Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Australia / Politics (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon WikiProject Australian politics is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.

RfC addressing the inclusion of minor parties in Australian election article infoboxes[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The consensus is to list parties that have at least 1 person elected to a seat. Related matters section did not have enough participation to form consensus. AlbinoFerret 11:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

A discussion has started at Talk:New South Wales state election, 2015#I think this article was spin-doctored. 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)


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'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 [1] (but used to be ten? [2]); New South Wales is ten from the assembly [3]; Tasmania is about five (article doesn't say, but moving from five to three looses status [4]); Western Australia is five (from both houses p. 9); Victoria is 11 (again, from both houses [5]); at a federal level it is five (again, from both houses so the Greens attained party status in 2007 [6], 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'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[edit]

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'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)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Australian politicians categories, round 2[edit]

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'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'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'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'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 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 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 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'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'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'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'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'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'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'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'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's Wife (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Source for DoD for Trevor Griffin needed[edit]

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)

Can someone please create a graph?[edit]

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)

Policies of parties and independent candidates for New South Wales state election, 2015[edit]

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'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'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)[edit]

This was previously deleted at Wikipedia: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)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Country Party of Australia (founded 2014). Frickeg (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

ACT House of Assembly[edit]

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's Wife (talk) 05:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


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)

Infobox Australian Electorate proposal[edit]

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#Nearby Electorates. Tnak you. --AussieLegend () 08:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Country Party in South Australia[edit]

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's Wife (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)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's Wife (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorting out state parties - the Greens[edit]

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's Wife (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiConfererence Australia 2015 - Save the date 3-5 October 2015[edit]

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:

  • 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

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 or

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)

Two Party Preferred Results Before 1937[edit]

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 [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^