Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics

Gillard image from Socialist Alternative is free? Doubts...

I've removed this image. The site has a cc-by content license, but I have doubts as to whether the SA actually took the photo. Timeshift (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Judging from the placement of the flag, that photo appears to have been taken in the ALP party room in Parliament House. It's possible that SA had a photographer there at least once when Gillard was speaking, but not all that likely. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding to that the tiny size of the image and the lack of metadata, on the balance of probabilities, no. Timeshift (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont understand, they clearly state at the bottom of every page on the site that "Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Australia License". The image is content on the site, hosted on their server, and they allow for use of all content on that site to be licensed under the CC license. How can that not be taken at face value? E.3 (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Because on the balance of probabilities, SA do not own the photo. It is small, has no metadata, and there's no attribution to who took it on the page. Timeshift (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

They do this for all their images. It is unlikely that a registered political party and movement in Australia would be clearly breaching copyright for years and years without anyone kicking up a stink, in my opinion. There is another image similarly noted, which could be useable, at http://www.sa.org.au/component/content/article/2790-gillards-labor-offers-nothing-for-workers . E.3 (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like other editors input. Timeshift (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have asked the question on Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions E.3 (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I also have noted that Tin Eye reverse image search for all images of http://www.sa.org.au/images/stories/Gillard.gif finds no results in its image search that are the same image. This may be viewed at http://www.tineye.com/search/7a37b10a6f36b01ed60dc0f1633096eb2388c914/ for the next 72 hours. I therefore contend that Socialist Alternative own this image, it is licensed under CC, and as this is a fantastic image of Julia Gillard, front on, would like it to be used as the main image on her page. An image update on that page is needed IMHO. Any thoughts from any editors would be welcome before I do this. E.3 (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's SA's photo, why isn't a larger image available, and why does the image have no metadata? This discussion notes they are claiming a lot of various images as their own and such is further evidence it's not likely to be owned by SA. Timeshift (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, it isn't attributed to an author on the site, and we can't use it without correct attribution (or at least that's my understanding). Currently it's just got "Socialist Alternative" as the author, where does that come from? If it was just added when the image was uploaded, then we're not meeting CC-BY-SA conditions anyway, right? Still, it's a good image (certainly better than the current one), is it worth e-mailing SA to see what's going on?  -- Lear's Fool 06:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Federal electorates and localities

Does anyone know of a quick (automated?) way of updating the "Federal electorate" field in {{Infobox Australian place}} in the thousands of locality articles across NSW and Queensland affected by the redistributions prior to this election? It would nice to get this as right as we possibly could. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(Not to mention WA) Sadly, no I don't. What I usually do is an Excel spreadsheet which tells me what I need to change to what exactly, sort it by source,destination, and then use a series of AWB queries to process like changes. Orderinchaos 03:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a table of suburb-to-electorate that could help. It is based on an intersection between suburbs and federal electorate boundaries using electoral commission (AEC) data. We would need to map AEC names to Wikipedia articles. We would also need to find a friendly bot operator to apply the edits. If you are interested in taking this on, I can provide the file. Barrylb (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I just updated Parkes localities, and many of them still showed Gwydir.--Grahame (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm just finishing the WA redistribution now. Orderinchaos 11:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing the work tick over in my watchlist - many thanks for your quick attention. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Issues at Division of Boothby

I've removed a bunch of stuff that is not standard to the other seats, but the person wishes to enter in to a long (and pointless) discussion that I really can't be bothered with. Those that care about standards amongst the 150 federal seats, please assist with this page. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

"Those that care about standards among 150 federal seats" - hmm, that sounds like me! I've left an explanation at the user's talk page. Frickeg (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be unformatted election results which are being argued over - the results are correct, but a screendump doesn't really work. Orderinchaos 14:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out I'm not arguing about anything. I'm asking for information. At least Frickeg has the good manners to reply in a civil manner, not to mention that he also answered the questions - Politely. Thanks Frickeg. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

We're also making some progress on this question about the sometimes questionable AEC ratings for electorates. Given how many of them more correctly have two classifications rather than one (eg Boothby, inner and outer metro and Pearce, rural and outer metro but both given simply "outer metro"), I'm inclined to suggest we abandon them and write descriptively about the electorates instead. I've given an example of this on Pdfpdf's talk page - another is at Division of Moore and I'm sure others exist around the country. Orderinchaos 16:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The description of Pearce you gave at Pdfpdf's talk page (with specifics added) is far, far more useful than calling the seat "outer metropolitan". Rebecca (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Frickeg (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the Boothby page should have blank 2010 results either. Thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 03:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit ambivalent on this one. It's been common practice for UK articles for years, but it's never caught on here - I have to say it seems a bit of a waste of time and I certainly wouldn't suggest implementing it across the board, but as it does actually give pertinent information I can't see anything particularly wrong with it. Frickeg (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree with you Frickeg, but if the rest of the seats don't have one then neither should Boothby. I don't think we have the same resources here as the UK politics area of wikipedia does... unless someone or a group is willing to add them to all 150 pages, then I don't think it should be on Boothby either. Timeshift (talk) 05:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

We've generally solved this issue by having the "Candidates of x Election" pages, which I think are actually quite a bit more informative. Rebecca (talk) 07:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Re Timeshift's comment:

1) As you all know, I'm new here. Hence, I'm not familiar with Timeshift. Is he just a "grumpy old man", or has he some sort of personal vendetta against me, or is there some other explanation for his negative / bad faith attitude?

The information I put at Boothby, plus the hidden comments containing the rest of the "template" data, will be added to the article some time within the next couple of months.

Why is it such a big deal to add it now? It means that within the next couple of months, it only has to be added to 149 articles, not 150.

Also, it actually adds useful' (accurate and informative) information to WP now.

Why is this a problem?

2) "unless someone or a group is willing to add them to all 150 pages" - I'm happy to help. The data will be added sometime in the next couple of months anyway, so why not start now?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Rebecca's comment: I'm unfamiliar with what you're referring to, so I can't make a useful reply. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't have the time to respond to your detailed request. I could have just reverted again and again without explanation - but I took the time to advise other editors on wikiproject australian politics about the issue so someone with more time could inform you of where you were going wrong. I'd suggest to just get over it and move on? Timeshift (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

1) I could suggest lots of things, but won't. Instead I'll say: How about being just a teensy-weensy bit less abrasive?

2) I'm going to WP:AGF and conclude that your reply means that you don't have some sort of personal vendetta towards me.

3) I look foreward to you providing some sort of relevant answer to ANY of the questions I have asked you.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't have the time to respond to your detailed request. I could have just reverted again and again without explanation - but I took the time to advise other editors on wikiproject australian politics about the issue so someone with more time could inform you of where you were going wrong. No vendetta. I'd suggest to just get over it and move on. Timeshift (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No vendetta - Thanks for the clarification.

I'd suggest to just get over it and move on. - I could suggest lots of things, but won't.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary breakpoint

As to why it's a waste of time to add them now - they'll need to be completely reconfigured in a month anyway. Much easier to just add them then. And regarding the candidates page: it hasn't been done yet; here's the 2007 one. Once the candidates are declared at the end of the month we can write the 2010 one. Frickeg (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"As to why it's a waste of time to add them now - they'll need to be completely reconfigured in a month anyway." - Why do you say that? (I either don't understand, or I disagree.)

"Much easier to just add them then." - I disagree. I don't see what difference it makes.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Nothing more on this from me tonight - have to do domestic things like put the bins out and load the dishwasher. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll try to make it clearer. By placing these candidate lists in now, we double the work that we have to do. Normally, when the election results are declared, we would go in, add the table, and that would be that. You're proposing that we go in and put in the table now, and then when the election's over we'd need to completely move it around (for order of votes received etc.), which is a lot of work for not much return. Once the candidate page is up in a week or so the whole point will be moot anyway. Frickeg (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(The bins are out - next stop: dishwasher)

Oh dear. How embarassing. I completely agree with you. (Mea culpa.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries! Happens to us all at the start (I had to go round undoing pages and pages of my own mistakes). Glad you're around to help us out! Frickeg (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Um ... you agreed with the decision to leave out the 2010 candidates. And as for the formatting - I'm sorry to be abrupt, but it is pointless. The headings are contained within the tables. What purpose do a whole heap of hidden "2010"s serve? Frickeg (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't English a wonderfully ambiguous language! Yes, I agreed with your rationale, and that there was little value in adding it to other pages. But not with removal. But I'm not about to "die in a ditch" over it. It's not doing any harm there, so I don't see any point in removing it. But if you have a "bee in your bonnet" ...

And as for the formatting - I'm sorry to be abrupt, but it is pointless. The headings are contained within the tables. What purpose do a whole heap of hidden "2010"s serve?

"I'm sorry to be abrupt, but it is pointless." - What a well reasoned and well argued rationale! (NOT!!!) That's simply your POV, and WP:I just don't like it is NOT sufficient rationale to remove it.

More later. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. I woud have thought this was obvious, but I'll point you to WP:HIDDEN anyway, which gives guidelines for using hidden text. None of them refer to having hidden headings or anything similar, especially when the headings already exist. It is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT to remove useless clutter. I honestly haven't intended to offend you or be rude to you, so please stop taking everything so personally - I'm not doing this to upset you, only to keep the encyclopedia consistent. I'll be up to Boothby results after I finish Barker anyway so the whole issue will become moot, as the past ones will all get moved to a new page. Regarding the candidates - you may not have intended to agree with removing them, but everyone else did. This page makes it redundant anyway. Frickeg (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. 1) I don't agree with your point of view. 2) I don't agree with your assessment or summary. 3) It's pretty effing obvious that somebody who reverts something that's under discussion is starting an edit war. 4) I'm going to bed. I will respond in 24 hours. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, for someone who's complaining that I've been rude and not explained my point of view, you're not doing a bad job of it yourself. You have yet to explain why you think the hidden headings are of any use whatsoever, and the fact remains that consensus on the candidates thing was reached above. I considered - hoped, perhaps - that my explanation on your talk page would be adequate (it was, after all, merely pointing to a pre-established consensus and the hidden comments were against the established practices, which I thought we'd agreed to respect unless absolutely necessary). As it clearly wasn't, I haven't reverted again - that would be edit warring, so I'll wait to hear others' perspectives. But please, assume good faith. Frickeg (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Pdfpdf might be unaware, but the consensus of the AusPol project had been to separate the election results onto a new page for each federal seat, and Frickeg has been doing the (~99%) majority of the work to make that happen. The centralised Candidates page (which is rapidly becoming a project standard) is the best place to have candidates noted. Most of our considerations take into account two things: 1. what is useful to readers, and 2. what is reasonable to maintain and keep up-to-date given our limited supply of project workers. Orderinchaos 22:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Fortuitously I was up to Boothby next with the seat result pages anyway and have created the relevant page, which hopefully will put this discussion to rest. It's all in line with conventions across the other 200-odd current and former divisions. Frickeg (talk) 05:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Boothby 2001 final results?

I can't locate the final results for Boothby for the 2001 election - only the "close-of-poll" result with ~95% of the votes counted. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

[1] is as final as they get. You can go to Psephos to get the two-party-preferred votes themselves. Frickeg (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What the AEC calls "Votes Counted : 95.99%" in that set of results mean votes counted against enrolment in that division, in other words, the turnout. At the bottom of the page it says: "The percentage of votes counted is calculated against the total enrolment figure." There were 89,366 people enrolled in Boothby when the rolls closed, 85,779 votes were cast, which equals 95.99% turnout. --Canley (talk) 11:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

OR at Division of Blair?

Additional eyes appreciated. Frickeg (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD of interest

An Australian political candidate at AfD: Nick Beams (AfD). Frickeg (talk) 12:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion re: image at Kevin Rudd

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Kevin Rudd#Image regarding what image of the former Prime Minister should be used at the top of the article. Any input is welcome.  -- Lear's Fool 01:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I like the new one, seems better quality, full body, more Kevin Rudd like - I say update.CanberraBulldog (talk) 01:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You should mention it at the discussion on the talkpage, that's where it's being debated.  -- Lear's Fool 02:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Nicola Roxon

Eyes on this article would be appreciated, it seems an IP has dug up some old bones from the past. There's been no consensus to remove what the IP has removed and thinks is warranted. Timeshift (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The two Tony Smiths

A very minor issue that I've recently remembered: the current opposition frontbencher is currently at Tony Smith (Australian politician). The one-term Liberal-turned independent (1996-98) is at Tony Charles Smith. I created the latter page ages ago, but I've never liked the title since it combines a diminutive with a full name. Are there any objections to moving Tony Charles Smith to Tony Smith (Queensland politician), and should the current MP be at Tony Smith (Australian politician) or Tony Smith (Victorian politician)? Frickeg (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, they both are (were) Australian politicians, so to differentiate it makes sense to use the state for both. HiLo48 (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

What Hilo said. Rebecca (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Can an admin oblige with the former change (the Queensland one), then? Frickeg (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Done! --Canley (talk) 03:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquote

Does anyone know how wikiquote works? Would a "Quotes from the 2010 Australian Federal Election Campaign" page be a bit of fun? --Surturz (talk) 08:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Could well be - there's been some howlers from all sides. Not sure what their rules are over there though. Orderinchaos 13:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Mischief at Talk:Robert Brokenshire, Talk:Dennis Hood and Talk:Bob Day (Family First)

(cleaned up)

Various page protections implemented and SPI commencing. Timeshift (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

At Bob Day, an IP has begun removing content and refs, substituting unreferenced WP:OR. I don't know if they are related to the SPI. Extra eyes would be appreciated, thanks. Timeshift (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What constitutes assassination?

An anon has just changed John Newman from being the "second Australian politician assassinated" to the "first". I'm not sure who the previous one was intended to be - but is Newman really the only example? What about Thomas Ley's victims, Frederick McDonald and Hyman Goldstein? There's another example that I can't quite think of ... is there a definition somewhere that defines the difference between assassination and murder? Frickeg (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is assassination = murder for political reasons; either to seize power or simply to get rid of an opponent. Murder of a public figure for other reasons (eg family dispute, common crime) would not be an assassination. Only reference I can find to anything earlier is in Aust Inst of Criminology (1989): "The only successful assassination attempt occurred in South Australia in 1921 when a minor state legislative candidate was assassinated in a rural railway station by an apparently insane gunman." Orderinchaos 12:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

What a load of bollocks. The "minor state legislative candidate" was Percy Brookfield, a prominent - and elected - politician in NSW. He was killed in an attempted mass shooting after he tackled the shooter, so it couldn't really be called a political assassination. I get grumpy when supposedly peer-reviewed journals are much less accurate than us...

As for calling it the first or second assassination, from memory Newman often gets referred to as the first, but that's hardly surprising considering that McDonald and Goldstein were killed so long ago. I have no problem calling it the second, as long as we accept that we're better informed than some of the sources :P Rebecca (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That's often the way :P I've found heaps of mistakes in sources about WA politics, even from reputable authors, which can be so easily checked against source documents. Orderinchaos 14:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Opinion_polling_for_the_Australian_federal_election,_2010 - copyvio?

This article seems to be a cut-paste of tabulated numbers from the newspoll website. The source web page has a notice "Copyright 2006" on the bottom left. Is there a notice somewhere else on the website that lets us reproduce the numbers? --Surturz (talk) 08:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Newspoll releases (PDFs) state "Any reproduction of this material must credit both NEWSPOLL and THE AUSTRALIAN". Timeshift (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Perhaps we should link the PDFs instead to be on the safe side
2. The PDFs also state "Copyright at all times remains with Newspoll". Does the clause quoted by Timeshift9 actually give us permission to copy the results wholesale, or only to use it as a reference for selective quotation? I draw the parallel with newspaper articles - we can quote bits of the article if we reference, but we can't copy the whole article into WP.

--Surturz (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you consider Newspoll, or Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008, or Opinion polling in the United Kingdom general election, 2010 copyvios? Happy to hear from anyone with more expertise than us. Timeshift (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm.. you are right it could indeed be a general problem. My reading of WP:NFC is that small excerpts of non-free text is okay, but wholesale reproduction is not okay. "Copyright at all times remains with Newspoll" to me definitely implies that a license is required to reproduce the data. I'm not entirely convinced that "Any reproduction of this material must credit both NEWSPOLL and THE AUSTRALIAN" gives the reader a license to use the material past "fair use" (ie. small excerpts).

I'd like someone more expert to comment too. Is there a noticeboard for this sort of query? WP:SCV says

Aside from brief, clearly marked excerpts, information taken from non-free sources cannot be presented in identical language and must be sufficiently rewritten to avoid constituting an unauthorized derivative work.

So I think we are okay with the graphs made from the opinion poll data. --Surturz (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The pages I mentioned are far more text-detailed than Australia's, so I suggest if you have an issue with wholesale reproduction of polling data that you take it higher than WikiProject Australian Politics talk. Also note that no single article on wikipedia reproduces the entire history of polling for a polling company, but just for the previous term's worth of polling in question. That is for all intents and purposes an excerpt. Timeshift (talk) 06:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Australian federal election, xxxx?

I came across this and this... do contributors think this sort of infobox would be useful for Australian elections? Timeshift (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

While I do like the template, I'm not sure if we colonials have enough content for it to be worth it. I mean, the UK template has entire articles devoted to boundary changes, and has a lot more parties to play around with, while the US has the whole primaries to include, and also has extensive (some might say excessive) coverage of the campaign (entire articles devoted to the debates, congressional endorsements, individual campaigns for each presidential candidate, etc.). Perhaps if we end up with that many articles related to 2010 it would be useful, but somehow I doubt it'll come to that. Something to aim for in the dim and distant future, perhaps ... Frickeg (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone's already done it... Timeshift (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you test for a potential viewing issue?

I've changed the new map at Australian federal election, 2010 to one of better quality, however it is vertically longer. Can anyone tell me if they have issues viewing the changed revision (and didn't with the vertically shorter map)? If so it may need reverting. Timeshift (talk) 06:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No viewing issues; but to be honest I'm not sure there should be a map there at all. I mean, the key is completely unreadable, and it's going to say next to nothing to people who don't already know quite a bit about the electoral system. Not to mention the rather strange colour choices (I know they're from Psephos, but not everyone's going to know that he uses yellow for the Nats). Frickeg (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Frickeg. Orderinchaos 16:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Division of Gippsland

Discussion regarding inclusion of photo of the sitting member here; other views appreciated. Frickeg (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Wyatt Roy

I'm trying to avoid the election as much as possible. Is this guy notable enough yet? The-Pope (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Maybe on Sunday, not yet. Frickeg (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Now clearly notable. Given his remarkably young age (probably the youngest Federal MP ever) I suspect that we're about to see a large number of profiles of him in the media. 23:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Nick-D (talk)

I've cleaned this up a little. It was all over the shop. Hopefully, it has a little less POV Jherschel (talk) 02:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Election articles.

This is more relevant now, but I find a lot of the Australian election articles difficult to read. To me, it seems like it cares more about electoral mathematics (which, don't get me wrong, is important in AUS and I find interesting) than actually explaining. That, and at the very least, the 2010 election infobox isn't standard either. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

And that's our choice thankyou. Timeshift (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a choice to obfuscate articles or break standards just because "it's your choice". Every other country with a representative government uses {{Infobox election}} for its articles (from the presidential U.S. to the semi-presidential France to the parliamentary Anglosphere), so I don't see why Australia shouldn't. Also, the 2010 election article didn't have any results at about 4pm BST (~2am Sydney), even though all but a handful of seats had declared. For comparison, the 2010 UK election article was being updated through the night from 11:30pm onwards. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. It is completely our choice, Australian politics on wikipedia has been through this time and time again. We are not bound to any standard. We choose. Timeshift (talk) 00:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

As an aside - no seats have yet declared, although the results in most are practically certain. Around 15% of votes are yet to be counted. Orderinchaos 01:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be, though. It's good enough for every other country, so why don't Australian election articles use it? If "because we don't want to" is your only reason, it really isn't good enough. Standards are standards for a reason: because they're supposed to apply to everything. If they didn't, they'd simply be suggestions. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is that Australian and UK elections are completely different, and Australian elections are rather unique. We have preferential voting, which means we need our templates to be able to deal with that specifically. Also, in the UK they have final results on the night. We won't have final results for a few weeks yet. The seats that are "declared" are merely saying there's no chance someone else could win it; they'll still be counting postal votes all of next week. Frickeg (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. Still, I think it'd be wise for, in the interim, to use provisional results where several news sources are agreement (such as the Liberals being predicted 72 and the ALP 70). By the way, I don't think using the difference in voting systems is a good enough reason to depart from the standard. The French Assembly uses two-round runoff, Germany and the Celtic regions use MMPR, Ireland uses IRV for the presidential elections and STV for the Dail elections. There's nothing unique about Australia's system that means it has a reason to depart from the standard for literally all other election articles. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Did I not make myself clear? We are NOT bound to other countries usage. Timeshift (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Why? Absent a good reason, articles are expected to conform to standards, such as the MoS, or infobox usage. For example, articles about musicians are expected to use {{Infobox musician}}. "Because we don't want to" is not a good enough reason, and it's not just any arbitrary country, it's nearly every country; the infobox is used on articles about Argentinian, Chilean, American, Canadian, Irish, British, French, German, Spanish, Iraqi, Japanese, Taiwanese, South African, etc elections. There needs to be something that makes Australian elections stand out from the rest. Frickeg, however, is at least trying to answer my question. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There have been efforts to change the infoboxes before, but the other ones simply don't deal with the two-party-preferred figures very well, which are of vital importance. At present, our consensus is to use these infoboxes. By all means suggest changing it, but be aware that consistency across the encyclopaedia is not uniform - try suggesting uniform infoboxes for biographies! Frickeg (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Well, your assertion that the 2PP figures are more important in Australia than anywhere else. My suggestion would be to make the Australian infobox to look more like {{infobox election}}, which is more aesthetically pleasing, but would still allow you to use 2PP votes, or ask for {{Infobox election}} to be modified to allow a 2PP field. Also, thanks for your responses; at least one person is taking these objections seriously. It doesn't really pay well to be so insular :) Sceptre ^(talk) 19:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

2PP figures are critical in Australia whereas they don't even exist in any other jurisdiction at national level. Additionally, your idea of having "provisional totals" for the election would require a level of maintenance that our project can't support - it's better to simply wait until the totals are declared by the AEC in around 2 weeks (until which, by the way, even a seat total can't be finalised) and use article text in the meantime. Orderinchaos 01:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

My two cents: I definitely think that divisions in the House of Reps should have two-party-preferred statistics in the infoboxes. Because of compulsory voting and preferential voting, the statistics are crucial. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

New members, etc.

Just so that everyone's clear on this: all new members are officially members from yesterday (i.e. election day). Take a look at the Parliamentary Handbook. So if we know that a seat has a new member, it's perfectly OK to add them in. It's only for the seats in doubt (by my count Brisbane, Denison, Hasluck, Corangamite and Lindsay) that we can't make the changes. Their members will be officially members from election day as well, but we just don't know for certain who they are yet. Frickeg (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I question this, at least until the Divisional Returning Officer declares the poll. Please indicate the exact source of your assertion. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, what are you questioning? Look at the handbook, and the dates. Compare them to the dates of the election. That should answer your question. Frickeg (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Frickeg is correct. Timeshift (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

As an example, I've added Michelle Rowland, the expected victor in Greenway and used a note to say the article is current with an expected likely outcome. Following the return of the writs which may preclude some unforseen event (e.g. a victor may die between now and the writs being returned), we have no way of knowing other than the declaration may by a local divisional returning officer. Jherschel (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

A person who would have been declared elected except for her death would probably be considered notable.--Grahame (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

They are not members until the return of writs [2] and the swearing-in [3]. It is not appropriate to refer to them as members in the interim. If a misadventure befell, for example, John Alexander before taking his seat he would not be considered to have ever been a member. WWGB (talk) 04:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Not correct. Members who die after election but before swearing in are usually referred to in parliamentary member archives. Rebecca (talk) 05:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

See John Clasby for an example. As I said, look at the link I gave previously to the Parl Handbook. They're members from the date of the election. Neither of those sources say anything about being the member or not, only about taking their seats, a very different thing. Frickeg (talk) 05:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the "death before sitting" provision. I still believe it is technically incorrect to refer to a (new) member until at least the declaration of the poll. It is analagous to Rudd's position from 24 November to 3 December 2007: everyone "knew" he was PM, we just couldn't call him that. Anyway I have no doubt that John Alexander "will be" the next member for Bennelong, so pedantry from me in his article is just that. Cheers, WWGB (talk) 06:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC) (Aside: where's Jack of Oz when his opinion is needed? Grrr ...)

As an aside, Rudd wasn't actually prime minister until 3 December, but all the MPs elected became MPs on 24 November. Frickeg (talk) 06:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

True. There's a difference there between the legislature and executive. The PM must be sworn in, but MPs are voted in. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Coalition clarification

Queensland Liberals and Nationals are now LNP, right? Frickeg (talk) 05:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Family First/Adelaide Uni sockpuppetry continues...

See here and here (EDIT: And here). SPI continuing here. I'm hoping to get an admin's attention to deal with the new ones... Timeshift (talk) 07:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As it's in part (moderately entertaining) personal attacks directed at me since my last effort to help, I'd appreciate a neutral set of eyes on it. Orderinchaos 07:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed them but they're in the links above still. I would appreciate anyone who can to remove anything posted as it's quite clearly not aimed at article improvement. I have to go offline for a bit unfortunately, i'll be back later on. Timeshift (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm just going to keep an eye on that progressive communist, Orderinchaos. LOL HiLo48 (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL, it doesn't make much sense at all, does it? :P Orderinchaos 08:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Family who? Funny that they selected a candidate from Sydney for the Riverina seat but they only got 887 (1.15% of the 82,416 votes) votes, but they love resorting to attacks. Bidgee (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just blocked the two CU-confirmed accounts which hadn't been previously blocked. This is the first time I've actioned a SPI report, so hopefully it's all been done correctly! Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Two-party preferred

The correct line is two-party preferred. A search of Google reveals only one site besides wikipedia puts a dash betweeen party and preferred. Not to mention i'm sure we already reached consensus somewhere that the dash doesn't belong. I moved the two-party-preferred vote page to two-party preferred vote but Tony has reverted me. There should be no dash between party and preferred, correct? Timeshift (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Your title here is unusual in being a (compound) adjective alone; the guidelines say titles should be a noun or noun group. These are hyphens, not dashes. The national broadsheet, The Australian, I noticed, used both hyphens on their front page just the other day. It's a triple adjective ("vote" is usually the noun). There is no logic in hyphenating two of the adjectives to leave one dangling in the middle. If you wish, please ask the experts at WT:MOS. Tony (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS. Only one site on the entire internet has a dash or a hyphen or a purple hippo between party and preferred. This is what you need to explain. Timeshift (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Tony1's ridiculous hyphen fetish has got to stop. None of the references in the article use hyphens. The term is, quite correctly, Two Party Preferred vote. --Surturz (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Activity at Bob Day again...

Assistance appreciated. Timeshift (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just blocked the latest sock/meat puppet and semi-protected the article for a week. Let me know if this still doesn't work. Nick-D (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

New image for Barry O'Farrell

Hi everyone, I would like other editors opinions as to which of the following images either A or B are best suited for the info box image for the Barry O'Farrell article. It seems it has come down to these two images. Cheers Романов (talk) 10:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Image A

Image B

Why is image A so small and without metadata? Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Can A be brightened a bit? Tony (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This is what I have asked (EXIF data, larger size and lightened but at this stage Романов is refusing). Also the original infobox image was File:Barry O'Farrell.jpg but it was changed to Image B by another editor. Bidgee (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course the image can be brightened. The program to do it however I do not have. Refrain from being malicious Bidgee, where have I refused to do something you have asked? Where have I sad NO? It is so small because the image has been cropped to remove another person from the picture. Романов (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not being malicious, any other editor/contributor would have been happy to and would upload a larger file. You don't have to say NO for it to be refusing and treated your comment as such (refusing to talk about the image itself). Bidgee (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Any other editor would have they... I would have if I could have -but I couldn't so I didn't: easy to wrap your head around? I don't have the camera the photo was taken with, I captured the photo was emailed the image cropped -no metadata- uploaded as is. Романов (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, why is there no metadata? Also, the original photo must have been unusually small if the cropped version of one of it's main subjects is so small yet is of high resolution - can you please upload it to demonstrate that this is in fact your own work? (historically, unusually small images without metadata have proven to be copyright violations, and this has been a long-running problem on articles concerning NSW Liberal politicians). Nick-D (talk) 12:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

If you didn't take the photo, why has it been uploaded as your own work? Nick-D (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I would appreciate an answer from Романов to a previous question that I asked on his talk page about another image claimed as 'own work' that probably is not. Barrylb (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

(: I did take the photo, just not my camera :) File:BO'F temp full pic blanked.jpg is as good as your going to get. Романов (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Post-election candidate pages

I've been having a look through the election pages (not just for this one) to check for non-notable candidates and such like, and I'd like to get others' input before I start dealing with them. Some things I've found:

1. Revolutionary Socialist Party (Australia) and Van Thanh Rudd. The first was never registered; the second seems a classic case of WP:NOTINHERITED.
2. Glenn Druery - this is an article I'd personally quite like to keep, as it gives us a convenient place to outline his various preference machinations, but unfortunately I can't find much evidence of notability; it's asserted as a cyclist, but I can't find much there either.
3. Patricia Petersen ... sorry, couldn't resist.
4. Do mayors have inherent notability? Darren McCubbin is an example.
5. Should John Madigan (Australian politician) not win, his page should be prodded, yes?
6. Going further back, slighlty dubious about Justine Caines.
7. Richard Pascoe (Australian politician).
8. David Risstrom and Rochelle Porteous both seem to be based on almost-but-not-quite candidatures.
9. Paul F Downton - this article is a mess but looks potentially notable. Anyone know anything further on this guy?
10. Michael Towke - I recall mentioning this before, but it still seems very WP:ONEEVENT.

So - thoughts? And has anyone found any others? Frickeg (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts:

1. Sadly Van might have done enough to surpass BLP1E and NOTINHERITED. But I won't cry if these get deleted.
2. Delete: fails WP:POLITICIAN and the cycling isn't enough.
3. Clear delete.
4. A shire of McCubbin's size is too small to make a strong case for notability (I'm making this judgment on the way that I normally see US/UK mayors go or stay at AfD.
5. Delete if he doesn't win.

Have to get to the rest later. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete Paul F Downton, I remember it at the time, the guy was writing his own article. Timeshift (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think all except John Madigan should be deleted, with 5 being considered on the basis of whether the guy gets elected or not. Orderinchaos 04:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Just noting that although most of these would be prod-able, Petersen, Risstrom and Porteous have previously survived AfD so would need to go through AfD again. Frickeg (talk) 05:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Druery should definitely be kept. There's a ton of sources about his role in preference machinations, especially surrounding when he basically forced a change in the NSW electoral system after his 1999 shenanigans. I don't think this one's even doubtful. I think Risstrom is notable. The defeat of his Senate bid has had ramifications for national politics which are still ongoing today, and he was a Melbourne City Councillor before that. There's good sources for all of it, and I really think this one surpasses WP:ONEEVENT. He's a lot more notable than, say, a pre-last week Larissa Waters.

The RSP, Rudd, Petersen (I changed my mind on that when BLP issues emerged) and McCubbin should be deleted. I also think Porteous should be deleted now that she doesn't seem to have been preselected for 2011. Madigan should be deleted if he loses. Towke should be redirected to the election article, I think, as long as something's mentioned there; it's a case where WP:ONEEVENT actually makes sense. I think a party president is a position that does imply at least a claim to notability, but ultimately I think Pascoe could be redirected to an article on the SA Democrats, considering his short term. I have no particular opinion about Downton, but if it's going to be kept someone needs to clean that article up. Rebecca (talk) 05:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue with Risstrom is that there don't seem to be any reliable sources for anything other than the Senate run, and that can probably be covered in the main 2004 article. As I understand it, WP:POLITICIAN says that councillors of large cities are "likely" to meet the criterion listed, which is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent", something that seems to be completely lacking in Risstrom. As for Druery - there's a ton of sources about his preference machinations, yes, but not many about him. I suspect that these are best covered in the articles for the elections themselves. (And Waters, of course, was not remotely notable before her election.) Frickeg (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit of a stretch. There's 180 Factiva hits on him before he even ran for Senate preselection, and nearly five hundred in total. There's profiles of him, there's some good stuff on what he's done since politics. It's not even a close call. Druery's notable for his shenanigans at about seven different elections and with about four different parties. Dispatching that material all over the place just makes for bad coverage of a genuinely significant figure. Rebecca (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I should've been clearer - I meant that I couldn't see any sources, and that the articles didn't cite them. If they're there, great - as I've previously said, I'd love for Druery to be notable and I do think it would be better to detail his various machinations in his own article. The reason I listed them here was to see if anyone did know of lots of sources for some of them, to save the trouble of AfD. But excluding Druery and Risstrom, they all seem to be fairly uncontroversial. I'll leave it a few more days and then nominate them all for PROD or AfD as appropriate. Frickeg (talk) 04:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The point is that the sources are there. They're notable people; their articles just aren't brilliant. I don't have the time these days to dedicate a few hours to fixing an article to prevent stupid deletion nominations, but I can and will point out that it's bloody silly to delete an article on a notable person rather than wait for it to be suitably expanded. Rebecca (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Mat Hines is another one. Frickeg (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No particular objections to that one. There's a potential case to be made for notability, but it doesn't quite get there. Rebecca (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I forgot Justine Caines in my initial reply. I still strongly think that article should be kept for her notability as a prominent-in-her-own-right homebirth activist rather than her political candidacy. Rebecca (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've prodded the RSP, Pascoe, Hines and Towke; the rest are probably not proddable and I'll AfD them when I get time (excluding Risstrom, Druery and Caines, and Madigan of course). Frickeg (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

NSW LC candidates

I have now tracked down Legislative Council candidates in NSW for 1978 and 1981, but I am still missing 1984, 1988 and 1991. I'll continue hunting for these, of course, but if anyone happens to be in one of the big state libraries any time soon (especially the NSW one), it would be great if they could have a look for these. I've had some success in the NSW Parliamentary Papers, but my closest large library only has up to 1983. Frickeg (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

1984 is here: [4], see top of page 26. WWGB (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. Frickeg (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Found the rest. Frickeg (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The Advertiser centre-left? Opinions please.

The Advertiser in Adelaide is most certainly not centre-left. I'm a fair man when it comes to media bias, but the absolute best the 'tiser could get away with is centrist at most. I'd call them weak centre-right to centre-right myself. Did the person who added centre-left also choose that image date strategically? Opinions please! Timeshift (talk) 06:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

LNP needs house/senate MP numbers/colours in infobox

Per discussion here, the consensus was to go with the four parties getting their own seats each. I'm not sure of the correct infobox colour, can someone more familiar with this area please do the needful? Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 07:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

A Funny

Totally offtopic but here is a funny (click) for everyone. --Surturz (talk) 08:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I see they have no idea what the two party preferred vote is :) Timeshift (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've seen a version without the English subtitles. It was perfectly clear what was going on and actually funnier. Very clever indeed. --Merbabu (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

George Christensen (politician)

Extra eyes appreciated. Two entirely separate issues: one IP wants to list him as National Party, while the other wants to add excessive detail about the student newspaper stuff. Neither has responded to talk page comments, but I'm at 3RR on both of them so help required. Frickeg (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted back to LNP. It seems (or I hope) the other IP has given up - if he reverts again, lets report him to WP:AN3. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Extra eyes needed again - they're both back and I'm out of reverts. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Are we sure about the QLD Nats sitting in parliament as LNP? The IP's cited website implies otherwise - are we sure he's actually wrong? Rebecca (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

From what I've read it will be like the CLP is at the moment; they'll be LNP members but sit in the Liberal or National party rooms as appropriate. A comparable cited website would be this. Frickeg (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think they're members of the LNP of Queensland (as in paid branch members) but are accepted into the National parliamentary party. Orderinchaos 13:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

In which case the IP would be right. Rebecca (talk) 09:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Bob Katter

And can someone move this back from Bob Katter, Jr. please? Frickeg (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Grech

Forwarding a question on my talk page for consideration. I think it's a reasonable request but would rather abide by a consensus here. Orderinchaos 19:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Orderinchaos. Having looked up what information there is on Godwin Grech, and read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godwin Grech, I think that Godwin Grech should redirect to OzCar affair. What do you say? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. A redirect would work, but would be in use far more often than the direct path. I know that I personally will remember Godwin's name forever, but have already forgotten the name OzCar. The redirect should probably be in the other direction. HiLo48 (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SmokeyJoe. The AFD discussion was clear that he was notable for one event, and nothing has happened since the event to increase his notability. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)