User talk:Frickeg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

All federal by-election articles done[edit]

Well done, I didn't realise they were all done! Quite a while ago too! I don't suppose you want to weave links to them in to MP articles? :) Timeshift (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm referring to what i've done here and here as examples. Weave the by-election article link in to the text of MP articles. Timeshift (talk) 05:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't want to? Ok. :) Timeshift (talk) 05:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Christine Townend[edit]

I wrote an email to this site, which is Christine's website (I think), and requested an image of Christine for the article. Hoping to get a response soon. Thanks, Acalycine(talk/contribs) 11:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey, noticed this discussion while stalking your contributions as usual - where do you find out about these people? I love reading these articles and I'd be interested to do a bit more work in this area. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Ooh, thanks a ton! This'll be interesting to pick away at. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Charmaine[edit]

Does being interviewed by CNN Espanola and having her song that she was featured with Jonathan Thulin chart on two billboard charts and at No. 1 on one of those count and serve the purpose for notability?HotHat (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I know i've asked this before, but where do you get middle names and DOB from?[edit]

I've made a revert at David Speirs due to addition of info from a new user with no cites, such as middle name and DOB. Where do you get these from? Timeshift (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Keating[edit]

God, thanks for that. I fell down some stairs earlier in the week and did my back in, so I'm a bit crabbier than usual, and that discussion got my goat worse than it normally would. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Adelaide city centre[edit]

I'm not thrilled by the situation, but it's much more logical/sensible/etc. than throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Activist candidates[edit]

Glad to see you back writing these articles. I always find them really interesting reading. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure! Particularly today, you've hit a few that have been on my to-do list for ages like Gleeson and Roper (and a bunch of people I was never interested enough to write about but am glad we now have for completeness sake), so the least I can do is run through and copyedit as I go. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I was surprised at how little I could find about Gleeson, and that's one of the reasons I think I never wrote the article - I'd read a couple of tangential things that made her sound interesting, but when it came down to good sources about here there was a big load of nada. However, as for her death - I'm pretty sure I'm the one who wrote that note in the member list. Having two female Labor MPs in Toner and Gleeson die of cancer in the space of eleven months sparked quite a bit of media attention at the time; unfortunately, as neither of them were the subject of much work post their deaths, we're reliant on sources from that era. I got the details from Factiva, which is unfortunately the only online news source that covers the 1985-1991 period, and as I'm a deferred student, I no longer have access. If all else fails, I'll go re-source the thing in January! The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Wimmera 1996[edit]

It turns out that I accidentally used the 2pp vote as the primary vote when I did that, it's fixed now. Also, in regards to Doutta Galla, it says on Antony Green's election summary that the election of Tayfun Eren occurred as a by-election despite it happening on election day. Hopefully one day I'll get around to making election result pages for the old legislative council regions to get the LC by-election results a place too. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that. It seemed like a common thing in Victoria for MLC's to retire around election time if they didn't want to serve their full 2 terms. I'll put the polling day by elections for the Victorian LC results pages in sections below the main results. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 08:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

Sorry, got too many "balls in the air" at the moment.

Nevertheless, it's my experience that when you give advice, it would be VERY foolish of me to ignore it. So
a) Thanks. (Thank you very much.)
b) When I've got a few things under control, I'll get back to you for some clarifications, etc.
(In case there was any ambiguity), I VERY much appreciate and respect your opinion/advice. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

all MLAs belong in the MLA category ...[edit]

Re this - I've done this. Possibly {{All included}} should be added to other similar cats, and possibly {{Non-diffusing subcategory}} should be added to the sub-cats. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I probably should start mentioning WP:SUBCAT explicitly in my edit summaries, that being the policy that says "A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category (unless the child category is non-diffusing – see below.". Mitch Ames (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Tom Moxham[edit]

Hello, having just read Tom Moxham, I'm wondering how you arrived at the title Tom Moxham, instead of Thomas Moxham, since nowhere in the source is the nickname of Tom ever mentioned.- Gilliam (talk) 07:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for taking the time to clear that up.- Gilliam (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Kon Vatskalis[edit]

September 18, says the Labor Party. NT Government website has always been useless as hell.

Which would seem hasn't actually resigned yet, to my surprise (which explains the lack of a date/writ after all this time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Vaiben Louis Solomon[edit]

Good morning Frickeg. You ask why I've changed some instances of "Vaiben Solomon" to "Vaiben Louis Solomon". It's because during his lifetime that was how he was referred to, to differentiate between him and his uncle, Vaiben Solomon (no middle name). Most WP references to him already use the full version of his name. Here's the message I left for another admin:

The politician usually referred to as Vaiben Louis Solomon is at present on a page Vaiben Solomon and Vaiben Louis Solomon is a redirect page. The only problem is that he had an uncle Vaiben Solomon (no middle name) who, though probably not needing his own article, does get a few mentions in Wikipedia. Assuming you agree, could you please swap the page and redirect for me? (I could do it by cutting and pasting but not sure that's kosher.) I can do the appropriate hatnote. I think I've ensured that all relevant articles use the full length version of his name. Doug butler (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
But was his uncle really at all a notable person? Most of the modern sources I see simply refer to "Vaiben Solomon" meaning the Premier/MP, in much the same way we now refer to Stanley Bruce rather than S. M. Bruce, as he was at the time. Clearly this is the Vaiben Solomon that history remembers. Having said all that, I freely admit that my familiarity with early SA politics is sketchy at best. How do the modern sources you've read stack up on the issue? Frickeg (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
As mentioned, contemporary references used full name, as does ADB. Vaiben Solomon, for whom VLS was named, was transported to Sydney with brother Emanuel (definitely notable) and crops up occasionally in his brother's land deals and establishment of Queen's Theatre, Adelaide. Hardly notable but worth a bit of trouble to avoid confusion. [[Vaiben Solomon]] would still redirect to [[Vaiben Louis Solomon]] and there would be a hatnote mentioning the uncle's existence elsewhere. Doug butler (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Carr[edit]

Your exchange about the links to Jeff Carr reminded me that I really should write that article. Somehow I stumbled across his autobiography in a book sale years ago, and it's an area of history I'm so interested in, but he comes across as so spectacularly full of himself that I've never actually read the thing. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hughes[edit]

The Fairfax news search gives 56 hits, and it looks like there's some stuff that might be useful in there. Crikey has 176 hits, but anything prior to Mayne selling it to Beecher in 2005 should probably be taken with a grain of salt because Mayne and Hughes were in bed together politically for a while. I'd imagine the News Ltd papers would have a bit but you'd need Factiva for that and I don't currently have access. I'd help you out more but Hughes is the rare modern Australian political figure who does not interest me one iota... The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Women and government in Australia[edit]

Hi, thanks for your message regarding the right to stand for election. Apparently the United States was the first country to allow women to do so: http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/suffrage.htm Ben Dawid (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. I think that if the USA doesn't count because of other restrictions then Australia wouldn't either (Australian restrictions are indicated on the website I linked to). It seems that Finland actually comes first, ahead of both those English-speaking countries:
"In 1906 Finland’s national assembly, Eduskunta in Finnish, became the first parliament in the world to adopt full gender equality. It earned that distinction by granting equally to men and women the right not only to vote but also to stand for election." http://finland.fi/Public/default.aspx?contentid=160111&nodeid=37598&culture=en-US
Ben Dawid (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Not all Australian women had the right to stand in the 1903 election, so it seems that in 1906 Finland became the first country to remove all restrictions. Ben Dawid (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
The second sentence of the article in question states that "most women" were allowed "to both vote and stand in the federal election of 1903". I would have thought that was easily sufficient, given the lack of clarity surrounding the issue. My opinion is that Australia's indigenous population would be incorrectly ignored if the blanket statement about electoral rights were reinserted without footnotes, but adding a footnote would unnecessarily bring up Australia's dubious record on indigenous rights. Cheers, Ben Dawid (talk) 06:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Michael Adye Smith[edit]

Hi Frickeg (talk) - thanks for the feedback. I'll seek to obtain some verifiable information that I can post for my Great Grandfather. I admire your work sourcing all the interesting information you've posted here on Wikipedia.

A.

By-the-way[edit]

Some WP editors might interpret some of my recent responses to your postings as negative. I hope you're not one of them, because I highly value your work and our relationship. If something I've said offends you, please tell me and I'll reword it - I have no intention nor desire to offend you - I value your work more highly than my poor communication skills. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Feleppa[edit]

Geez, that's a strange one. There's a bucketload of sources, albeit not great quality, stating that a Mario Feleppa died in 2011 and was buried at Cheltenham Cemetery, but none of them give a middle name, none of Feleppa's other sources give a birthdate that might allow a crosscheck, and there's no record of it being recorded in Hansard. It's strange with some of these SA MPs - there's just nothing, even though sources record Feleppa's vote as having been crucial on a couple of major issues. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Heidi Victoria censorship[edit]

Hi Frickeg,

Please refrain from censoring WP with verified and important information regarding a subject, like you recently did on the Heidi_Victoria page. WP is not a place for personal preference or opinion, only important facts that have a contributing factor on the topic.

Bignold Team[edit]

It turns out it was an error on my part, my source did list Alicia Bignold as the leading candidate for that group after all. I've corrected it on the page. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

City councillors[edit]

The wording of it is a little bit more general than what I stated in that discussion, but WP:POLOUTCOMES specifies that "precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo or London". (The original establishment of that consensus happened longer ago in more separate discussions than I could ever realistically hope to dig out now.)

That wording has occasionally been misinterpreted to suggest that only those four cities qualify, but that's not the case at all — it's indeed always been meant to apply to all cities of their world city class. That said, though, it's also meant to exclude people who serve only as borough councillors in a division below the level of the citywide government. (And even outside that class, a city councillor can still qualify for inclusion if you can source them well enough to pass WP:GNG — what they're not allowed to do is claim an entitlement under WP:NPOL to keep an unsourced or minimally sourced article.)

I do recognize that the wording might be less than helpful in an Australian context, but I'm not familiar enough with the structure of Australian municipal politics to change it arbitrarily — do the big Australian cities even have "citywide" governments besides the individual local government areas? So if you have any input on how we can improve it, feel free to post it to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes for discussion. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the Nolte one went the way it did, at least in part because it was written in the context of his independent candidacy, he's an otherwise boring case, and there's really nothing Australian Wikipedians like to vote delete on more than failed election candidates, even if they've got other potential claims to notability. I think if we went some more obvious councillors, such as Milton Dick and Shayne Sutton (Brisbane), Eva Ruzicka (Hobart), Irene Doutney (Sydney) or Ken Ong (Melbourne), we might set a very different precedent.
As to the boundaries issue and that guideline: I would class Brisbane as being at least as expansive as Hobart, considering that the City of Hobart doesn't extend to their metro limits, and Brisbane City Council is a much more North American-style mini-parliament.
I suggested those five cities because I think I could source information about them: Melbourne and Sydney because of their prominence (even if they cover small areas), and Brisbane and Hobart because of their larger size. It's funny that I could tell you a lot more about the Hobart councillors (or really any of the others) than I could about the City of Perth, even though I live in Perth, and a year ago could have voted in the City. It's a point I'd like to push anyway, between GNG and the guideline Bearcat cited. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Hollins[edit]

Too small a point to argue, but I don't think it was much of a stretch to call him a conservative independent: he was a supporter of Liberal Premier Macfarlan and served as a minister in his government! The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Richmond[edit]

I would have done the same with Richmond, but I was making the list as Antony was making the call of the card, and he said on the air that Wynne had definitively won Richmond. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

He was pretty clear about it, and I don't think it was a slip - it's a seat they'd been discussing throughout the night, and the figures support that conclusion. I think Richmond's one of the seats where the ABC computers have been having a bit of trouble - Maltzahn hasn't come within 600 votes of Wynne at any point, and has progressively gotten further behind with nearly every booth, but for most of the night that algorithm, bizarrely, had her winning in a landslide. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
If you want to blank out Wynne until it's called, I won't object, though I don't think it's in doubt. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the ABC computer is completely on the fritz tonight. Their "changing seats" is missing a bunch of actually changing seats, and their "seats in doubt" has two that haven't been in doubt for a while now and not actually-in-doubt Morwell or the-closest-of-the-others-to-in-doubt Richmond. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
That's definitely true - I had trouble accessing their main results page for a good bit of the night. I'm inclined to go with Antony's calls unless there he or anyone else calls otherwise, though - some of the hits the computer is churning out (i.e. Melbourne being in doubt) are absurd. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Ballotpedia has a page for an American candidate called Tim Richardson, so I erred on the side of caution with that one. Not fussed either way though. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Oops. It was OpenCongress. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. Doesn't look like a serious contender (lost 71-25) so I'm thinking we can probably discount him. Frickeg (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Fine by me. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for catching those last few redistribution MPs - I'd been working through them but conked out before I could do the last few! The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Tell me about it! I'm pretty stoked. Bizarrely enough, the one call from last night that I'm a bit nervous about is actually now Melbourne, which wasn't on anyone's radar and was being mass-reported in the press as a win at the time I added it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I was much thinking the same thing. I've erred on the side of doubt this time and removed any mention of a win in Bentleigh, Frankston and Melbourne in the Assembly until those are certain, as well as the fifth seat in East Metro and the fourth seat in Northern Victoria in the Council. There's nothing else that I can see that seems to have any real uncertainty with today's results sealing Morwell, Shepparton and South Barwon. I think the pundits' calls haven't been too brilliant this time around! The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, of all the MPs to miss when I put that list together, I apparently missed the incoming Opposition Leader... The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

How can I use a BOT called TW, when I do not know what i is ?[edit]

How can I use a BOT called TW, when I do not know what i is ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BT80 (talkcontribs) 10:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

ACT[edit]

Oh, oh dear. We clearly weren't paying attention that election night! Good catch. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Very true. I think the Victorian election was a good reminder of how much there is to do these days, and just how much important it is to jump on it and do it en masse when everyone's still interested in late counting. I think the Americans solve that problem by having coverage of state politics that is ratshit. It's improved a bit the last couple of years, but there's plenty of US states where their coverage is in the same position as ours was ten years ago. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Queensland election 2015[edit]

Hi Frickeg,
I assumed that it was going to be "LNP returned with reduced majority", so I turned the TV off after Australia won the soccer association football non-eggball what ever we're supposed to call it now. Technically speaking, all those new MPs-to-be haven't been officially elected yet, so someone could go round marking them for deletion. Certainly won't be me though!
Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Rubbish. If Antony says they're elected, they get an article. Timeshift (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, it was a lovely night, wasn't it? As Timeshift says, the new MPs began their terms yesterday, so they couldn't be nominated for deletion. Frickeg (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed a very lovely night :) Timeshift (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I forgot Gaven altogether, as you picked up last night. I'd err on the side of caution after the experience with the Victorian election, where we didn't get any calls wrong but could really easily have. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Ya know, I could be all "according the the Constitution of Queensland Act 2001 ss 42-43 the Premier is not actually elected but is appointed by the Governor (the current one swore me in a lawyer, btw), but this still relies on convention that predated the Constitution Act 1867 (Qld) and along with the formal reception of English common law, etc, etc." But I'd be an idiot to do that. Premiers get elected. It says so in the newspapers.
PS: can someone tell Timeshift I'm not speaking to him until he pays me the money I won fair and square in this wager? --Shirt58 (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, the Premier. Newman is still the Premier, and the ministers are all still ministers. But the changes in MPs took effect yesterday. Frickeg (talk) 07:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Nice work on creating those new articles! I was going to do them but you're way ahead of me hehe. Dengero (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Now that William Bowe has a late counting post up, I've dropped Gaven and Redlands off the list - Gaven because no one apart from us nerds seems to see it as a real prospect and it would require things to go ridiculously well for Labor, and Redlands in the wake of Bowe's comments about yesterday's prepolls. I expect Mount Ommaney and Mansfield will be more solid in the obvious conclusions in a couple days, that Ferny Grove will follow a bit later, and that it'll only be Maryborough hanging on until really late counting. Thoughts?

Dengero's comment also reminded me of something I've been thinking about with these post-election situations: while we seem to be getting it down to an art in getting so many articles necessarily updated with the basic facts of who lost and who won, I always notice when we do that this leaves the vast majority of MP articles as a) basically left as one-line stubs for eternity (see Queensland's class of 2012) or poorly cobbled-together larger articles which don't get thoroughly updated when they lose beyond mentioning the fact of their defeat (usually your Cabinet ministers). I'd really love to go through and do a cleanup audit of the last couple parliaments in most places, but it's such a big job to take on it'd be great if I wasn't the only one. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're largely right about Mount Ommaney, Mansfield and Ferny Grove: I don't personally think any of them will change, but it'd be good to leave for a couple of days just in case anything drastic happens in late counting.
Glad to hear that - it would be great to have some help if we decided to do this as a thing! I think going back to about 2005 would be ideal, because anything previous was written from the start as a historical piece, and I seem to recall having some articles from that era that could well be ten years out of date by now if no one else got to them. I don't have too many plans for this week (finished an intensive uni unit yesterday and am completely stuffed) so I might start trying to get onto it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Happy to help audit the MP lists and articles for a state or three, I've seen some shockers recently: cabinet ministers with a one line stub after 5 years. I generally do what I can when I stumble across them, but an organised audit to determine the scope of the issue sounds like a great idea. I can make a start on Victoria and Tasmania during the week. --Canley (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
That'd be fantastic. I'm thinking I'll have a go at the 2012-2015 Queensland parliament and see if I can knock those ones into shape; there's just not enough info to do a really decent job on the new MPs at least until their parliamentary bios go up. I think we particularly need to watch out for BLP issues - a lot of the longer articles in these areas have lots of unsourced content and, where there has been any controversy, it's often poorly sourced and potentially undue weight. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Wow, a timely case in point – Willem Westra van Holthe rolled Adam Giles last night and will become NT Chief Minister soon, his article was a one paragraph stub! I've done some expansion this morning, but I'll have a look at the Northern Territory parliament too, which is often rather neglected. --Canley (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Following from Frickeg's comment on my talk, it would be great if people went at the electorate articles too - if they have a history section at all, they're overwhelmingly out of date in a great many cases, they're usually unsourced and suffer severely from recentism, and they also need to be watched to make sure they've actually been updated since the last redistribution and aren't showing the wrong boundaries. I had a solid go at this after the Victorian election, but only got up to about "C" before getting sick of it, and I should pick up where I left off sometime. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's awkward! It wouldn't be the first time (cf Carol Adams in Kwinana, WA in 2009). Gaven still looks unlikely for Labor to get over the line, and I'll sure be crossing my fingers about bloody Lockyer. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm also amazed at how little is available online about some of these outgoing LNP MPs. I could write long and detailed articles about the conservative one-termers after the Bjelke-Petersen landslide of 1974 because most of them had done interesting things both in and after politics, but there's plenty of these people (Seath Holswich was one that I just had a look around for) that I'm going to have to do a good bit of research to scrape together a solitary paragraph. Even Factiva turns up extremely little apart from "local MP says that his electorate should have more stuff and goes along with government policy". The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Update[edit]

It's summer, so there should be cricket on TV, all through late January and early February, yeah? No such luck. There is a boring fortnight between the end of meaningless ODIs in late January 2015 and the start the real deal at the 2015 Cricket World Cup. Oh, but sports fans, there was he brief NT T20, there's the ongoing Queensland Tri-Series, and then there is the 2015 Canberra Test match. It's all happening here! Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Winner of the 2015 Queensland state election[edit]

BoNM - Australia.png Top of the polls ...
For your great work on Queensland politics articles in the wake of the 2015 Queensland state election! Kerry (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Anderson and Lee[edit]

Thanks for catching those late changes while I was unavailable and updating the articles. What a ridiculous day - at a time when Delia Lawrie's leadership was under significant pressure, that was a biblical own goal for the CLP... The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Doug Ralph Reply Comment[edit]

Dear Frickeg, Thank you for your thought and input on the page Doug Ralph. I see your expertise is in parliamentarians and politics. However I don't believe his page should be deleted on the grounds that he was an unsuccessful candidate in elections and standing for a party, the Greens, who garnered only a small percentage of votes. Doug was more than a would-be politician. He was an activist at the grass-roots level, and an effective advocate for the remnant Box-Ironbark forests of the Central Goldfields of Victoria. He has a place in Wikipedia due to the influence he had in life in Central Victoria, his publications and his radio presentations; he is a person of greater value than others populating this online encyclopaedia, which tends to be US-centric. Obituaries and eulogies are still to come (he died only yesterday) and these will add further verifcation of his worthiness. Best Regards, James sinarau (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Candidates of the New South Wales state election, 2015[edit]

Helen Westwood is last on the upper house Labor ticket in the article, however in her article it says she's retiring at the election, which btw I only came across because I wanted to know why a current MLC would be last on an upper house ticket. The Antony ref appears to have a lower house candidate listing only. Where did you source it from? Timeshift (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Party affiliations[edit]

Thank you for having done so much of the work in setting up all these articles and tables. I'm trying to create a federal election dataset (it'll be online and interactive when it gets finished... which could be a while), and the Wikipedia pages have made that task a lot easier. I think I'm done with party affiliations for now -- there's more that could be done with 1901 especially, but it'd be a bit of work checking for endorsements, and I want to move on to something else at least for a couple of weeks! Pappubahry (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


Australian politicians categories[edit]

Hi there, and thank you for being the one to finally close this monstrosity of a CfD (I understand why no one else wanted to!). While I'm disappointed the close is less than a full endorsement of the changes proposed, I understand the issues raised and will probably bring the candidates idea back in a separate nomination. However, I didn't see any disagreement in the discussion about the idea to split the main categories by state for other non-Liberal/National parties, and the current close perpetuates the distinction between the Coalition and all other Australian parties. Would you consider altering your close to endorse the splitting of those candidates by parliament? Frickeg (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

(Later: I should add I am more than willing to do the necessary legwork, since I'm not sure a bot would be capable of making the changes where there are no existing categories.) Frickeg (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I think I already somewhat did in the close by indicating that the rest was "brainstorming". So, except for the unsuccessful part which had clear concerns/opposition, and so being bold would probably be inappropriate, for the rest, I leave that up to your (and others') editorial discretion whether to renom or be bold in each instance. Though of course WP:BRD applies, as always. - jc37 22:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, no problem. Frickeg (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Politicians still[edit]

Hi, the bot seems to have misinterpreted some of the closing stuff (like parent categories). I've been going around and fixing it, but then the bot comes around and undoes what I've done. I think it's finished with the actual changes so is there a way to turn it off? (I have no idea how to deal with this stuff!) Frickeg (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Please wait until the bot is done. Once things are stable, I'll remove the redlinked cats from WP:CFD/W, and that should stop the bot edits. - jc37 23:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
OK. Please let me know when you do this so that I can fix things up. Frickeg (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Did : ) And please look over the two parent cats and make sure they are updated correctly first. - jc37 23:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks again! Frickeg (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Australian politicians categories[edit]

Re: this close again. How does one open a discussion for new categories (for the unsuccessful candidates one)? I'm not really proposing a split as most of these people are not currently in politician-related categories; some of them are (incorrectly) in the parent categories. Is there perhaps a better place for the discussion than CfD and would this be appropriate considering the close? Frickeg (talk) 07:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Usually a WikiProject. Possibly Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia? - jc37 05:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Australian politicians by party by state or territory[edit]

Hi; I've reversed some of the bold moves you made to the by state subcategories of Category:Australian politicians by party by state or territory. Personally, I don't think we should assume that we do not need both a Category:Queensland politicians by party and a Category:Members of the Parliament of Queensland by party. For one, they are clearly by definition separate parts of the category tree, and one would approach them in category navigation via different routes. For two, I find it difficult to believe that they are 100% co-extensive. (Eg, there are no notable politicians of Queensland of any particular party who were not members of the state parliament?—unlikely.) So I've moved the categories back to the pre-existing "FOOian politicians by party" but then re-created your "Members of the Parliament of FOO by party" categories as a subcategory. Once you make the subcategorization changes you are in the process of, I think having both trees could be re-evaluated, but at this stage I think it would be pre-mature to cut one down completely in favour of the other. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Tom Wallace for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tom Wallace is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Wallace until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Onel5969 (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

DLP politicians[edit]

Hey, I noticed that your federal category is at "Democratic Labor Party politicians of the Parliament of Australia". Considering that the DLP articles generally use the (historic) to differentiate rather than the very recent spelling change (and which wouldn't differentiate the two to people who don't closely follow microparty politics), would you mind if we renamed that category to "Democratic Labor Party (historic) members of the Parliament of Australia"? The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue about the distinct articles is debatable, but I agree with the status quo. There was a discussion when Peter Kavanagh was elected to the Vic LC in 2006 (and thus the modern DLP stopped being an irrelevancy that could be and was just footnoted within the original DLP article) that concluded that the DLP had wound up when the rest of the DLP said they had wound up, and the faction that continued was a separate party under the same name. There's a strong historical argument that they're separate parties, and I think they're basically philosophically separate parties - the new DLP is both considerably more socially and particularly economically conservative than the old DLP.
I think of it more like how Clive Palmer originally claimed that his party was the continuation of the UAP, but if a tiny faction of the UAP had kept kicking as five blokes in a shed for fifty years to maintain a claim to organisational continuity - as was basically the state of the DLP from 1978 until about 2004. Where did you read that the AEC agreed with the DLP's claim? The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
It might be worth hashing out again and going over the sources. I remember that Adam Carr was a key factor in the original decision, and he was a, shall we say, domineering personality. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Seats in doubt[edit]

I was already throwing together the list when you mentioned! I've gone with excluding all the seats you mentioned (which is those uncalled by either of Green or Bowe), as I think it's best to keep on the safe side (as worked in Queensland after the close calls we had in Victoria). The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I had the same list except for Lismore, which I haven't seen anyone see as still alive, unless I've missed something? The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Candidates[edit]

We've got a bunch of people stuck in the main politicians category until we get the candidates and "people" issues resolved - did you want to take that to CfD and try and tie it up once for all? The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Also - I was under the impression we weren't categorising people who were both MPs and mayors in the mayors category as well. Is that the case? It affects a good number of the articles Kerry left behind in any case. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Perfect, and the latter is fine by me too. I had thought the same as you, but then I saw Kerry had left behind cases like Jodie Harrison (MP for five minutes, but mayor of the City of Lake Macquarie before that) and thought it was something worth clarifying. There is also a second question when people have been both Lord Mayor of a capital city and an MP, since in some of these cases their service as Lord Mayor was more notable than being a couple terms as a backbencher. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
If they were ALP mayors, they belong in the category. If they were ALP councillors, they belong to that category. (Whether you want to go to the effort of adding them is a separate issue). However, a lot of councils are not party-political, so it doesn't follow that someone being an ALP (or whichever party) State/Federal representative was necessarily a mayor/councillor under that same party banner. Because there was the possibility that they needed to be categorised as ALP mayors/councillors (or whichever party), I left the ALP politician category in place so they would be manually considered. Two examples are Tony McGrady and Campbell Newman. Tony McGrady was an ALP Qld MLA for 10+ years but he was the mayor of Mount Isa both before and after his time as an MP. So he's ALP and he's a mayor, but I don't think that you can call him an ALP mayor. If you read [1], he was an ALP party member when he was elected mayor in 2012 but explicitly says it does not colour his local politics and "He said he was disappointed more of his Advance Mount Isa team did not get into council" suggesting he campaigned as a member of that *team* and not as an endorsed candidate of the ALP. Whereas City of Brisbane local government is very party-political and has been so for many decades. It's entirely reasonable to categorise Campbell Newman as a Liberal (or LNP) mayor. My inclination would be to simply create the party-mayor and party-councillor categories for the major parties only but not embark on a systematic campaign to populate them but let them be populated organically by folks who happen to know a lot more about specific individuals than we do. Kerry (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Thinking about the candidates issue, it's informative to read the lede at politician which says "A politician ... is a person who is involved in influencing public policy and decision making. This includes people who hold decision-making positions in government, and people who seek those positions". On that basis it seems entirely reasonable to have candidates as a subcategory of politicians and the elected reps as the subcat of candidates. That way, the category politicians could be the graveyard for people who are very influential in public policy (but not in office and never contested it), those who contested but never unelected are "promoted" to the candidate categories, while the elected are "promoted" to the actual Members-of categories. Of course you would have to do the usual slice-and-dicing by parliament and by party on the candidates as is already in place for members. So anyone notable enough to have an article and has some political aspect to their life can be categorised into at least one of the above. For example, John Elliott (businessman) would go in the Liberal politican category as he was clearly influential in politics for a while there but appears not to have contested any elections (AFAIK from his article). Kerry (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there's a need to separate the candidate categories by parliament; I don't think they'll be all that populated, even for the major parties. I think you may have hit on the best of the available options for the people who don't fit into any of the other categories. Frickeg (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you think just having Category:ALP candidates, Category:Liberal candidates ... Category:Independent candidates suffices? The word "candidate" rather begs the question of "candidate for what?". I was thinking there would be natural parallel between the just introduceddcategories Category:XXXX members of the Parliament of YYYY and these new Category:XXXX candidates for the Parliament of YYYY. But I guess put it out there for discussion and see how people want to slice-and-dice the candidates (I'm not that concerned). I think the key idea is the category hierarchy structure: Politicians (those who seek to influence) -> Candidates (those who contest elections) -> Members (those who win elections). Kerry (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with the Category:Australian Labor Party candidates: it solves a lot of our problems with notable people who weren't elected, and I think if we hadn't settled on it so late in the previous CfD it'd have been closed alongside it. I wouldn't put the members category under the candidates category in the hierarchy, though, as I think it's confusing and unnecessary. The problem of people with a notable association with the party who never ran for it remains, too, and I'm not a fan of leaving them in the base category. We also should probably come to some sort of agreement on the issue about who goes in the mayor and councillor categories: I am kinda on the fence on that one, but it affects a bunch of articles so it would be good to settle it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Poles and wires[edit]

Hi Frickeg, just seen the previous AFD discussion and I realise it might have been better just to let that article go to AFD and merge it in where more editors could fix it in time. -- Aronzak (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Gerry Georgatos[edit]

Hi Frickeg,

Thank you for your contributions to the Gerry Georgatos article. In the article's entry on the possible deletion list, you said that it 'almost' makes it over the line for a "keep". Since you wrote that, the article has been expanded, so it may now be able to satisfy your threshold for a 'keep'. In the added section, Human Rights, I note that Georgatos received a second award (a year after the first award for journalism), this time for his work in Human Rights. Regards, Pigmypossum (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

I thought about how to classify Albert Field. The article currently says "Although he would be technically a Labor Senator...", although that probably should be changed. My bad re David Charleston.--Grahame (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Gordon Moyes[edit]

On his death. It is pretty recent - only hours old - https://www.facebook.com/david.moyes.5891/posts/425671810947986:0 I don't know the rules for this so I'll let you figure it out. Dean Tregenza (talk) 12:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Adam Guise[edit]

Hey there, thanks for letting me know about the possible deletion of Adam Guise. You're right that I created it when the Greens were ahead but obviously that was wrong. I have no objection to the deletion but I had a thought... As an unsuccessful candidate he wouldn't be notable enough to warrant an article, but as he is (to my knowledge) a prominent local CSG activist, would that make him notable enough, if the article was expanded? Love to hear your thoughts. Hshook (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes. I do think we basically got it right with the lines we started drawing after the lesson of Victorian election, and we've had a pretty good record of avoiding wrong-call situations lately. I seem to recall screwing up a few times pre-2013, but that was before people were so on the ball that we had articles on every new member within 24 hours. Lismore just happened to be the combination of factors where a) the mainstream media had all called it, and b) William and Antony weren't really flagging it as a seat in doubt, until that wild swing back in post-election night counting.

The only way to avoid this is to not call any seat which anyone thinks is still in doubt, because that's about the only basis on which we could've avoided Lismore. (And I don't think even that would have caught Ballina, which was being watched closely in late counting as well, even if the result didn't change.) It was a pretty easily fixed situation anyway: the articles were corrected as soon as it became clear that it was in fact in doubt, and the Guise pretty easily deleted. I think it's only the second time we've actually had an article created on someone who wasn't elected in late counting though (the other being Carol Adams, who passed notability in her own right anyway). The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Missed an MP again![edit]

I was running around updating the party registrations - and discovered that we managed to miss both the retirement of a former senior minister and the election of her successor, and in my state no less. Not very impressed with the WA media - dude was elected on Tuesday and there isn't a single news story about it!

Also can't believe we missed the deregistration of the DLP at first! The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I can remember those as well. I find it interesting that there's so little coverage considering how much coverage there tends to be of countbacks in the ACT and Tasmania, even if they are lower houses. And it's not as if (like Eaton and Burton) they're randoms serving out the last months of someone's term - one would presume Pritchard will be around for a while.
Good catch with The 23 Million. I caught their deregistration but didn't realise they hadn't actually contested the 2013 election. Honestly, the fact that they managed to demonstrate 500 members and get registered and then not have their shit together enough to contest an election less than six months later makes them such an oddity I actually wish there were the reliable sources to write an article on how that happened. Their website tells the story: basically they were a naive bunch who couldn't hack it under the pressure of even a microparty campaign and threw in the towel before close of nominations.
Their Twitter makes for kind of amusing reading: "It's official! Australia has a new political party. Next stop #auspol!" "Regardless of policy, communication is key" "the23million will not be contesting this year's Senate race. Read our open letter to our members here". Either way, as you said, it's a pretty rare exception to the rule. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Party ideologies[edit]

I still think it's a good idea to have ideologies in the List of political parties in Australia but you have explained it well enough why we don't that I'll back down. My mistake for getting some of the ideologies wrong I made allot of assumptions that I should of fact checked before posting but I did correct them. I thought that Socialism and Social Democracy were the same thing but they are not. I also thought that because Liberals had a Coalition they must all be Liberal but no they have a mix of different types of Liberals and conservatives so I guess it can be hard to define them. -William4K3IbFy — Preceding unsigned comment added by William4K3IbFy (talkcontribs) 06:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind but I put your answer on the talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_political_parties_in_Australia#Ideology_and_political_position -William4K3IbFy — Preceding unsigned comment added by William4K3IbFy (talkcontribs) 22:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

SA candidates pages[edit]

Thanks! Everything was such a muddle after the 1917 split that I thought if I could map out where everyone went at the 1918 election, that would clarify a lot - and it really did. It'll make clearing up all the articles related to the split much easier, though I will probably need to do 1921 as well to clarify where people went afterwards.

I initially did have it the other way around, reversed it because the combination of multi-member electorates where not every member on a party slate got elected and MPs whose affiliation had flown all over the place were confusing the heck out of me.

I don't have a problem with the general convention here: for both single-member electorates and upper houses where parties run numbered tickets, I've never read a page and been confused. But trying to make sense of this with it the other way around - one of the more confusing elections in SA history - was just confusing the bejesus out of me. I reversed it a couple times and probably wound up having to check who was the incumbent and who was the winner about five times for each electorate that I'd done.

In the end, I felt bolding the victor made a lot more sense, and what had happened a lot clearer - it made sense to me that the heavy emphasis would be the person who won rather than the person who held a seat beforehand, with a more minor mark to denote the incumbent (all the sources from the time also asterisk incumbents). Basically, it was the only way that didn't confuse the bejesus out of me trying to read it and work out who went where and survived what. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I also think, because this election was such a radical realignment of party politics in SA, so being either a National candidate or an ex-Labor independent in the wrong seat meant being an incumbent meant absolutely bugger all, it just looked really strange having the emphasis on them, if that makes any sense? Like, when I had it the other way around I was continually mentally reading the incumbents as winners and the winners as incumbents. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I understand your logic, and I have no particular problem if you want to change it back, was just doing it the way that made the most sense to me when I was trying to unravel the damn thing. Probably less of an issue now it's done. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Looking at it this way, I think it illustrates the chaotic nature of that election just as well if not better - I think it was just incredibly confusing while I was trying to create the damn thing. Also, nice catch on Frederick Ward - I thought I'd caught all the notable losing candidates on that page already. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

It applies to most of the articles in the former electoral districts of South Australia template, considering that it affects everyone before 1938.

The party affiliation issues (apart from the other one I fixed in Murray) should be relatively straightforward, in that all the affected people from the 1917 split (which is the big thing currently missing from these sets) are in Candidates of the South Australian state election, 1918, between the National candidates, the incumbent independents, and the retiring National.

Even if you just transfer the current contents across to the new format, I can probably point out (like in Barossa) where the tables are wrong about dates - it'll just be much clearer when they are under this format. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thinking again, there's two other problems: many, like East Torrens, don't mention parties at all, and a lot of these articles don't address the 1931-34 Labor split as well. In both cases, the party affiliations can be just taken from the member lists, which are complete through that period. Also note that there's three successive conservative parties here: the Liberal Union, Liberal Federation and Liberal and Country League, which need to be acknowledged (much like we did with the LNP in Queensland). The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much - it'll make a big difference to this area. I think that's the right call about the non-Labor parties: after the formation of the Liberal Union in 1910, most sources seem to refer to them as a party and endorsing candidates, etc. While the LU was a merger of existing organisations, I'm yet to clearly find evidence that they ran candidates in a partisan way, though I'll definitely be looking as I get to that era. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again - much appreciated! And they won't be - Adelaide just happened to catch the full brunt of the Langite mess. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. It's a huge improvement over the old templates on the multi-member ones you've done, and changing the single-member electorates so they actually use a consistent style and template code was much appreciated too. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

MacKillop[edit]

Bravo on splitting the Electoral district of MacKillop. Will the old Electoral district of Victoria (South Australia) reappear soon? Not that I'm anxious. Doug butler (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Haha! Well I've removed all [[Electoral district of Victoria (South Australia)]] links. The redirect now serves no useful purpose and can be deleted if you think it's worth the trouble. Doug butler (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Looking for SA electoral history work? After many years, stubs have finally been created for the predecessors of the Liberal Union - the National Defence League and Farmers and Producers Political Union! Please be encouraged to build on them, link to them from other articles etc. The 1930s may be extremely spotty, at best, but there's no reason why the late 1800s/early 1900s can't have some info! Timeshift (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Burra[edit]

Thanks again for your work on these. I tracked down the missing post-1910 party affiliations in Burra. Homburg was Liberal Union; O'Loughlin, Miller and Pick were Liberal Union until the start of 1918, when they collectively defected to the Farmers and Settlers Association. If you could add those in I'd be much appreciative. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Also your 1924s in Barossa don't line up. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Ahh. Thanks again for sorting Burra out. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there any way of finding out where historical SA seats were located? It's frustrating to me as a South Australian to come across articles like Electoral district of Stanley (South Australia) and having no idea what populations they actually covered. I do know where Burra is though! Timeshift (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

NT Election Candidate[edit]

Thanks so much for filling out all the candidates. Unfortunately I can't help out right away with finding out who this Davis is, but I've ordered a book by Dean Jaensch about the 1987 election that should say who they are. It should be done in a week or so. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. And the book I've ordered is a specific statistical analysis on the 1987 election. I'm hoping it has a list of candidates with their full names like Jaensch's books on the 1990 and 1994 elections that I've managed to look at so far. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 11:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Alexandra[edit]

Hey, any chance you could add Blacker, McDonald, Ritchie and Heggaton as having been Liberal Union from 1910 at Electoral district of Alexandra. Sorry to have to bug you about this stuff - these complicated tables are just the one thing on Wikipedia that is beyond me. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Tony Abbott[edit]

I used to be a frequent visitor to Parliament House from the mid-90s onwards. One day I noticed John Howard sitting in one of the back benches devoting a lot of time to Tony Abbott. They were deep in conversation and it was clear that there was a bond between them. At that point, Abbott was very much a larrikin with nothing much beside a big mouth. Ministerial duties came much later. So I wondered what Howard saw in him.

Now, I might not always agree with Abbott and his policies - in fact I think he's steering us down quite the wrong road - but he is a determined fighter, and he is often underestimated by his opponents, who wonder why they are sitting in smoke and ruins while Abbott cheerfully gabs on.

I think the record of the Rudd/Gillard years speaks for itself. Abbott was relentless in his focus on getting into power. Since the moment Abbott displaced Turnbull, Rudd began to sink, and then it was Gillard's turn (though Rudd may have been a bigger threat than Abbott, Abbott exploited every little crack he could find).

I think Abbott's game plan was and is to get the PM's job as soon as possible and stay there as long as possible. I think he's aiming for Menzies.

Sure, he's prone to mis-steps and fumbles, but he's learning and becoming more adept and confident. His negotiating skills have improved and he's making his authority felt. I would not be surprised if he and Howard continue to have long talks, though Abbott is showing himself to be his own man. That stupid Prince Phillip knighthood thing, for example.

I doubt he'll repeat that. He's learning.

So yes, I see him as having another few terms left. Whether he gets them or not is another thing, and whether Australia isn't trashed in the process, another.

The next federal election isn't due for eighteen months. I think Abbott will continue to develop and improve his position as PM, and I think he'll call an election for the time when he can best win. --Pete (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I think I'm right about Abbott's game plan, and I think he's learning from his mistakes. I wouldn't underestimate him. He's a fighter. Anyway, that's my view. --Pete (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

James Marks[edit]

Do you want me to rename the article to James Marks (architect)? I am not sure that James Marks the architect is the "primary topic" any more than the NSW MLA. He was just the only James Marks in WP at the time I started his article. Kerry (talk) 09:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Now renamed to James Marks (Australian architect) and James Marks is now a disambiguation page. Some articles mention a filmmaker by the name and also a sportsman, but neither seem to have articles at this time. Kerry (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Seat-level results[edit]

Thanks for the cleanup job on the results pages and categories - that area looks so much tidier than it did yesterday! The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's not a bad idea. I still have no problem with the seat-level stuff going in the results articles as discussed, but it's a completely fair point that it starts to stray off-topic pretty quickly. I was looking at the comparison of the US articles and wracking my brain trying to come up with a name, but I'm struggling as well. Australian House of Representatives elections in New South Wales, 1901 is completely fine for the House, but I think state-level articles probably need to be inclusive of the Senate (since as you point out they're not usually going to be long articles), and Australian federal elections in New South Wales, 1901 feels clunky but I'm struggling to think of a better alternative. What about Australian federal election, 1901 (New South Wales)? I also think the delineation between these and the results pages could be interesting. There's also the issue of how you'd do the state articles since these don't really cross over that well. I'm not that fussed which we ultimately go with though.

While I'm here, did you get a chance to see the post I made at WT:AUSPOL a couple of days ago? I'd really love to straighten out our (fairly terrible) coverage of state upper house by-elections and casual vacancies but I'm not sure how to organise it since it's a bit all over the place. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

With the upper house stuff - it's more a question of article naming and how to structure the template linking them all together that's gotten me lost - the historical stuff is not much of a bother.
I think it's not a bad idea to fold the Results pages into these, but I'd like to have a convention for the states sorted out if that's the way we decide to go, since it potentially breaks something that otherwise works well if we fuck it up. I also find state politics a lot more interesting than federal politics, so even if you won't get to them for a very long time, I probably will. I also think @Kirsdarke01: should get a say before this goes any further! The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

North Adelaide[edit]

Any chance you could sort out a couple more table issues at Electoral district of North Adelaide for me? I'm slowly trying to untangle the 1890s and 1900s and this is the first one I've had a chance to do.

Richard Wood was Labor from 1893 until they expelled him in August 1897, and was no party thereafter. Arthur Harrold and Glynn's second term were directly endorsed by the National Defence League, but we don't have a party colour box thingo for them.

The rest don't seem to need touching: Glynn was endorsed by the NDL but not nominated by them for his first term in North Adelaide, Hawker much the same, and Dixson seems to have been nonpartisan. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, we somehow missed a member in Electoral district of Gumeracha - Randell lost re-election in 1896, a Charles Wilcox won the seat, but was unseated after a month, with Randell winning the resulting by-election. Sorry to have to hassle you about these things. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)