony Green's Election Blog, it is written more in an article format and very informative. Screech1616 (talk) 13:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I would agree. In fact there are a number of so-called "blogs" that we could cite quite safely as reliable sources - I'm thinking of Peter Brent and Kevin Bonham, to name but a few. Guideline-wise we are actually covered for Bowe and Brent, etc., by WP:NEWSBLOG, since they're both published by recognised news sources. Bonham et al. I think are covered by the final paragraph of WP:USERG, with a caveat that they are not acceptable sources for WP:BLPs, which seems fair enough. Frickeg (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that Crikey and other blogs above should be WP:RS. But i'm not sure that we can exclude them for WP:BLPs. For example, this might be suitable for the article on the MP, but not for the article on the seat. Thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * How are details about how pre-selection is conducted not suitable for the article on the seat? Especially in relation to the information that was added here, it gives a great insight into the fascinating inner workings of the major parties.


 * I also agree that the Poll Bludger blog qualifies as a RS as William Bowe is a recognised expert (by the ABC, among others) on the topics he covers. Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't understand Timeshift's last comment about BLPs? I interpreted what Frickeg was suggesting as being that Bowe and Brent were fine generally, and Bonham and such acceptable but not on BLPs. I don't see that source as being any different for either the seat or the MP - especially in safe seats, Labor preselection shenanigans are basically the whole deal in telling the history of a seat. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I also interpreted what Frickeg said as the same. Acceptable, but not on BLPs. Timeshift (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ...but with Bowe and Brent as acceptable on BLPs? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That was how I interpreted the guideline, yes. I would think Bowe & Brent would be fine to use in BLPs, in general. Frickeg (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * What was your concern (Timeshift), with the information added to Electoral district of Kaurna regarding pre-selection? That page does not fit the definition of WP:BLP, had it been added to the page of the Member for Kaurna, then there might be a case, but this was information about the seat, not the individual, and the method that a particular party uses to select a particular candidate. Screech1616 (talk) 08:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

New resource
There is now a Sydney's Aldermen biographical index of anyone who's ever served as a Sydney alderman. This could be useful for a bunch of our biographical articles. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Make that read "serve as a City of Sydney alderman or any of it precedent organisations." (Sydney is such a big place....) Rangasyd (talk) 08:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Politician party categories
Currently, Category:Australian politicians by party is a bit of a mess. The Liberal and National categories have been split by state (but with an awkward situation where the federal members remain in the parent category), whereas everyone else is mashed together (there are more than 2,000 pages in the Labor category). Furthermore, it has become quite common to see people who were merely members of the party or candidates, but who never held elected office, being included, despite the fact that these people are not really "politicians". In light of that, I would like to make a cautious proposal (which I assume will have to be taken to CfD at some stage, but I haven't the faintest idea how that works so let's start here):
 * The current "X Party politicians" categories to be renamed "X Party members" or "Members of the X Party". Non-politician members to reside in this parent category.
 * Politicians to be divided by parliament rather than state. So the subcats would be "X Party members of the Australian Parliament", "X Party members of the New South Wales Parliament", etc.

I look forward to further suggestions/improvements, and also anyone who knows what they're doing with the whole CfD process and how this could be done. Frickeg (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, so.
 * I don't really agree with the first part: not only do I think people don't care about who was a non-elected member of which party but it's extremely difficult to verify.
 * I think the second part is a really good idea. I feel like breaking it down further into houses of parliament might make sense for Labor/Liberal/National but it would get silly even for the Greens; I also wonder if you'd bother breaking down categories into states for parties like the DLP, Shooters and Fishers or One Nation at all.
 * I think this also raises a bit of a headache about what to do with e.g. the early Country Party MPs who died before the National Party was a thing, and that this might need to be taken into account in the naming of these categories. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I do feel like there needs to be some place for non-elected people though - I was prompted into it after I created Kiernan Dorney today and he was added to the DLP politicians category, which isn't really accurate. I mean obviously it would need to be supported and cited in the text of the article for them to go in the category, but it does seem reasonable especially in minor parties where very few people were actually elected. I am very much open to other suggestions on this though.


 * I take the point about minor parties. The reason I was thinking parliament rather than chamber is that there are so many people who switch between both (perhaps less so federally but in the states a significant number), so I thought it would be easier to just have the single category. Not sure if the size would be prohibitive. But I agree that it probably isn't necessary to divide anyone other than the major parties, the Greens, the Democrats and maybe the historical DLP.


 * On historical parties, the situation is currently even more of a mess, especially since there aren't even categories for a lot of the state-level parties (e.g. Liberal Reform Party, Democratic Party (1943)). With the Country Party since it was a name change I think it's reasonable to include them all in the Nationals category (with a note in the category of course), whereas with the UAP or the Nationalists it was an actual new party. Frickeg (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I had a think about the unsuccessful candidates issue, and the one that makes me think it might be a good idea is the CPA - considering there are a crapload of notable people who were unsuccessful candidates for them. What if we literally had an "unsuccessful candidates for X Party" category - since that's what these people actually have in common (we don't necessarily know anything about their party membership)? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that's a good idea, although it still leaves some gaps. What about someone like Paul Howes, who clearly belongs in an ALP category somewhere but can't go in either of those options. Or would it be appropriate to place him in the ALP politicians parent category? I guess he's kind of a politician? If we did that, then we could have (say for the Labor Party):
 * a parent category as "Australian Labor Party politicians" (or alternative name)
 * subcategories for each of the state parliaments
 * "Unsuccessful candidates for the Australian Labor Party"
 * Maybe we could also have an "Australian Labor Party officials" for, say, Jamie Clements (a redlink!? Will have to do something about that!)?
 * and "Australian Labor Party mayors"/"Australian Labor Party local councillors" or something similar, for, say, Tim Quinn? (Obviously there would be some doubling up with these last two categories and the parliamentary ones.)
 * The only people that leaves out is people whose notability has nothing to do with the ALP (or whatever party) and just happen to be members. Someone like, say, Kerry O'Brien (not the senator) with the ALP. Or even Tony Abbott with the DLP. Or maybe they don't need to go in any party-related category? There probably aren't that many of them we could verify. Frickeg (talk) 10:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Really good points. I think having Australian Labor Party politicians as the main category, and subcategories for members of each state parliament, unsuccessful candidates, officials, and mayors would sort this problem nicely, and work out as a much better and clearer solution than what we have now. (I don't see the need for a councillors one unless you can think of a partisan councillor who meets none of the above and is still notable. I was also wracking my brain about the Quinn case until I remembered NSW does partisan mayors too, outside of Sydney City.)
 * I don't think we need one for the O'Briens and Abbotts - it'd be a pain to verify, it's not terribly notable as something to group them by, and it'd be an ongoing pest with BLP issues. I also think the mayors question brings up issues we need to be wary about around those in states that don't technically have partisan councillors (i.e. Victoria) - like, Greg Barber was very obviously a Greens mayor but what about someone like Darryn Lyons? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm not sure about Lyons. He's clearly a Liberal though, so it would be good to get him into the categories somewhere. The councillors one I take your point; I think again the minor parties would be the issue (some of those Communist councillors, for example), but I'm pretty sure they all ran for election at federal or state level at some point so we can pop them in the unsuccessful candidates category (although that makes it kind of a misnomer since they were successful at something. Maybe "Candidates for the Australian Labor Party", with a note at the top that it excludes those elected to state or federal office?). I think you make a good point about the other categories and we can leave them out. I'll leave this here for a few days to see if there are any other suggestions and then will attempt to navigate CfD and figure out how we get this done. (Although if anyone is familiar with how all that works please feel free to do so instead!) Frickeg (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Really like the idea of the unsuccessful candidates categories, however I will suggest they be called Unelected Candidates, rather than the negative unsuccessful, I guess they were successful in winning pre-selection. Screech1616 (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with this suggestion - it also makes it a good bit clearer too.
 * I'm a bit iffy about the general candidates one: it's a bit vague I think it'd need continual pruning from people putting successful candidates in there, but it's also less negative than unsuccessful or unelected. (Another thought - what about current notable candidates - your Cameron Murphys?) It also affects a really small amount of people: I wonder if a good category description couldn't deal with the case of people who manage to a) be unsuccessful partisan candidates for higher office, b) be successful candidates for a local office that isn't mayor, and c) still maintain notability. I also wonder if these people mightn't be better off going down a councillors path after all. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This discussion seems to have run its course - worth taking through the CfD process now? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. I will tackle that process ... after Christmas, I think. :) Frickeg (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In bafflement and desperation I have posted an SOS at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. When there is further movement I will leave a note here. Frickeg (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a Category:People associated with the Australian Labor Party, that contains only Bob Ellis and Phillip Adams. Perhaps whoever if organising the categories can keep this is mind. Rangasyd (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, Rangasyd; I have included that category in the discussion. I have now opened a discussion here. Frickeg (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Pendulums with non coalition governments
I've been doing pendulums for the state elections, and I've reached a little bit of a dilemma with some of them, namely elections where the Liberals and Nationals were not in coalition and one party had enough seats to govern without the other (e.g. - Queensland 1986, Victoria 1976). I'm just wondering if it would be better to arrange the pendulums so that the non governing party is on the crossbench, or just put the Liberals and Nationals in the same column for these elections? Kirsdarke01 (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Does a third column work? Otherwise, they should probably go in the non-government column with all the Labor seats, messy though that may be. Frickeg (talk) 11:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with putting them in a non-government column: from my understanding of particularly the Queensland instances of this, putting the Liberals with the opposition would not be that far-fetched. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Leadership of opposition from NSW upper house (Luke Foley)
Just wondering how this is going to work... since NSW elects leaders in both houses anyway, is Labor going to elect another leader in the Legislative Assembly (or does John Robertson remain leader in the lower house while not being the "official" opposition/Labor leader)? Is this like the Campbell Newman situation where Newman was the leader "from outside parliament" going into the 2012 election, but Jeff Seeney was the leader in the parliament until Newman was elected (it looks like Foley will be seeking preselection for Auburn at the 2015 election)? --Canley (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess the case could be that the Legislative Assembly isn't sitting in 2015 before the election anyway, or the deputy Labor leader fills in if it does? --Canley (talk) 07:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The NSW Parliament lists Linda Burney as Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly and Foley as Leader of the Opposition . Frickeg (talk) 05:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I did not notice that. --Canley (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Anthony Chisholm (politician)
He does not appear to be notable.--Grahame (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say the Queensland state secretary of the ALP is probably notable, as a rule. There's plenty of significant coverage about. The article could sure use some work, but our coverage of party officials in general is pretty crap and this kind of article is what we need to fill the gap. Frickeg (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed: the heads of major branches of the two big parties are often the subject of biography-type articles in newspapers and receive a bit of incidental media coverage. I imagine that articles on them would be be popular targets for ideological vandalism though... Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No more than any other politician. I'd say that a state secretary of the ALP is intrinsically notable, based on the amount of media coverage (I could write an article on every one who comes to mind and not be stretching for sources). There would be plenty for just about anyone in that role. I'm less sure about equivalent positions in other parties - one rarely hears about Liberal officials who aren't former politicians. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that there's probably less on the Liberals (perhaps they keep their internal business more, well, internal), but I still think most of them would probably have enough. It wouldn't be hard to write an article on, say, Tony Nutt or Damien Mantach, or even someone like Sam McQuestin. Even the Nats might qualify more often than not - I haven't had a really close look but given many of their key officials, at least historically, also held significant roles in the farmers' unions, there'd be a good chance. Anyone else though and we might be pushing it to find coverage. Frickeg (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Point taken about Nutt and Mantach - it's just a bit of a different structure. I think most of the Nats would be pretty easily notable - in the case of the Queensland Nats, their party heads were more notable than a bunch of their MPs, and even in the other states, like, I could haven written an article on Jenny Gardiner even if she had never been elected to parliament. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Country Party (Australia)
Presumably this party will have trouble gaining registration under this name.--Grahame (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Frankly it would be misleading, for our purposes, for this to be anything other than a redirect to National Party of Australia. In any case, until this party actually does anything, it isn't notable. Frickeg (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nominated for deletion here. Frickeg (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that Articles for deletion/Country Party (Australia) would benefit from action from an uninvolved admin - there's some unusually obvious sock/meatpuppetry going on Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

SA Legislative Council vacancies
Thanks to Doug Butler's phenomenal job on past South Australian Legislative Councils and MLCs, we've now got a complete set of lists going back to the very first Legislative Council. I'd like to start doing articles on the elections that were held to fill mid-term vacancies prior to the introduction of a statewide electorate and proportional representation, but I'm noticing that they don't seem to be referred to as "by-elections" in sources from the time. Any suggestions on how best to name these articles? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Would "special election" do? I believe it was used for the 1908 Senate "by-election" (which we probably need an article on too). Frickeg (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that calling them "by-elections" would be fine, since it pretty much is the same thing as the by-elections in other states, including the Victorian legislative council that had a similar provincial voting system, and the source here refers to them as by-elections as well. But "special election" could also suit them if they're referred to as that in the period sources. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Rummaging about on Trove, the only reference I found from around the 1860s which didn't just call them "elections", was the Advertiser referring to them as "ad interim elections", a lovely Latin term, but it probably did not have widespread or official use. I don't think there's a problem with "by-election" though—from reading the old coverage it looks like they were conducted like by-elections, not some proportional representation appointment or countback situation. --Canley (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm good with just using by-election per Canley and Kirsdarke01's rationale. I just wanted to at least get a second opinion because I get perennially frustrated at the sloppy state of a lot of scholarship in this area and I like to be as accurate as possible. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * While we're on the topic of the SA Leg Co., I note that we don't have articles for the former Leg Co electoral districts. I don't have the info in front of me but I think there were five covering SA. I've tried to find boundaries for the electorates in the past but have only come up with vague areas. So, if anyone comes across more detailed info on the electorates, please do share it with us. --Roisterer (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Were you after actual maps, or this sort of detailed boundary description? I think from 1857 it was just the whole colony as a district for the Legislative Council after the South Australian Constitution Act 1856. --Canley (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Maps would be great but a detailed boundary description, like what you have found for Assembly boundaries would be very helpful. From 1857-81, it was one district. From 1881-1973, there were multi-member electorates for the Legislative Council. --Roisterer (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not my area, but I'd be mad grateful if someone did decide to put this together as it's definitely another void in our coverage. I did turn up the post-1915 boundaries, which were matched to House of Assembly districts. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Tas Legislative Council pages
I've recently noticed (again) the duplicate pages for Members of the Tasmanian Legislative Council - see the last few categories at Category:Members of Tasmanian parliaments by term and the deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/Members of the Tasmanian Legislative Council, 2002–2006. Background: I've done a few designs at User:Chuq/Sandbox/TasLC - only ideas at the moment. I've used the four year range for demonstation purposes. Comments welcome! -- Chuq (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem stems from the fact that of the 15 divisions, elections are held on a rolling basis. Elections are held in 2-3 electorates each year, those members are then elected for a six year term.
 * At one point, articles were created which summarised the members during periods of six years each. 1879-1885, 1885-1891, and so on, through to 2011-2017.
 * A few articles were created which instead aligned with the (usually) four year election cycle of the House of Assembly - these are the ones listed at Articles for deletion/Members of the Tasmanian Legislative Council, 2002–2006.
 * The deletion discussion suggests that perhaps the four year ranges are a better option, so that they align with the House of Assembly lists. The reason for six year is because that's how long the Legislative Councillors' terms are.  It could just as easily be by decades (or longer periods if we could find a suitable design).


 * I am not a fan of the alternatives. The four-year range is simple: it aligns with the parliaments, there are relatively few changes, and so it works both in terms of being easily understood and fitting in well with the House of Assembly and the other states. I never saw the point of the six-year range: yes, their terms are six years, but which six years one picks is completely random.


 * Of the demonstration ones, the first three look awful, and while I can stand the last one, it can't be sorted in alphabetical order or by party, makes it more difficult to find people, and no longer states their length of time in office while demonstrating nothing new on top of what's already there. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The big problem with the current layout is that it just lists 20 or so names for a chamber of 15 seats. Anyone who is not familiar with the system is going to be thrown off.  For anyone who DOES know the system, it is then left as an exercise to go through and check each name, work out who was voted out and who was newly elected during the period stated.  If someone was re-elected it doesn't even show.  It may be feasible to list the chamber as it was at the start of the period and then have the changes each year.
 * If we are aligning with the lower house, do we start at March 2010, or May 2010?
 * I agree I don't like the look of the ones I did - but the concept of that kind of layout (multi column) is what I was trying to show.
 * It's worth noting that the Senate lists don't align with the House of Reps periods, they show the actual years the Senators were in parliament.
 * I think we may just end up with year by year articles in the end :-/ -- Chuq (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This really is a tricky one. On the one hand, I don't really like the sandboxed options either; on the other hand, it is a legitimate concern that tables will be misleading. I wonder if we should footnote every time there's a change (as we do with by-elections in the other legislatures). The March/May thing is a problem, though. I really don't know. Frickeg (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There are other options apart from those tables. One is to list just the members in the first year, then after that have separate tables with the members changing each year? -- Chuq (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Remember that it is extremely rare that you'd go a four year period with the members actually changing each year. Most of the time there's about two, which is not much different from a regular parliament with a couple by-elections. I think we should definitely footnote every time there is a change (really, every time there is an election, even if re-elected), as well as list term election or expiry dates in the tables. The Senate example doesn't work because the Senate has a defined term. Chuq's last idea is workable, though - I don't think it's necessary exactly, but I don't object to it. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Casual senate vacancies and terms
Why did Charles Latham's term finish at the Australian federal election, 1943 rather than at the end of the term (30 June 1944)? Hack (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Because prior to the Australian referendum, 1977 (Senate Casual Vacancies), terms of appointments to fill casual vacancies expired at the subsequent federal election. --Canley (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * According to, he was elected through a state by-election. Nick-D (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that article says "after the style of a state by-election" Latham's term expired at the 1943 federal election, meaning that his term expired at the election rather than "inheriting" the remainder of Johnston's term. Latham was appointed by a joint sitting of the WA parliament, although the party nomination system was not in place, so he had to defeat a Labor candidate in the parliament (William Wauhop). --Canley (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for that clarification Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , thanks. I had looked at Casual vacancies in the Australian Parliament but couldn't find the answer there. Hack (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Liberal leadership spill
It's on. --Canley (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, 2015. Timeshift (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, of course! :) --Canley (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Love the News Ltd poll in your ref. Four Liberal options, one Labor option. Fair and balanced...! Timeshift (talk) 03:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Nick Bolkus
Various editors probably close to Bolkus from time to time try to remove all reference to Dante Tan affair. I have removed some unbalanced comments, but others might wish to look at it.--Grahame (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

New consensus required for dated contribution RE Greens are crossbench, not opposition.
The Parliament of Tasmania article has an editor claiming a new consensus is required due to length of time, to have the Greens listed as on the crossbench, and not party of her majesty's loyal opposition. The opposition has the opposition leader, the crossbench and the Greens do not. We don't work with media characterisations, we work with facts. Tasmanian House of Assembly has it right. Can I please have motions of support? Timeshift (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hang on, shouldn't this discussion happen on the article talk page? I will gladly discuss it, but let's do it in the appropriate place. Colonial Overlord (talk) 04:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that in Westminster system countries the convention is that largest non-government party/coalition is considered to be the "opposition". The distinction is generally clear in Australia (where it's whichever of the Labour or LNP who aren't in power). Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I've given more than sufficient time for talk to occur. Consensus has occurred. We work with facts, not media characterisations. Nick-D has said it well too. For the record, this talk page has long been used for consensus discussions as far more people watch this page than an individual article's talk page. Timeshift (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, one person's opinion is not consensus. You have yet to respond to my point that you need to provide sources for your change, not just say "it's a fact". Colonial Overlord (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is when nobody else responds. Who is the leader of the opposition? There can only be one opposition. Timeshift (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't think we're on the same page. "Leader of the opposition" is an official term with a precise meaning, as is 'Her Majesty's Official Opposition" to a lesser extent. The generic term "opposition" though is frequently used for any party with a significant number of lower house seats posing a significant threat to the government. If you dispute this, you need a source saying this is incorrect and that the greens are correctly called "crossbench". There is a reason why the term "official opposition" is used. No one is proposing calling Kim Booth the leader of the opposition, so that point is irrelevant. Colonial Overlord (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not in Australia it isn't. The "opposition" is and has always been used to refer to the main non-governing party, ever since the two-party system began. The use of "official opposition" in Tasmania was used almost exclusively when the rather far-fetched proposition of the Greens winning more seats than Labor was discussed. If/when this ever happens, and the main opposition party is something other than Labor/LNP, then usage may change and it may be worth revisiting. In the meantime, the "opposition" is the major party and the "crossbench" is everyone else. Frickeg (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The Tasmanian Parliament defines the opposition as "[t]he second largest Party or grouping after the Government in the lower House" this would make Labor the sole opposition party. I have changed the articles accordingly. ColonialGrid (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

AfD at Articles for deletion/Possible Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, 2015
Opinions of as many editors as possible would be appreciated. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: It has been re-listed. Again, opinions of as many editors as possible would be appreciated. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. I agree with your comment, unusual response from the admin... -- Chuq (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

AfD failed, but now the nominator has added a POV tag to the article and is trying to remove chunks of it. Opinions on the articles talkpage would be appreciated. Timeshift (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Country Party
Following on from the conversation above, there is a conversation at Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 12 about Country Party of Australia which currently redirects to National Party of Australia. That conversation arose as a consequence of an article for deletion discussion for the article now at Draft:Country Party of Australia. My comment in the RFD discussion is reproduced here to save me retyping since it seems it should get wider exposure:
 * There are an enormous number of inbound links from historic politicians and electorates to Country Party of Australia, Australian Country Party, and piped links to Country Party which should really link through a redirect instead of a piped link in case the articles are ever separated in future. It is unclear from National Party of Australia and The National's account of their history whether in fact the "Country Party" at the national level was always the same entity as the various state "Country Party"s nor strictly the same as that which is now the National Party of Australia. Somebody more knowledgeable than me should identify how many different article titles there should be for all these entities, even if at present some of them are described together in a smaller number of actual articles with inbound redirects for historic or alternative names, in case it later becomes helpful to create a separate article for the 1931-45 Country Party (Australia), similar to how United Australia Party is a different article to Liberal Party of Australia. If the legal name of the party in the past was "Country Party of Australia", then this title should redirect to the article that describes it (as it appears to do at present). If the legal name of that party was something else, then all the relevant links should go to that title (disambiguated if required) and see what's left. That's a long-winded and conditional KEEP this redirect as-is. --Scott Davis Talk 02:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

On further consideration and reading the above Wilson discussion, maybe we should separate out the "Country Party" from the "National Party" and have separate articles linking to their successor and predecessor articles. Thoughts? --Scott Davis Talk 04:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree quite strongly with separating "Country Party" from the "National Party". They were one continuous party that renamed; while they went through three different names, at no point were any of them disbanded or re-registered and they had one continuous structure. This is very different to the situation with the Nationalist Party of Australia, United Australia Party and Liberal Party of Australia, which were distinct parties that more-or-less succeeded one another. It is more similar to the situation with the Labor Party, where splinters at times meant there were splits between large parts of the parliamentary wing and the party apparatus, but the core party institution has always been the Labor Party. A similar situation to that of the the Nat/UAP/Lib occurred in early South Australia, where the Liberal Union, Liberal Federation and Liberal and Country League often get mashed together because they vaguely continuously formed the conservative forces in that state, despite all being distinctly separate parties formed through the same sort of processes as the creation of the Liberal National Party. I actually think, and I don't mean to drag you in saying this, but breaking the "Country Party" from the "National Party" when they are quite literally the same organisation is the sort of getting sloppy about details that got us into some of this mess in the first place.


 * Crucially, however, with the history of the Country Party, there are a) splinter parties that need their own articles (as we already have with articles on the various Labor splinter parties), b) distinct predecessor organisations that currently redirect to the NPA article that shouldn't (i.e. the state Farmers and Settlers Associations and Farmers Unions etc), and c) early "Country Party" groups that were unrelated to the modern National Party, such as the 1921 "Progressive Country Party" in SA, which had bugger all to do with the later real Country Party. Furthermore, all of this cannot be told in any coherent way unless each state branch of the National Party gets its own article so that we can break down their early history since they all developed in different ways that get completely missed if we mash it together. All of these is going to entail a significant amount of research, and doing the whole job right is the only way we get it right in the federal sphere too. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The only place where, in my book, a separate Country Party article would make sense, would be for South Australia, since the original Country Party merged into the Liberal and Country League in the 1930s and the current distinct National Party only emerged in about the 1980s. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I realise it could be a lot of work, and while I have some interest, I don't have a lot of spare time to devote to it in depth, so was raising the question with those more knowledgeable. A few examples leading to my confusion, and maybe it's from sloppy editors in the past.
 * Earle Page "..' ran as a candidate of the Farmers and Settlers Association of New South Wales, one of several farmers' groups that won seats in that election. Shortly before parliament opened in 1920, the Farmers and Settlers Association merged with several other rural-based parties to form the Country Party." (no link at all for Farmers and Settlers Association, piped link for Country Party). The navboxes at the bottom of his article include that he was Federal President of the Country Party, piped to Australian Country Party.
 * Charles Groves Wright Anderson infobox linked to Australian Country Party, text has piped link to Country Party
 * William Gibson (Australian politician) "At a 1918 by-election, he won the federal seat of Corangamite for the Farmers' Union Party—renamed the Country Party in 1921, defeating James Scullin on preferences." There are links on the page to both Country Party of Australia and Australian Country Party but not to Farmers' Union Party (there is also a link to the Victorian Farmers' Union).
 * There is also the newer Draft:Country Party of Australia which could also become a legitimate claimant to the article name (subject to WP:CRYSTAL) and if that happens, we either need to disambiguate or change a lot of links.
 * I am not a fan of piped links to what are on the face of it surprising articles (like Country Party). I'd rather that if Fred Bloggs stood in the 1930s for the Country Party, then the link is to Country Party, Country Party (Australia) or at a push Country Party (Australia 1920-1975), even if that is a redirect to the National Party of Australia article or section. If the party was actually the Country Party of Australia or the Australian Country Party then I'd prefer to use the correct name for the article/redirect.
 * Style references for piped links include MOS:NOPIPE, WP:REDIRECT and WP:NOTBROKEN. --Scott Davis Talk 23:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)--Scott Davis Talk 23:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's an area that I'm pretty interested in and I do have some time, so if there's agreement that we should go about redoing the article structure along the lines I proposed above I'm quite happy to chip in a fair bit of the work. The Earle Page example is one of the problems I noted - the Farmers and Settlers Association was a forerunner of the Country Party, it shouldn't redirect; rather, it should be a disambiguation page for the bunch of different distinct state FSAs (and like organisations) that eventually formed the national Country Party. I have no particular opinion on the piped links situation, except that WP:NOPIPE and the relevant sections of WP:REDIRECT don't seem to apply: because it is a former name for the organisation, the stated reasons (to make it easier if an article is written later, and to indicate that the article is wanted) do not fit here. In the unlikely event that the new Country Party does gain registration, I would be very heavily inclined to follow the example set by Communist Party of Australia (current). The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Debate over whether Libs are socially conservative...
There's been a thread at social conservatism going for two months here. I thought i'd raise it here as it relates to AusPol but is a bit of a separate article. Opinions please. FTR you don't need to look hard to find RS supporting the Libs and soc con. Timeshift (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I think the attacks on not-reasonably-disputed ideology mentions in infoboxes is getting a bit ridiculous, and this is one of the silliest examples yet. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

List of currently serving independent politicians?
Independent politician is linked to a lot throughout oz wikipedia. We've got current federal covered, but what about state/territories? Should they be added? As words/expansion, or perhaps a table, or perhaps even a seperate article with present as well as past independents? Thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think a separate article would definitely work. We're not short of sources, either specific or general. I'm not sure how you address it in that article in a way that wouldn't bloat it to hell otherwise (although someone better at generalised writing than me could). The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think a separate table list-style article would be a great idea with a prose summary of the history of independents in Australian politics. As Drover's Wife says there should be plenty of sources, such as this Queensland fact sheet. --Canley (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I've created Australian independent politicians. Feel free to rename it, tabulate it, expand it, or whatever else. Timeshift (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Great job, thanks for doing that, I'll have a look. --Canley (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Frickeg (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added a table of all the people ever elected to the House of Reps as independents, and will do the same for the Senate in the next few days, as well as tables for people who sat as independents but were not elected. Feedback on table format, etc. (headings especially) much appreciated. The state ones are going to be trickier, especially dealing with the emergence of the party systems, but I intend to eventually have a go at them too. Frickeg (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we please do latest first in the tables? Timeshift (talk) 05:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And/or a seperate table for current and previous? Timeshift (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm good with the chronological order we have at the moment, and I do think it's clearer and less awkward. I also don't think there's a need to separate out current and previous - we don't in, say, Women in the Australian House of Representatives. I do, however, think the current table is confusing as hell, and could do with being simplified a bit - if someone with my political knowledge has to read it really closely to work out what's going on, the average reader is going to struggle. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggestions for simplifying it? I had a lot of trouble with the headings and I think they're far from ideal, but I do think everything there is useful information and I presented it in the most straightforward way I could think of. Very much open to input. I disagree with latest first and with separating current and previous; I think both are recentisms. Frickeg (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to remove both the "party term" and "elections as independent" columns and explain these in prose in the "notes" column. I think this would be much simpler and clearer, and would not overload the notes section. As it is, in some cases where I didn't instantly remember the story (i.e. Graeme Campbell) I had to actually re-read their individual article to make sense of the table. It would also mean I could go through and do the states; as it is, the table is too confusing for me to do it myself. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems worth a try. I'll give it a go in the next few days. Frickeg (talk) 07:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed the offending columns. Haven't put much into the notes columns yet. What do people think? Frickeg (talk) 05:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that looks awesome compared to the old one, and far clearer. This is something much more easily rolled out but the old one. It could use a bit more inclusion of data from the old ones - i.e. it isn't obvious from the table (unless you know your election years) that Filing and Rocher actually won in 1996, and didn't quit mid-term. I also think something like "Won election as independent" and something else to that effect for the other one would be a bit clearer as demarcating the difference between the two. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I've added the Senate tables, and have run into something of an issue - where people might have "registered political parties" but are to all intents and purposes independents. Like Nick Xenophon, for instance, who has the "Nick Xenophon Team", or Brian Harradine, who always had the "Brian Harradine Group" registered. I've made judgement calls on these people (Xenophon and Harradine obviously belong, George Hannan and Meg Lees I left out). Furthermore, if we are to have similar tables for the states and territories, the pages is quickly going to get very, very long. Perhaps some sort of split is in order? Frickeg (talk) 05:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that just having a team doesn't mean an independent isn't independent (the teams are formed to fulfil the group voting requirements to get an above the line box). However, shouldn't we simply report what the media does? I don't know enough about Hannan to cast judgement, but I do remember Lees being referred to as an independent senator (and she still is:, , ), maybe that warrants inclusion? Although she was never elected as an independent neither was Lambie who is included, and even in her party (APA) she still acted ostensibly as an independent, at least from memory. I'm also curious about how to categorise Xenophon if he does run like minded candidates in all states and territories and others get elected; would they be a grouping of independents or a political party? ColonialGrid (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I absolutely wouldn't trust the media on things like this; they're known to refer to, say, David Leyonhjelm as an independent, which is obviously absurd. However, you're right about Lees: she was an independent for a while before forming the APA, so she should be in the table (I've probably missed a few other people in this situation as well). You'll notice there are two separate tables, one for the people who won election as independents and one for the people who didn't. As for Xenophon: if he actually forms a party like he keeps talking about, then I imagine we'll treat them in the same way as other groups like Katter's lot. If, on the other hand, he just endorses a whole bunch of people, they'll be independents (much like Darley is at the moment in the SA LC). Frickeg (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I think there's a need to use a little bit of a judgment call here. In most cases where someone has been elected or formed parties under the "[Independent's Name] Team-esque" banner - examples like Xenophon, Harradine, Jo Vallentine between the NDP demise and the rise of the Greens, and Paul Osborne in the ACT, I think it's a big stretch to say they were ever not independents, or that they were party politicians, during that period, regardless that they technically sat as a registered party. This in contrast to say, One Nation, PUP, KAP, or in Meg Lees' case the APA, which started as actual distinct parties focused around one personality - like, they still had party members and a party structure and other policies apart from being named ballot lines for one person. People talked about Jacqui Lambie quitting PUP in a way that wouldn't have made sense, for example, when Ann Bressington fell out with Nick Xenophon. I agree with Frickeg that we shouldn't take media reports as gospel because of their sloppy reporting about minor party affiliations, though. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I was bored so I did the ACT for the list to flesh a few of these issues out, since it's short but has some of the more complicated examples. Judgment calls:
 * a) I didn't include the Independents Group, because despite their name, they were still an actual party: essentially they were the No-Self-Government Party rebranded to minimise the hypocrisy of joining the Cabinet.
 * b) I did include Helen Szuty and Dave Rugendyke (essentially two older takes on the Xenophon situation with running mates getting elected).
 * c) I was spared trying to work out how to define whether Richard Mulcahy was still an independent after he started his particular vanity label/party because he started it in an election year and lost.
 * d) I didn't include the abundance of people who defected to their own microparties, which simplifies it a lot. (Incidentally, I noticed some of these redirecting that shouldn't - i.e. Hare-Clark Independent Party redirecting to Craig Duby when it's at least as notable now for being the first political candidacy of Fiona Patten.)


 * I agree with all of these decisions, and also about the redirects. It's interesting that independents appear to have faded away in the ACT; I wonder if they'll reappear with the expansion of the Assembly next election. Frickeg (talk) 07:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. Although the assembly is being expanded, so are the number of electorates. If anything this will make it harder for minor parties/independents to be elected as the quotas will go up (Molonglo currently elects seven members, meaning a quota of ~12.5%, with five members the quota will go to ~16.7%). It's telling that Rattenbury was the only member to oppose the alteration, with the all eight Liberals and all eight ALP supporting the change. ColonialGrid (talk) 07:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Alex Wilson and the messy state of the 1930s Country Party
Sparked by a recent edit at Candidates of the Australian federal election, 1940, I had a look through Trove records on Alex Wilson and was surprised to see him referred to consistently as a Country Party candidate (and member) for much of his early career. The ADB largely ignores this, as does the Parliamentary Handbook. We currently have him as an independent for his entire term, but from what I can tell, here are the major beats of his parliamentary career: It seems clear to me that we are not dealing with this (or, by extension, the other CP ructions of the 1930s) well - or indeed at all, since in member lists in places like Division of Wimmera and Members of the Australian House of Representatives, 1937-1940, we ignore them completely. So, to kick things off, how do we deal with Wilson? It seems to me that our main options are to treat him as an independent, or as the sole parliamentary member of the UCP - but then, Rankin was a member of the UCP too, but sat in the federal Coalition (most of the time). We also have to take into account the overwhelming amount of more recent literature that refers to Wilson as an independent - but how much store should we set by that? In short, my head is exploding. Help? Frickeg (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sep 1937 - defeats Hugh McClelland in Victorian Country Party preselection vote for Wimmera |||l-year=1937. During the campaign he makes clear anti-Coalition noises. |||l-year=1937|||l-month=10 McClelland, running against him, clearly endorses the Lyons Government. |||l-year=1937|||l-month=10 (We have McClelland down as the endorsed CP candidate at this election; he certainly received open support from the federal organisation. |||l-year=1937|||l-month=10)
 * Dec 1937 - Wilson wins. He declines to attend federal Country Party meetings. |||l-year=1937 (A bit like Tony Crook!) He also sits in parliament on the crossbenches; meanwhile, the Victorian CP (which goes by "United Country Party", UCP) expels McEwen. |||l-year=1937|||l-month=12
 * 1938 - Wilson is generally referred to as an "Independent Country Party" member. |||l-year=1938 He is at the centre of a lost government vote on the floor. |||l-year=1938
 * 1939 - Wilson is endorsed, apparently uncontroversially, as the United Country Party candidate for Wimmera. |||l-year=1939 Bendigo MP George Rankin (who we treat as unambiguously CP) is also a candidate for the UCP, which opposes co-operation with the federal Coalition and has formally expelled McEwen and the other ministers from the state Country Party; they contest as the "Liberal Country Party". Rankin, on state party orders, withdraws from the federal party room. |||l-year=1939 By November, peace overtures are being made (also to the four other non-Victorian rebels, Fadden, Collins, Badman and Corser, who left the party after Page attacked Menzies; we also make no note of this in member lists; apparently there is also a question about William Gibson's membership in the beginning of his Senate term). |||l-year=1939|||l-month=11 Later that month, Rankin is being referred to as a "CP member", although he is still a UCP candidate. |||l-year=1939|||l-month=11 (Rankin's ADB entry is the opposite of helpful here, painting Rankin as a clear Coalitionist from the get-go in Canberra.) However, as late as December, Wilson is still being referred to as an "Independent Country Party" MP. |||l-year=1939
 * 1940 - a rematch between Wilson and McClelland in Wimmera. Here, McClelland is apparently an independent. |||l-year=1940 (We currently treat him as UCP, which must be wrong - probably my fault, as I don't remember exactly where this designation came from.) |||l-year=1940 This summarises Wilson's position post-election. Despite apparently being re-elected as the endorsed candidate of the United Country Party, I can find no reference to him as a "UCP member" in the House.
 * 1941 - Coles and Wilson cross the floor to vote down the Fadden government. During this period Wilson starts to be referred to sometimes as the "Independent member for Wimmera", dropping the CP altogether. |||l-year=1941 He is now a Labor supporter in the House.
 * 1943 - in the leadup to the election, Wilson announces he will continue to support the ALP until the election. He is also referred to as a member of the UCP, which is undergoing merger talks with the federal party. |||l-year=1943 Wilson reaffirms he will not join the Coalition. |||l-year=1943 Rankin too is still referred to as UCP, although he does sit with the Coalition. |||l-year=1943 Despite this, the Country Party does not appear to have formally endorsed a Coalitionist candidate against Wilson. |||l-year=1943 We currently deal with this by listing it as the only non-NT election in Australian federal history conducted with no one with party endorsement - but is this accurate?
 * 1944 - I now, for the first time, find references to Wilson as a CP MP |||l-year=1944 |||l-year=1944, but this is apparently journalist confusion due to his continuing UCP membership. |||l-year=1944
 * 1945 - Wilson resigns to become Administrator of Norfolk Island. Retrospectives of career make no mention of his ever joining the parliamentary Country Party. |||l-year=1945


 * As to the broader issue, I have long-complained about our coverage of early partisan politics, and I think our coverage of the early development of the Country Party is particularly bad: essentially, if we're ever going to cover pre-1950 partisan history well we need to break all parties out into state branches since it's only about after that point that they got vaguely nationally consistent.


 * As for Wilson, he's not someone I know much about, and that is one of the most baffling chronologies of party affiliation I've ever seen. I continually get frustrated at just how sloppy too many of the en-masse "reliable" sources are at actually keeping track of partisan affiliations. I guess our best option might be just to somehow try and summarise all of the above somehow; I recently had to do something similar (if thankfully simpler) to explain the political alignment of Henry Zwar, who we wrongly had listed as an independent throughout his career. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As the person who made the edit that sparked this, can I just say that I had no idea what a mess I'd just got into!! I don't have any more sources than what you've dug up on Trove (I made the edit based on three Argus articles saying McClelland was Ind CP and Wilson UCP).  I'm certainly no historian of the era -- I was just working through discrepancies between Wikipedia and Psephos, looked up a few Trove articles and made the edit.  I would say that, while the newspapers were often referring to Wilson as "Ind CP" from very soon after his election, the designation of "UCP" was still occasionally used into 1941, e.g., 4 Jan, 10 March, 20 March.  (There are also a couple of "UCP"s from the Horsham Times in 1943, but they seem outliers compared to how the Argus was reporting on him.)


 * In this article (12 Feb 1941), Wilson is referred to as "Ind CP", but talks scathingly of a proposed merger between the UCP and LCP, referring to "party to which I belong" which I interpret as the UCP (though, in light of everything else, I'm not as sure as I'd normally be!).


 * So in conclusion, I have no idea what to do, and probably won't have much more to add to whatever you and others here come up with. Pappubahry (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you could essentially approach this by summarising him as someone who for most of his career was known as an independent with varying associations with the Country Party over the years, and then spell out the details that make that a little bit muddier. It'd only take two or three paragraphs if you wrote it well, and I don't think it'd be undue weight seeing as it's a pretty significant factor in the role he played. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the root cause of the problem may be whether parties are vehicles for obtaining power or vehicles for achieving aims for particular interests & ideas. The Country Party's origins would incline towards the latter type of party and often such parties have serious divisions on the means by which they can achieve their aims; depending on how the party is structured such divisions can go all the way to the polls and the preferential voting system has allowed parties to run multiple candidates. It also gets messy when federal and state party organisations conflict over direction and alliances. If you take the better known Lang Labor split you have a period when one person was the endorsed candidate of the state Labor branch and another was the endorsed candidate of federal Labor - which was "Labor" and which was "Ind Labor"?! To add to the complication the National Party is a federation of state parties who often stay in despite disagreements - hence the Crook confusion. The particular name a party used in a state is probably a red herring in all this - both the Liberals and Country Party in the post war years used a variety of different names in state politics and there are confusions over whether the state or federal name was used at a particular election.

I suspect the answer is that Wilson was the endorsee of the state Country Party on an anti-Coalition position, but anti-Coalition Country MPs never organised as a party in the federal parliament and were instead divided over whether to make the case for independence from the party room or the crossbenches (until the state party made up their minds and ordered Rankin out of the party room) and the pro-Coalition MPs had to assemble their own state aparatus. There's probably quite a few cases where independents were actually the nominees of local parties. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Source for DoD for Trevor Griffin needed
I found this article detailing the passing of former South Australian Attorney-General Trevor Griffin but sadly no date of death. I've had a fruitless search trying to find one and was wondering if someone here could weave their magic to find a date of death (I'm guessing access to The Advertiser hardcopies will be useful). --Roisterer (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This article says he died "last week" and the funeral and burial were on Friday. --Canley (talk) 06:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, that ref was already there. I'll keep an eye out for an exact date... --Canley (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ABC article now specifies 7 March. --Canley (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Policies of parties and independent candidates for New South Wales state election, 2015
This is interesting but it is probably not encyclopedic and it is difficult to read.--Grahame (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It does seem overly long especially for a state election. It reminds me of articles like Australian Labor Party (NSW Branch). Only in NSW. Say, not that i'm a fan of doing things the way our international counterparts do it, but are there similar articles out there for other countries/jurisdictions? Timeshift (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on the election article, but the article about the state branch is something we need more of, and it's a gap in our coverage that causes a bunch of problems down the line: one of these cases is NSW getting it right, this is someone getting it very wrong. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete it. Salt it. Block the creator. I assumed good faith last time, when the creator attempted to add this to the New South Wales state election, 2015. I (and others) explained how they had violated copyright. We also had a solid consensus that table form was not the way to go. They have now created this monstrosity which is not only tabulated against clear consensus, but also includes multiple copyright violations. Check out the Greens' policies in the first table, for example, two of which are copied word-for-word from the Greens' website. Or the Future Party on tax simplification - also word-for-word. I could go on. Frickeg (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I wasn't going to say it, but the editor's behaviour does seem a bit WP:SOAPBOXy toward helping the Greens. Timeshift (talk) 04:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This article just seems a mess, not only content wise, but also the way it displays info, and of course the huge plagiarism issues. If someone started a DR I'd support it. ColonialGrid (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * (USA editor obs.) Good heavens, that is long!! To answer someone else's question: no, I haven't generally seen an article anything like this in either the U.S. or Canadian elections "space". I don't know if it'll pass an AfD, but that article certainly is a mess, and I don't even have a suggestion on how to tackle it... --IJBall (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going through to remove the obvious close paraphrasing/plagiarism now, but it's a big job. ColonialGrid (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I think this article needs to be taken out and shot, to put it bluntly. It's an unencyclopedic topic: you cannot functionally summarise party policy in an election with as many parties as this, it's a topic far better handled by linking to the party websites, and there's no way to do this that doesn't turn out as a trainwreck. To that effect, I've nominated it at AfD (and I'm surprised nobody did it sooner, given the above discussion). I think it's a helpful thing to have a "campaign" section that covers neutrally the major issues in an election and parties' stances on them (e.g. the sale of the "poles and wires"), but this mess is another thing entirely. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's the direct link to the AfD. --IJBall (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Country Party of Australia (founded 2014)
This was previously deleted at Articles for deletion/Country Party (Australia).--Grahame (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So it should be speedy deleted. It can go through DRV if there's an argument for it to exist (there isn't). Frickeg (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Country Party of Australia (founded 2014). Frickeg (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please create a graph?
I came across this gem and thought it would be worth having on wikipedia. Can someone who's good with doing graphs whip one up based on it please? Timeshift (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Really good, isn't it. I'll give it a try if I can dig up some source data. --Canley (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

ACT House of Assembly
We have recently being reclassifying politicians in to their parliaments. We have the Category:Australian Labor Party members of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly that does not seem to adequately cover members of the former Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly. Would it be better to call it the ACT legislature (which sounds American) or parliament?--Grahame (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * They're entirely separate bodies, though. I would say it would be better to have two entirely separate categories (i.e. a separate Category:Australian Labor Party members of the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly). Frickeg (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This also applies to the ACT Advisory Council (predecessor of the HoA) and the NT Legislative Council (predecessor of the NTLA). The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

FAR
I have nominated South Australian state election, 2006 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Jarodalien (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Australian politicians categories, round 2
The discussion on Australian politicians categories has been closed. The closer interpreted consensus on the main question about state divisions, but not necessarily on the candidates stuff. I will be nominating the candidates categories for a separate CfD soon; any suggestions below are welcome (I'm thinking the "Australian Labor Party candidates" format).

I will be working through the non-Coalition categories manually to split them into state and federal parliaments, and also adding a few categories along the way we're missing (like many of the state parties). Anyone else who feels like it is welcome to join, but we should co-ordinate who's doing what so we don't overlap! Any issues regarding this process can be raised here. Frickeg (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * In South Australia we also need to reformat Category:Liberal and Country League politicians & Category:Liberal Movement (Australia) politicians for pre-1973, what is the process for enacting this? Screech1616 (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure quite what you mean. If you take a look at what I've done with the ACT and NT categories, you'll see the way I'm working through them. What kind of reformatting are you talking about? If it's within the remit of the CfD, we should be able to just enact it straight away. Frickeg (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I felt we had consensus on the candidates point (for "Candidates for the [party]"), and that it could have been closed except that the final option emerged relatively late in the discussion and people didn't check back. Since the candidates structure is not one which currently exists exactly, I would also be inclined to create these categories now and deal with the couple of random leftovers that would be left over via CfD later, considering that getting this first CfD closed took more than three months (!).


 * I am a bit dubious about the value of these microparty categories in the ACT example. The categories for the Hare-Clark Independent Party, New Conservative Group, United Canberra Party and Richard Mulcahy Canberra Party seem superfluous: they will always be stuck at one and I'm not seeing any navigational use though I'm open to argument. (Incidentally, three of these parties are currently redirects, and the last one is one that I wouldn't even advocate having an independent article on.) The only one-article category there that would make sense to me right now is the Democrats one, because that would allow an Australian Democrats-by-state series of categories. The only issue I spot in the NT is the anomaly of both having "Northern Territory Nationals politicians" and "Northern Territory Nationals members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly" when, to my knowledge, the party only ran candidates for the one parliament and by definition existed only in the NT. I don't know what the answer is to that but it does look a bit strange. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I did think about that with the very minor parties, but ultimately my reasoning was this: when I go to the parent category (in this case Members of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly by party), I expect to see every party represented, even the micro ones. Ultimately this is not going to occur very often (the ACT, for some reason, has many, many more of these essentially personal vehicles than other jurisdictions), and it just seemed to me better to keep the whole thing consistent even if it did mean some underpopulated categories.


 * I actually did originally have the "NT Nationals politicians" and "NT Nationals members of the NT Legislative Assembly" categories combined as one under the former name, but then a user reverted my admittedly bold move of the parent categories (Members of the X party by state to Members of the X party by parliament) with what I thought was a fairly reasonable rationale, and I realised that having the two separate categories means we're more prepared for when the candidates/others categories come into play. For Hare-Clark Independent Party, for example, we have Duby there by himself at the moment, but as you pointed out earlier Fiona Patten ran for that party and she can eventually end up in a Hare-Clark Independent Party candidates category, and then both that and the HCIP members of the ACTLA category can go under the parent category HCIP politicians. I realise that it's tempting to have just a single category when they're going to be so tiny, but that messes with the parent categories a bit and I found it neater all round to have the two. The same would apply with the NT Nationals example: I don't think at the moment we have articles on anyone associated with that party other than its two MLAs, but I would be shocked if there weren't some other notable people involved, and if/when they get articles there'll be a place for them with the parent categories all ready. Frickeg (talk) 11:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that's a pretty reasonable argument, and I see where you're coming from now: it keeps a consistent structure, the HCIP case is a good example of where that approach works, and I also wouldn't be surprised if there wound up being other notable people as having been involved with the NT Nationals. I do think we should at least get articles on any party that gets a category, though. What did you think about proceeding with the candidates rollout without another months-long buggerising around at CfD? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I get where you're coming from, but I think it's probably better to endure CfD once more just so that we have cast-iron guarantees that it's OK to go ahead. (I'm pretty sure this one would take vastly less time, too - the only reason the previous one took three months was that it was so huge and complicated and people just kept putting it in the too-hard basket.) I'd rather put up with a delay than do the work and then have it all undone by someone because it was "against consensus".


 * (I agree 100% on having articles on all these parties, by the way. Most of them are my fault that they're redirects at the moment (me being lazy getting rid of redlinks), but I'll happily fix some of them up if I can find the sources.) Frickeg (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Just a quick note on where the NT Nationals stood. As well as the splits in the NT itself they became the local vehicle for the Joh for Canberra campaign in the 1987 federal election. I don't know if any of their federal candidates have articles or are likely to. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that clarification - I had the same thought yesterday, but stupidly got the wrong federal election and looked up 1990 instead of 1987. This is actually an interesting question - their lead Senate candidate in '87 was a Jim Petrich, and we have an article on a Jim Petrich with an AM...for his work on Cape York. Can anyone confirm that they're the same guy? The other two are borderline notable as well: their candidate for the House was at the heart of a scandal that nearly brought down Shane Stone before he hit the big-time, and their second Senate candidate is an author that you could probably scrounge together an article on. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure they're not the same person (Jim Petrich). The AM one in the article is Far North Queensland-based and has the name Cosmo James Petrich (a Cosmo/Cosmos Petrich was awarded an MBE in 1955 for gallantry as a Qantas operations officer during the 1954 BOAC Lockheed Constellation crash; probably Jim Petrich's father, they seem to have the same or similar names down the male line). The NT Nationals Jim Petrich was the founder, convenor and president of the party and was an advertising executive from Darwin. No references seem to each seem to mention any link. --Canley (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Canley, you rock. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I have now finished the federal categories, which can be seen here. I will now be moving on to the states, and I have a few general questions: I anticipate starting the CfD regarding candidates/officials/local councillors after this is all done so that any other things I pick up can be incorporated. One change is that I think we will need a "people associated with" category after all, for people who were merely party members but never ran for office or held official positions but are nonetheless notable for their membership (like Parker Moloney and the DLP, or Chris Watson and the Nationalists, or Charles Russell and the Progress Party). Frickeg (talk) 07:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel like the "Members of the Parliament of X by party" category implies that all members will be there at least once. Federally this is no issue, but with the states we have to deal with the pre-partisan era. To address this, I propose a category covering members from this period. I'm not sure what to call it though: my ideas would be "Pre-partisan members of the ...", "Pre-party members" or "Non-partisan members". It would also help if anyone can point me in the direction of the date from which parties are generally assigned (1887 in NSW, not sure about the rest).
 * Some of the states seem to use informal terms for the late 1800s/early 1900s (Queensland and Victoria with "Conservatives" and "Liberals", for example). Are these actually parties? I know almost nothing about the politics of those states at those times, so if someone could clarify that, that would be great. If they were parties, they'd get categories (and articles!); if not, I'd put them in the pre-partisan categories. (Edit: actually, I probably couldn't, because Labor already existed! This might be tricky. Were there at least loose party structures? *crosses fingers*)


 * I would be wary of tagging pre-partisan people with party labels: they were often vague, and so questionably documented in a lot of sources that I don't think we can group them together in a finite way. I think the Labor forces can be tagged back to the first time they were a thing, as they were always a coherent party, but I think any tagging of any state politician from the non-Labor side of politics prior to 1910 should be done with considerable caution. I also think every single party from prior to 1910 probably needs its own case-specific discussion about whether and to what extent they can be called parties, and how we should cover their existence in its own article, as our coverage of partisan affiliations from this area is lousy to put it lightly. I think everyone from after 1910 can be tagged comfortably.


 * As for the CfD: are there even any existing categories in this area? (If there are, I can't find them.) To my knowledge, we don't need a CfD proposal to merely create new categories.


 * I'm not sure about the "people associated with" category: firstly, it opens up the possibility of adding non-members, which factors into; secondly, this seems like a kind of rabbit-hole - example - is Al Gore a "Person associated with the Palmer United Party"? He completely is, but not in the way you're intending. I don't know that a mere "members" category is sufficiently notable, I think "people associated with" is going to lead to a mess, but I'm not altogether opposed to what you have in mind if you can think of a right label for it. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Antony Green has categorised at least NSW with firm labels here - for elections at least - back to 1887. I get the caution, though, and depending on the state the case may vary. This means I think the category for these people should perhaps be "non-party" - thinking further on it I don't like "non-partisan" as they were all partisan, and if we're including post-Labor people we can't use "pre-party". I do think they need to be distinguished from independents.


 * Hmm. That is a good point with the "people associated with" name. I'll try and think of an alternative! The US has this one easy - "registered Republicans", etc. We need something to the effect of "paid-up ALP members", but I'm not sure what to call it. Frickeg (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * From memory the NSW parties chopped and changed a lot, being based around governments, ideas and personalities that altered in importance. It's one thing to identify the labels at a particular election but more problematic when the politicians were active across changes. See here for an account of how the system switched from trade to federation in 1898 and there were a lot of big and medium names who spent their careers in ever changing alliances. In other states the labels were loose as well - in fact wasn't the original introduction of preferential voting in Queensland an alternative to proper organisation for the non-Labor forces?
 * For another fun mess try working out if Reid's federal ministry was a single party government including recent recruits, a single party + independents as ministers or a coalition between the Free Traders and a faction of Protectionists in a bit of disagreement with their leadership. Add in that both Reid and McLean's careers began before organised parties and both men probably didn't feel a need to split the hairs. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ugh, the Reid government. Messes up an otherwise miraculously straightforward first decade, given the unstable party structure at the time. For what it's worth, I've categorised most of those renegade Protectionists as Free Traders as well (a category which encompasses the Anti-Socialists). Many of them (not all) ran as Anti-Socialist candidates in 1906; the others (i.e. Forrest, Quick - often called the Corner group) I have as independents. But it's definitely far from as open-and-shut as (almost) everything post-Fusion.
 * 1898 was basically a case where the existing parties renamed themselves given differing priorities, though. (They would do so again, of course, in 1901, and at that point I think we can without a doubt start categorising.) Given we have the federal Protectionist and Free Trade categories, I do think it's a good idea to have at least them for the states where they apply (NSW at least). I don't think it matters too much about people chopping and changing, as long as we get all the changes. There's no problem with having lots of categories. Frickeg (talk) 12:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I edit conflicted with Timrollpickering, but was making basically the same point. I take Frickeg's point about Antony Green's site, but I'm not sure I'd take that as representing party status: it is one thing to be a "free trader" in the sense of "I support free trade" and "I endorse the likely Premier candidate associated with free trade", but another to be a formal "Free Trade Party" in any kind of modern understanding of the term (e.g. having a party structure or shared platform, endorsing candidates, caucusing, etc.). I think Antony is throwing the two together because that's fine for his purposes, but I think we need to be more clear. This is where I think we need to individually discuss and write articles on state parties: to rewrite my original post to pick up from where Tim left off, was there a Free Trade Party in New South Wales? Did the loose bloc of free trade supporters coalesce into an actual party before the debate changed post-Federation? If the answer to the first question is yes, we need to do the research, write Free Trade Party (New South Wales) and carefully check our sources; if not, we really ought to clarify the article on the Reid Government (to use his example). This is a necessary discussion before we try to categorise these early politicians: one answer would make "Free Trade Party politicians" a sensible outcome, and one would make "Supporters of free trade in the Parliament of New South Wales" (or something to that effect) a sensible outcome, but this is something we ought not to get sloppy about.


 * As for Frickeg's second question, I still agree with the gist of this category (Shane Withington is another example that popped into my head - long connection with the Labor Party, done a ton of their ads, never actually run for office), but I think there are two verifiability and BLP issues that pop up with the breadth of this category around whether every Tom, Dick and Harry who may have been in a party once should be in this article. I think part of this could be solved by having a category note that their involvement must have been notable, but this still leaves a veritable rabbit hole. To use a hard example again, does Brendan Nelson belong in "Australian Labor Party members"? He was one. He was quite arguably a notable one. But I think that categorisation would rightly be seen as inflammatory as shit. To use slightly less controversial, but still cases where BLP is relevant, what about the early affiliations of Paul Howes and Lee Rhiannon? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The Free Trade and Liberal Association was formed, I believe, in 1889, but I'd have to check up a bit more as to whether it actually operated in parliament. There were definitely electoral organisations in NSW by 1890; I guess it's a bit tricky as to whether we consider that a "party" - in practice they probably were as much a party as, say, the Motoring Enthusiasts are today.
 * That's tricky about the nameless category - I had anticipated including everyone who was verifiably a party member, and I would say it is absolutely correct to include Nelson, Howes and Rhiannon in their former parties, but at the same time you're absolutely right that it could be inflammatory in some cases and we would need to watch BLP. I feel like requiring their involvement to be "notable" is a bit of a tricky issue - how do we define "notable"? If it's mentioned in their ADB entry? If it's mentioned in a few articles? Do they have to actually do something?
 * I had a look at how other countries do this to see if that offered any help. The US seems to just put people into a broad "California Democrats" category - but they don't have the complications of a multi-party system. The UK does "Labour Party (UK) people", which seems a bit broad. I feel like our bar should be that the person should verifiably have been a member of the requisite party and not just a supporter, and it should need to be mentioned in the article proper (which I feel will deal with some of the BLP concerns); one of the uses of the category will be with minor parties allowing readers to easily see which notable people have been involved with the party - to use the Howes example, I see it as intrinsically useful to indicate to readers people who have been associated with the Socialist Alliance and its various previous incarnations, but without giving that undue weight in the party article itself. Provided this is done consistently, with clear explanations at the top of each category, I think we could adequately address BLP issues; and of course some of these will be case-by-case kind of things. Frickeg (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This really is a tough one. I can see the benefit of the members categories in some ways, and I find that argument about Howes and Rhiannon persuasive, but I'm uncomfortable with the Nelson-type situations, or with otherwise notable people who were never more than branch members. Say you find some random source stating that someone famous for other reasons was in the ALP in the 70s, and you tag them with the ALP members category - they could well be in One Nation today, and having them just tagged in an ALP members category would be misleading. Unless there is some sort of significant and clear association (e.g. the Withington example), it's a BLP and referencing minefield, and in cases like Brendan Nelson's I think the BLP considerations are significant. I can see a certain argument in the UK example if that category were carefully defined, but otherwise it would throw up a very similar rabbit hole. I think either way there needs to be some significance criteria that allows these categories to exist for the sorts of cases we originally discussed but allows for easy exclusion of people where it's tangential or there are BLP issues. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Re: question 1 "Members of the Parliament of X by party". In relation to the early parliaments without formal parties, I don't think we need to introduce a "pre-partisan" set of categories. Speaking from a "mathematical" viewpoint, if "Members of the Parliament of X by party" is a subtype of "Members of the Parliament of X", then the pre-partisans and the independents can live in the "Members of the Parliament of X" category and those with well-defined party affiliations can live in the appropriate party subcategory. Categories are "binary" things (something is "in" or "out") so they need a precise test for membership, which makes them unsuitable for informal alliances, some of which are merely labels applied by the journalists of the day rather than an intentional act of party membership by the MP. So I think we should avoid trying to create categories for "alliances" and stick strictly to parties with clearly defined membership. Kerry (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Following from that, in Queensland parliaments in the 1800s, it was common to be use the terms "Ministerialist" and "Opposition" (see list of members where the Queensland Parliment itself does this in describing its former members) but these aren't parties but appear to be indications of support for the current Premier & his Ministers (you will see many MPs listed as both Ministerialist AND Opposition in different parliaments reflecting not a change in their beliefs, but a change of the Premier, see "Armstrong, William Drayton" in this document as an example). This is a list of the "parties" that appear in that first document but not all are parties as we understand them today, some are loose affiliations. If you want to read a history of the formation of political parties in Qld, this is probably a good place to start, but it leaves somewhat vague which of the various "Associations" and "Unions" are or are not political parties as such. And indeed, until such time as there became a formal process of registering a political party (no idea when that occurred), it's a debatable point whether any organisation was a "political party". Today, registration of political parties makes this clear cut. Plus Queensland had its share of "Independent Labor" and "Independent Liberal" members which seems to mean an independent who was generally aligned with a party but not part of it (often an ex-member). All very messy. While I'd probably be OK with calling something like the Queensland Farmers Union a political party (as it seems you actually joined an organisation) and hence have a WP category, I'd be less sure about having a Frank Barnes Labour category (there was only Frank Barnes in the Parliament but maybe he had other non-MP members?), and quite opposed to having a Ministerialist category. All and all it's pretty messy for the . I'd be inclined to limit the categorisation to ones formally registered as such (in more recent times). Let the individual articles tell the story of the affiliations of the rest of them where the question of "is this really a party" doesn't have a clear cut answer. Kerry (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is pretty good logic for why a pre-partisan system is too messy to do, and it's a better argument than mine for why informal allegiances shouldn't be categorised as parties. I probably disagree with Kerry on the extent that which applies, and I wouldn't exclude parties that existed before a registration system (e.g. Labor very obviously had a caucus, a structure, a party campaign, and a party pledge that all members had to sign right back to the early 1890s), and I'd argue that the predecessors of the Country Party (even if they did use the "association" or "union" naming) were parties in the same sense, at least about post-1910. I'm not sure about the much more recent example of Frank Barnes Labor, and I think that's another case where we need to do the research and get the article written first - not least because our article on their first election and our candidates-for-that-election article disagree about their party affiliation! The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My point about official registration was to say that we have a clear "yes/no" as to what is a political party since registration was introduced. It wasn't to say we didn't consider anything prior but simply that we don't have an easy test prior to that. I certainly think we should include those organisations that form part of the history of current parties (so no issue with early ALP, Qld Liberals from 1908, United Australia Party, etc), but I am very uncertain about, say, free traders. Is there really a party there or is it like talking about MPs today who are "for/against marriage equality" etc, i.e. a group with a shared view on one particular issue but not necessarily otherwise aligned? To some extent, maybe we should allow "natural enthusiasm" to be the guide here. If there is anyone who feels strongly that some group was a party, then they should go ahead and create the category (with a clear explanation of the criteria for membership of the category) and populate the category with articles that contains information sufficient to determine membership by the stated criteria. What we want to avoid most of all is MPs ending up in categories without any obvious reason!  Kerry (talk) 07:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My main concern about not hashing these early categories out first as a group is that it's a topic that is complicated and easy to make a hash of, and editors running off on their own is kind of how we wound up with a party categorisation system that was such a mess to untangle. But otherwise we're in agreement I think. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In New South Wales the Free Trade and Liberal Association was formed in 1889; I believe the "protectionists" were always much less organised but would have to go back to the books to check. I may just go back to somewhere 1901-10 depending on the state and stop then; we probably need more research to organise the categories for before that time (Labor excepted). I'm fine with single-member categories, as I said above, provided they were actual parties with actual party structures (i.e. yes to the Motoring Enthusiasts, no to the Brian Harradine Group). Frickeg (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that seems like a good approach. (The point on Frank Barnes Labor was I think less about them being a single-member category - they had two MPs - than our own articles conflicting about whether they were an actual party or two or more aligned independents.) The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like we're all fairly well agreed: straightforward back to around 1901-10 depending on the state, complicated before that. I will go ahead with this in mind, reporting back here on progress and any difficult decisions. If research uncovers genuine parties before wherever I stop (and I will do Labor back to whenever they were founded), we can always create the categories later on. Frickeg (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

One further issue that I just noticed at Guy Arkins: can we please be careful about categorising members of early 20th century state-level conservative parties as well? As I discovered in South Australia, the 1917 Labor split played out quite differently in some places at a state level, and I'd be a bit cautious about bulk-recategorising state Category:Nationalist Party of Australia politicians unless you've confirmed that the Nationalist Party did exist at a state level in that state, under that name, in a way that was consistent with the federal party. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Belated reply to above: The Nationalist Party did, though, at all state levels as far as I know (even if it took a bit longer in some states than in others). The UAP, on the other hand, did not. Frickeg (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It didn't in South Australia, which is what gave me pause. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I have confirmation from the closer of the previous CfD that a consensus here will be appropriate in lieu of a second CfD for the candidates categories. I think it's fair to say we have one already, but I'll put this here as a confirmation. Frickeg (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any disagreement with the "Candidates for the Party" system. I think we're all on the same page there. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox Australian Electorate proposal
An editor has proposed that fields for nearby electorates, similar to this provided in Infobox Australian place be added to Infobox Australian Electorate. Please participate in the discussion, which may be found at Template talk:Infobox Australian Electorate. Tnak you. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiConfererence Australia 2015 - Save the date 3-5 October 2015
Our first Australian conference for Wikipedians/Wikimedians will be held 3-5 October 2015. Organised by Wikimedia Australia, there will be a 2-day conference (Saturday 3 October and Sunday 4 October) with an optional 3rd day (Monday 5 October) for specialist topics (unconference discussions, training sessions, etc). The venue is the State Library of Queensland in Brisbane. So put those dates in your diary! Note: Monday is a public holiday is some states but not others. Read about it here: WikiConference Australia 2015

As part of that page, there are now sections for you to: It would really help our planning if you could let us know about possible attendance and the kind of topics that would make you want to come. If you don’t want to express your views on-wiki, please email me at kerry.raymond@wikimedia.org.au or committee@wikimedia.org.au
 * indicate your interest in possibly attending the conference (this is not a binding commitment, of course)
 * add suggestions for topics to include in the conference: what you would like to hear/discuss (again, there is no commit to you presenting/organising that topic, although it’s great if you are willing to do so), or indicate your enthusiasm for any existing topic on the list by adding a note of support underneath it

We are hoping to have travel subsidies available to assist active Australasian Wikipedians to attend the conference, although we are not currently in a position to provide details, but be assured we are doing everything we can to make it possible for active Australian Wikipedians to come to the conference. Kerry (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC addressing the inclusion of minor parties in Australian election article infoboxes
A discussion has started at Talk:New South Wales state election, 2015 regarding the appropriateness of adding minor parties to infoboxes of election articles. It started when the Greens party, who have one seat in the NSW legislative assembly, was added to the infobox. There seems to be a consensus that minor parties who are represented in lower houses should be included, but nothing firm on what the threshold should be. So, should minor parties be included in infoboxes of Australian state/territorial/federal election articles, and if so, what should the minimum threshold of representation be? ColonialGrid (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments
This matter is complicated as there are inconsistencies with electoral articles, such as Queensland election articles including One Nation in the '98, '01, and '04 elections, but not One Nation in '06 or KAP in '12 or '15. Given this, it would be good to has a discussion about at what point a minor party should be included in the infobox, there are currently a few election articles that only show L/NP and ALP where minor parties have won lower house seats, such as: New South Wales state election, 2011 (one Green); Victorian state election, 2014 and Victorian state election, 2018 (two Green); Queensland state election, 2006 (one One Nation); Queensland state election, 2012 (two KAP); Queensland state election, 2015 (two KAP); Australian federal election, 2010 (one Green and possibly Crook (WA Nat)); and Australian federal election, 2013/Next Australian federal election (one Green, one PUP, and one KAP). I'm sure there are probably others, but these are the recent ones which I have found. As the ACT and Tasmania electoral system (Hare-Clarke) doesn't disadvantage minor parties, inclusion of any elected party in their infoboxes makes some sense (at least to me, given how common minor parties are and the role they play in governments, which are more likely to be minority). However, the single-member seats of the other lower houses confuse issues a little more, vis-a-vis when to include minor parties, as it can become harder for them to be elected, retain seats, and hold power within the house (again, in my view). I feel that minor parties should be included in infoboxes, but think a threshold of representation in the lower house is too low, I'm just a little unsure on what the number should be though. ColonialGrid (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, I think 3 seats should be the threshold for minor parties not in a Coalition to be included in the infobox. In Australian politics, any party other than the major parties (ALP, Liberals and Nationals) that manages to hold at least 3 seats in the lower house is a significant event, and means that they are very likely to have a say in which party forms government, as they have an established area of power that can't be discounted as a lucky occurrence from the distribution of votes, and differentiates them from single seat Independents. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, if we have a seat threshold it needs to be specific to each parliament. 3 seats out of 93 in NSW is obviously rather different from 3 out of 47 in South Australia.
 * But as it happens, I'm leaning more and more strongly towards any lower house representation (elected, that is, not defectors) being an appropriate threshold. It is worth stressing that this happens very rarely in Australian politics - the last decade or so has been decidedly atypical in this regard, and we're still talking less than half of the state elections in that period. When the Greens won Melbourne in 2010, they were the first minor party to win a House of Reps seat since at least 1946 (depending on whether you count Lang Labor) or possibly ever, depending on your interpretation. (Cunningham is a by-election anomaly here, but even that had never happened before.) Before One Nation, the thing was virtually unheard of in state parliaments too. It's really, really hard for minor parties to win lower house seats, so I don't think it's a very low threshold at all.
 * The other thing is that we are decidedly atypical in the way we handle infoboxes in Australia, and maybe it's time to move a little (not entirely) in the direction of everyone else. Canada and New Zealand both use the one-seat threshold, and I don't think it makes their tables particularly unwieldy. The one-seat threshold is also the least arbitrary - otherwise we're just picking a number at random. I really think, if we're going to let them into the infobox at all (and I think it's probably a good idea to do so), then lower house representation (either before or after the election) is the only reasonable way to measure it.
 * I do think, though, that whatever we decide should have a degree of flexibility and discretion worked in. I would not advocate including the DLP based on their winning Gordon in 1973, for instance, since that happened through an electoral fluke. On the other hand I think there's a clear argument for including the proto-DLP in the 1955 federal article, given the huge role they played in that election despite not ever winning any lower house seats. Frickeg (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Frickeg here. I think for instance KAP in 2012 should definitely be in the QLD election article as it got a huge chunk of the vote and did win two seats. Orderinchaos 00:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think parties should only be included in the infobox if they are part of the governing coalition (small-c!) or part of the official opposition. Infobox gets too big otherwise. --Surturz (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm with Frickeg and Orderinchaos here. Australia is pretty unique in Wikipedia in leaving significant parties out of infoboxes. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, alright. Initially I was concerned that every election box would fill with blank other parties since very few past (and some present) state leaders have images of them, and the 2010 federal election would look a bit of a mess with 4-5 parties, but I had a look at the New Zealand elections and they still look fine, even the most recent one with 8 parties, so having a 1-seat threshold for minor parties shouldn't be too bad.Kirsdarke01 (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've also been convinced by the above comments that the threshold should simply be lower house representation, it is a simple non-arbitrary measure and does pull us into line with other jurisdictions. Surturz: do you realise that under your inclusion conditions (I assume small-c coalition to include confidence and supply agreements) the Greens would be added to Australian federal election, 2010 but not Australian federal election, 2013 or Next Australian federal election, and the Nationals would be removed from Victorian state election, 2002 and Victorian state election, 2006 as they weren't in coalition with the Liberals? ColonialGrid (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe that only the parties that can form government, that is, the government and her majesty's official opposition, should be in infoboxes. The exception however being multimember systems like the ACT and Tas. That's my strong preference, but failing that, then those parties which won enough seats in the lower house to gain official party status in the respective parliament. Timeshift (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've had a bit of trouble finding party statuses from different jurisdictions. However, what I have found is a little 'lumpy'. Queensland is three (but used to be ten? ); New South Wales is ten from the assembly ; Tasmania is about five (article doesn't say, but moving from five to three looses status ); Western Australia is five (from both houses p. 9); Victoria is 11 (again, from both houses ); at a federal level it is five (again, from both houses so the Greens attained party status in 2007, with the DLP and Democrats previously holding party status p. 2); and in South Australia the term doesn't seem to apply p. 9. This wide range of differing definitions of party status will lead to very uneven results in infoboxes. ColonialGrid (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I retract my last sentence. So, I believe that only the parties that can form government, that is, the government and her majesty's official opposition, should be in infoboxes for single-member seat jurisdictions. We have a pretty entrenched two-party system, we even have a two-party-preferred vote. And the 2pp is quoted far more often than primary votes. We are indeed unique. Timeshift (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, the extension of this is that the Nationals get removed from Victorian state election, 2002 and Victorian state election, 2006; and One Nation gets removed from Queensland state election, 1998, Queensland state election, 2001, and Queensland state election, 2004. Is that inline with your position? ColonialGrid (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh why not. Good enough. Timeshift (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with this at all, for the record. I see no compelling reason to limit infoboxes to the major parties, and many reasons not to. The two-party-preferred vote has nothing to do with the two-party system, it's a product of our electoral system. If other countries used the preferential system, no doubt there'd be a lot of talk about the two-party-preferred figure too. What I am not necessarily opposed to is having two parties per line rather than the more usual three, to give appropriate prominence to the major parties (unless there are only three parties, in which case this is obviously impractical). Frickeg (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If there's one thing that annoys me in any given article with an infobox, it's an overcrowded infobox. For the record, I hate overseas election infoboxes. They are just so large for such little gain. We have a results table to satisfy the minor party kiddy table, how is it not sufficient? Timeshift (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about minor parties, we're talking about parties with seats in lower houses, hardly a low bar. It misleads our readers by ignoring parties that played a massive role in elections: e.g. removing a party that won one in seven seats in Queensland from the infobox in that election. I am adamantly opposed to this logic. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. To exclude all parties but the ALP and the coalition seems too far. It also seems simplest to include any party which wins a lower house seat in the infobox than inventing arbitrary inclusion targets (despite that being my initial desire). ColonialGrid (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The "do you have a seat in the lower house?" guiding rule for inclusion seems sensible to me. Wittylama 23:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Related matters
If we're to add the smaller parties then one problem that can come up (and has in a few Queesland cases) is who should be listed as the leader. Often the party leader will not be the leader in the lower house/the sole MP and may not even be standing in the election. Some new/small parties don't seem to have had clearly defined state leaders before they broke through.

There's also the problem that some parties have historically opposed having a leader, and instead have some sort of "primary spokesperson" under all manner of titles. Worse still they usually have more than one. This has historically been an issue with Green parties though many have subsequently switched to a leader model.

My view is that the party leader listed should be the person the federal/state/territory party said at the time was their leader, regardless of what if any their position is in the parliament. I'm not sure how to always determine the leader of breakthrough parties, especially those riding on the coattails of parliamentarians at the other leve.

The New Zealand boxes show it's possible to list multiple co-leaders but I'm not sure how easy it will be to list the titles for "not actually a leader because we don't agree with the position but this is the person or people we put forward for leadery things". Timrollpickering (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Everyone else lists the person who they say is their leader in that jurisdiction, and so should we. I don't think this is actually that hard for most parties that won seats: e.g. for One Nation in Queensland, that was Heather Hill in 1998, someone outside parliament in 2001 after every sitting MP defected, Bill Feldman in 2004, and presumably Rosa Lee Long (as long as that could be sourced) thereafter. For KAP, it was Aidan McLindon in 2012 and Ray Hopper in 2015. There are a handful of cases where this could get challenging (e.g. the SA Nationals at the election they first fluked Karlene Maywald, in which I have no idea if they had a designated leader), but these can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.


 * The exception, of course, is the Greens, which as you note historically specifically haven't had leaders in most jurisdictions, with the only exceptions (e.g. federally and in Tasmania) occurring relatively recently. I don't think either the party convenors or their lead candidates really fit the infobox's definition of leader. I would be happy with a note to the effect that the party didn't have a leader in elections where that was the case (e.g. Qld 2015). The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, we can deal with this on a case by case basis; sometimes we may just have to leave it blank. The Drover's Wife, the Victorian Greens also have a parliamentary leader: Greg Barber. ColonialGrid (talk) 08:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This discussion has been open for over a month now. Although I reckon it has produced a consensus (with notable dissent) to include parties which have representation in the lower house on infoboxes, I am involved, so would rather someone uninvolved close this. Would an uninvolved editor please close this RfC? ColonialGrid (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Pj Jackson
Is he notable?--Grahame (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * He's so not notable I've nominated it for speedy deletion. His "party" hasn't gone near the AEC or any other electoral body, hasn't tried to contest an election, and hasn't been referenced in the press anywhere, and all the sources are to his Facebook (!). The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Two Party Preferred Results Before 1937
In scouring the internet for Australian election results I stumbled across a rather old article on Dr Adam Carr's website. The article details estimates of federal two party preferred results before any Mackerras estimates and even before the introduction of preferential voting. Now I am not completely sure that the contents of the article are fully accurate as with some of the results between 1937-1949, there are conflicts with the estimates provided by Mackerras which raises an question-marks there. But seeing as how we do not have any two party preferred figures at all for some of the earlier elections, should we not take this information into consideration?

The source is here  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.40.176 (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Why would/are we listing two-party preferred results before the introduction of preferential voting? That is an academic exercise that doesn't belong in our articles, and is confusing as hell even to a wonk like me who still doesn't know the specific years that was implemented. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I was never trying to say to add results before the introduction of preferential voting, merely pointing out that the article actually had them. When I was mentioning early elections I was referring to the ones after preferential voting, but before 1937 so from 1919 onwards, which are thus far missing two party preferred estimates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.241.75 (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. We have always considered Psephos to be a reliable source for polling data, so I would personally have no problem with using it in the absence of anything else (though if it is an estimate, that needs to be represented somewhere). If it is clashing with other reliable figures, though, we probably need to hash out which is right - if you could point to some cases where are conflicts taht would be terrific. Some other input here would be really useful too. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As have I. When it comes to pre-1937 I think that given it is essentially the only reliable source available there is not a problem, but as you pointed out there are inconsistencies between estimates for later elections. An example would be 1937, where Mackerras estimates a 2PP for the UAP/CP of 50.6, whereas Psephos gives a figure of 52. Further inconsistencies which give an increased estimate for the ALP include 1943, 1954, 1955, and 1998. Whereas estimates which project a lower vote include 1946, 1949, 1983, 1993 and 2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.241.75 (talk) 05:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you a regular logged out? I'm a bit confused. I think we need a bit more feedback on this one. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there will never be a consistent list of this data, and as the OP has pointed out, any calculation for those elections where a full count was not carried out will be an estimate with a differing methodology and set of assumptions. There are numerous complications, such as uncontested seats (see 1954 and as you mention, 1937). My suggestion would be to include the estimated two-party figures in a prose section, outlining the reliable source(s) (e.g. AEC, Carr, Mackerras, Green) and as much information about the methodology and assumptions as possible. I would not include it in an infobox, with a swing, or other table or list summary which implies it is consistent with estimates for other elections. --Canley (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well now I have an account. Anyway I concur with Canley regarding figures which are in conflict, however when it comes to elections before 37 but after 19 that do not have a 2PP, I think that with no other indicator (and thus no conflict) that the Psephos figures are sound. Lord Wreath (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a tricky one, but I think I agree with Canley: it should probably be discussed in prose rather than appear in the tables since it's neither official nor definite. But we can definitely include them: Mackerras and Psephos are both reliable sources. Frickeg (talk) 08:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This sounds like a good way of dealing with this. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Supplementary elections
While trying to track down an inconsistency between sources, I've realised that we've missed a supplementary election in our articles on the 1957 Queensland election. George Devries, the QLP member for Gregory, died in July with an election scheduled for August, so the 1957 election in that seat wasn't held until October. This is important because the supplementary election was contested by Jack Duggan, the former Labor leader who had lost his seat in August, and at the moment we've just got him down as running in two seats at the same time. I know we've found ways to denote supplementary elections before in the more recent ones in Londonderry (NSW) and Frankston East (Victoria) but I am terrible with tables - can someone try and note this somewhere in the tables for that election? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean making sure the figures for Gregory are not included in the election result summary tables, or just a note indicating that it was held on 5 October? --Canley (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As for the first one - I'm not sure what we did with Frankston East and Londonderry? (That's half the reason I'm asking.) I've already noted in the results pages that it was a supplementary election, but I don't know to template-fiddle to get the same on the candidates pages. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For Frankston East I just put a (supplementary) in the title of the results box. Due to how significant it was to the final result, it's got a section in the 1999 election article about it. In Antony Green's report on the 1999 election, he included the Frankston East results with the rest of the state, so just a note saying it was supplementary should be enough for both the results page and the candidate list. I don't think there's any sources that list the original candidates for Gregory before Devries died. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 06:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Do we have the original candidates (i.e. the ones who nominated against Devries)? In the past (Londonderry, Frankston East, Newcastle, Dickson) I've split the row and indicated who died, like so: Candidates of the Australian federal election, 1998. Frickeg (talk) 08:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I had a closer look at the sources (the 1957 election returns), and I think that it's most likely that the Labor and QLP candidates for Gregory in the supplementary election were the same as the original ones against Devries. I can't find anything that suggests otherwise. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Multi-party infoboxes
Further input (for the brave of heart) appreciated here. Frickeg (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Country Party in South Australia
This seems to be the discussion page with experts on it. Wikipedia is supposed to help me understand things, not make them more complex...

I've noticed a number of articles have piped links to Country Party. Reading the text, I'm not convinced this is right, at least in South Australia. There seems to have been a Country Party which merged with the Liberal Federation to create the Liberal and Country League in 1932. There was a Country Party that stood against the LCL in some seats according to the Results of the South Australian state election, 1973 (House of Assembly) (also as piped links to National Party of Australia) and there is The Nationals South Australia more recently. This might have been the same Country Party that split from the LCL in 1963 (without any link at all) in the LCL article, just the statement that it the was a reformation).

I'd be happy to help clear up the mess, but at the moment, reading the articles is adding to my confusion, not clarifying it. I think this is support for a larger set of "former party" articles, or at least agreed titles and entities, and an untangling of mis-targeted links. --Scott Davis Talk 11:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the above is more an argument for drastically improving our (currently pretty hopeless) coverage of the state branches of parties. My main familiarity is with the federal sphere - the Country Party there was around from 1920 until around 1940 when it pretty much just petered out when Archie Cameron joined the UAP. I am fairly sure the 1963 split is the current SA Nats.


 * In my opinion the best way to deal with this would be to cover it all in the SA Nats article, since it has at all times been the state branch of the federal party. If there was ever enough information to sustain a split I might support it, but for now I think it makes sense on the same page. Frickeg (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There are two issues here. Firstly, Frickeg is absolutely right about this illustrating how our coverage of state branches of parties needs drastic improvement. The unified national party system is a relatively recent construct, and all of the parties evolved differently in each state in the process of getting there. The lack of articles on state branches has really been an ongoing hole in our coverage, and issues like this bring it out again and again.


 * As for where coverage of the earlier Country Party should go: Frickeg's point about both of them being affiliated with the federal party convinces me that they should go in the same article. However, The Nationals South Australia is completely inconsistent with the naming convention we've used for the National Party everywhere else, and is yet another reason we need a consistent naming convention and rollout for state branches. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * IIUC prior to the Second World War the conservative side of politics often didn't have the same configurations at state and federal level - and it differed across states - so sometimes people were in the same organisation at the state level but different ones federally or vice versa. (There's a similar situation today in Canada.) There were also cases of merged Coalition parties nominating candidates to sit in either federal party room, as happens with the CLP and LNP today.
 * South Australia seems to have taken longer than just about anywhere else to settle on a party system that mirrored the federal set-up with a string of mergers in the 1920s & 1930s that produced a combined party in the form of the LCL at state level but there were MPs for the UAP and Country parties at federal level, though it's not clear to me what if any formal relationship there was between the LCL and the UAP/Country aparatus and just how federal candidacies were allocated. Cameron & Oliver Badman's defection seems to have to ended any Country federal activity in the state but that could be anything from the collapse of a formally organised federal only party to just the ending of a Country Party tendency in the LCL. (I'm not even sure when the federal parties became formal federations with affilation by state organisations. It's possible a federal party was once just a caucus and an office mailing out letters of support and cheques to favoured candidates, and the concept of "a state branch of a federal party" may have been meaningless.)
 * At the end of the war the LCL seems to have retained that name at the state level but become the SA affiliate to the federal Liberal Party (and for much of the 1945-1973 period it wasn't the only state Liberal party with "Country" in the name) with all LCL nominated federal candidates apparantly standing as federal Liberals. The federal Country element in SA was either a tendency in the LCL that produced no federal candidacies or else was politically homeless. I've no idea if the LCL was ever affiliated to the federal Country Party.
 * The current Nationals SA was a new body founded in the 1960s though I'm not sure if "split" is an accurate term (that can cover anything from a chunk of local braches walking out of the LCL to just one or two individual members going off). I don't know when it affiliated to the federal Country Party (which may have been some time depending on just how keen the fed CP was - more recently the latest attempt at a Tasmanian Nats has had problems getting federal acceptance - or what, if any, say the LCL had in the matter) but it's probably best to have a separate article on the state Country party that existed from the 1910s-1930s. The Nats SA should be the party linked to for all state election articles from the 1960s onwards though the federal articles could be a bit messier - in recent years they've had the same anti-Coalition position as the Nats WA which has created a few headaches for the tables. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been reading a bit more. The Nationals South Australia might not be consistent with how Wikipedia has named other state parties, but it is the name on the bottom of their website, so likely the correct name. I'lll try to find and fix the Links to SA state parliament Country and National party links and change them to link to there over the next few days. I think the Country Party in SA before the LCL was a different entity so needs a name and stub article to link to and fix all those links that are piped to display Country Party but currently link to National Party of Australia. Country Party (South Australia) might be specific enough, because adding years makes for a long disambiguator. --Scott Davis Talk 12:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty familiar with the history of South Australian politics and knew most of this, but the logic in the last paragraph swings me back the other way about having a separate article at Country Party (South Australia).→


 * However, as for the naming - I feel strongly that we should have a consistent naming structure for all the state branches of the Labor, Liberal and National parties. The differences in exact formal names between states are branding exercises that change every few years, and I think we should prioritise consistency more. (I see the Greens as being an exception here - like, The Greens (WA) has always branded themselves very clearly as that since their inception, whereas the ACT Greens have never been known as anything different.) The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If I understand correctly all the National Party affiliates (bar the Queenslad LNP and the Northern Territory CLP) are formally "National Party of [STATE NAME]" but campaign with the branding "The Nationals [STATE NAME]". It's an accident of creation that the SA party is at the branding name whereas the WA party is at the full name. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorting out state parties - the Greens
Okay as a way forward on this can I suggest we go through the parties one by one, and identify potential issues.

I've taken the Greens as a simple first case. We have articles on the federal party and all eight states/territories. A number of the state parties did not affiliate to the federal party at first. The articles are as follow:


 * Australian Greens formed 1992
 * Greens New South Wales - formed 1991, federal affiliation ? (the Victoria article suggests from the formation of the federal party)
 * Australian Greens Victoria - formed 1992, federal affiliation 1992 (apparantly set up around the same time)
 * Queensland Greens - formed 1991, federal affiliation ? (the Victoria article suggests from the formation of the federal party)
 * Greens Western Australia - formed 1990, federal affiliation 2003
 * Greens South Australia - formed 1995, federal affiliation 1995 (there seems to have been a previous party with no connection to the federal one)
 * Tasmanian Greens - formed 1992? (see below), federal affiliation ? (the Victoria article suggests from the formation of the federal party)
 * ACT Greens - formed 1992, federal affiliation ? (the Victoria article suggests from the formation of the federal party)
 * Northern Territory Greens - formed 1990? (or not - the article says they contested the federal election that year, the federal candidate list disagrees), federal affiliation ? (the Victoria article is silent this time)

Okay the names are a mix with three "State/Territory Greens", three "Greens State/Territory" and two going their own way. Not sure if we should standardise or not but redirects from the two main forms would be handy.

The biggest individual mess is Tasmania. The predecessor United Tasmania Group formed in 1972 and seems to have fizzled out in the late 1970s (but popped up again in the 1990 federal election with many of the same people) with Bob Brown and others carrying on as independents, to the point that by the late 1980s there were a number of "Green Independents" elected to the state parliament and holding the balance of power. The article says "In August 1992 the Green Independents moved to officially form the Tasmanian Greens." but is that the start of a proper organisation or just a name change? The electoral history basically bundles in all the environmentalists from 1972 onwards. And "On 23 July 2005 the Greens celebrated 33.3 years of political activity and achievements, with a large party entitled "33-and-a-third – Now we're Long Playing!"" Here we have one article that's confused about whether the organisation runs from the 1970s, the 1980s or the 1990s, and another article on what is either the early part of the history or the predecessor organisation.

The other key question is what to link federal articles to. The WA Greens didn't affiliate until 2003 and elected some Senators in the meantime. In general we're separating out the WA Greens from the federal party in tables. More of a mess is Australian federal election, 1990 which predates the formation of the federal party. The WA Greens are listed separately but the rest are clusted together. Candidates of the Australian federal election, 1990 is even worse, with the WA party linked to, the United Tasmania Group listed for that state and the individual candidate lists linking to the not yet formed Australian Greens, including both the "Green Party" and "Green Alliance" (see below) who stood against each other in New South Wales. The "Summary by party" shows separate Greens in New South Wales (as well as the Green Alliance who also contested a Reps seat in South Australia), Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory.

(The summary has a footnote about the Green Alliance in New South Wales: "Contested as a group of affiliated parties registered under the names Central Coast Green Party (2 candidates), Cowper Greens (1 candidate), Eastern Suburbs Greens (3 candidates), Greens in Lowe (1 candidate), Illawarra Greens (2 candidates), South Sydney Greens (3 candidates), Sydney Greens (1 candidate) and Western Suburbs Greens (5 candidates), with the Green Alliance Senate - New South Wales as the registered Senate name.")

I suspect some of the confusion over dates may be the difference between environmentalists coming together to united under one banner and formal party registration - and also the party may have been campaigning in a state for federal seats before getting a state registration together.

I don't think we should get hung up on dates of formal party registration but rather focus on continuity of organisation. We may need to merge the parties in Tasmania, do something to explain the NSW mess and the 1990 federal election needs serious thought.

Beyond that can we agree on the basics that:
 * State/territory election articles should link to the state/territory party
 * Federal election articles should only link to the federal party when it existed and nominated in that state; otherwise link to the state/territory party

What about biographies of politicians who were active at both the state/territory level? My instinct is that the federal party should be linked to in intros and infoboxes.

And this is probably the easiest case! Timrollpickering (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the Greens are a bit of a special case when it comes to naming, as their state branches are quite highly autonomous and they've always used those particular names, often going back to before they affiliated to the federal party. I don't think that's an equivalent situation to any of Labor, the Libs and Nats.


 * I think merging distinct predecessor parties into their successors is bad history, and it's something that I've very strongly advocated refraining from. I think we can see the United Tasmania Group, the Green Independents, and the Tasmanian Greens as three distinct organisations/groupings that basically succeeded one another, but I don't think they belong in the same article, except as background in the latter two. The Greens refer to the UTG as basically their ancestors, so I don't think the "33 1/3" example says much other than that. I think the last two could be seen as continuous for the purposes of whether or not they should have separate articles, but the UTG definitely can't.


 * As for linking, I think we should link the state branches in all state elections, the state branches for federal elections before that respective branch affiliated, and the federal party for future elections. The Australian Greens article is linked prominently in those articles, and because of the Greens' autonomous structure, it's questionably accurate to label state MPs as members of the federal party, rather than as members of an affiliated branch. I don't think the 1990 example is a bad thing: there were a bunch of unaffiliated "Greens" parties contesting that election, most of which would later wind up becoming the Australian Greens. Depicting them as anything but separate would be inaccurate.


 * I don't actually think the Greens are the simplest case here - I think they're actually probably the hardest. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually the Nats are similar, having been very autonomous over the years, with some state branches predating the federal party and taking a long time to standardise the name with the change from "Country Party" to "National Party" taking a dozen years with some changing directly (e.g. Queensland), others using "National Country Party" in the interim (e.g. the federal party) and a split in Western Australia created rivals the National Country Party and the National Party.
 * The Liberals also offer confusion with the post war "Liberal and Country" parties in Victoria and Western Australia currently being presented as separate parties when they were just the state Liberals making a name change for direct assaults on the Country Party seats under the figleaf of a few defectors. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Nationalist colour issue
Hey, is there any chance someone good with templates and colours could give me a hand? Our candidates pages for federal elections during the Nationalist Party era, apparently as a shortcut, use the Liberal shade to indicate seats won by Nationalists. However, I'm trying to draw up a candidates page for the same era in South Australia, when there was both a Liberal Party and (their equivalent of the) Nationalist Party contesting elections against one another. Using the normal "Nationalist" colour is too dark in this context, and it really needs a toned-down shade as for Labor/Liberal/National, etc. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For similar situations in the past (i.e. Lee Liberals in Tasmania, federal anti-Hughes Liberals in 1922), I've used Christian Democrat purple (Template:Australian party shading/CDP). It is a fairly hideous shade at the moment (for which I take full responsibility) so if someone were to make it paler I would have no complaints at all, but I've never been able to dig up the right colour. Frickeg (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion - I was going to go with it as a workaround, but upon comparing it to just using the regular Nationalist colour, the CDP shading is both as dark as the non-toned-down Nationalist one, and uglier than the non-toned-down Nationalist one. Is it possible to come up with an alternative shading of blue to the one being used for the Liberals? It seems like it would have wide applicability. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Crowley quotes being added as entire blocks in various articles
I'd appreciate other editors' input at Talk:Australian Labor Party/Archive 4. I've reverted the ALP one, but not the one at History of Adelaide, or others. It seems this editor takes Crowley quote slabs and pastes them in to various articles, without context, with no indication of relevance, and in awkward places like the start of sections. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

South Australian state election, 2006 no longer a Featured Article
The article has been delisted as a Featured Article here. It's a pity that editors want to de-list FAs rather than help bring them up to FA state. Does anyone want to help salvage this? Timeshift (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it's an inevitability with a lot of these mid-2000s-era FAs because the standards have changed so very much (a then-FA is barely a GA now), and in many cases the specialist editors who worked on them are long-gone from the project. It's going to be beyond your average person trawling FARC to take on these kinds of overhauls, and it's not like we have a surplus of specialist nerds (like say WP:MILHIST) ready to jump in and save them: if anything, we have less of us than when these articles were first written! I think the article would probably need a very substantial rework to pass WP:FA now and that WP:GA might be a better prospect (but would still require some rework as well). The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I don't suppose you know where I stand with my triple crown? Does a delisted FA still count? Did it only matter at the time I had three valid articles and i'll always have had the triple crown? Timeshift (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it still counts. ;) The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)