User talk:Timeshift9

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

Welcome to my talk page, where you are welcome to leave a message at the bottom of this page for any reason at all and I will attempt to respond ASAP. If you leave a message here, I will most likely reply here.

4,100 watchlist articles and counting :)

There is no cabal. Mmmm, cabal....


I think the ADB has mangled two different facts together there: he was Chief Secretary until the 1933 election (8 April), and resigned from the PLP to sit as Independent Labor sometime before the remerger of the Labor parties in 1934. He was definitely re-elected for the PLP on 8 April, so the date quoted (18 April) would, if correct, mean he quit the party literally ten days into a nine-year term!

Trove doesn't list anything remotely interesting for Whitford in April 1933 besides his re-election, so my assumption is that 18 April refers to the return of the writs, and they haven't done their homework about the party he ran with in 1933. I would love to know when he actually did quit the PLP though, because I'm a terrible pedant about dates and it annoys me that I haven't pinned it down. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, good luck with that period of SA politics. But I suppose as long as nobody knows definitely otherwise, and we have only source about this and says ind from 1933, we should go with that. It would be surprising to quit a party 10 days in to a 9 year term but certainly plausible. Timeshift (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
There's no press coverage from the time to support that, though. The ADB says "Backed by the Liberal Federation, he and like-minded colleagues held office as the Parliamentary Labor Party under L. L. Hill and R. S. Richards until 18 April 1933. Thereafter Whitford was an Independent Labor member, as well as a commercial traveller." That he held office as Chief Secretary until 18 April 1933 is unquestionably true, but there's no evidence to support resigning from the PLP on that date. It may be that "thereafter" didn't mean immediately thereafter. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I would have to disagree. The wording IMHO definitely indicates immediately thereafter, which could be interpreted as shortly thereafter, but certainly not 8+ months thereafter. It's just too long-a time period for that sort of wording. Timeshift (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The only specific sources referring to Whitford as distancing himself from Labor come from a spate of media coverage in March 1934. Noticeably, that refers to Whitford as having been in Labor in the present tense, and announces that he was as of that time now an "individualist". I think that's a lot clearer than the ambiguous mention in the ADB, which if correct managed to be completely unreported (as opposed to the torrent of coverage of Whitford's March 1934 comments). The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Bah. I hate 1930s SA state politics. I do despise that so infinitely little is published on this subject. It's not as if recorded history started in the 1940s. Timeshift (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm fascinated by this period, but I suspect the bad media coverage is just because Labor blew itself apart so spectacularly. Like, I struggle to think of many times in Australian history when there have been four Labor Parties sitting in the same chamber, and it's a such a chaotic period that I think a lot of modern historians have just thrown up their hands and found it easier to just pretend everyone was always straight Labor.
It's interesting that I've had far more trouble tracing what happened to the PLP members in 1931, whereas the Nationals from 1917 and the Langites from 1931 are both subjects I could write a GA-length article with relative ease. It basically took Trove developing to its present depth of content for me to even work out who the heck went where in the OLP/PLP part of the 1931 split. The period newspaper sources are very clear that the PLP was an actual party; they just don't seem to be nearly as concerned with its inner workings as they were with either the Nationals or the Langites. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
But that's the thing, a lot of sources don't just pretend everyone is straight Labor. There are bios and articles around that do say such and such an MP was part of a splinter group, but lack more detail, even basic detail such as years. One source that did get very lazy but should be the last to do so, is the former members section. And what's worse is for some MP affiliations they are completely wrong. The official source is a joke. It's disgraceful. Timeshift (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I've still got so much to do with the SA electorate articles, it'll be a while before I get to the parties! Although, if MPs sat as members of those pre-Lib Union parties then it would be great to get some designations for that period in there. As you say above, no hope with the SA Parliament site, the most hopeless of all the state parliamentary websites when it comes to member biography (WA excepted, since it just doesn't try before about 1996). Frickeg (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm slowly working my way back through the member lists, and I am very carefully checking everything as I go along: I'm on the 1915-18 LA at the moment, but I'm going to keep working back until the 1890s so will hopefully be able to catch members of the pre-Lib Union parties. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Considering how fluid MP affiliations were with pre-Lib Union parties, I wish you luck but I don't expect a lot! A note for readers of this page, PS: National Defence League and Farmers and Producers Political Union articles finally created. Timeshift (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

SA Electorate Results[edit]

Thanks. And yes, I plan on doing that, but I've got these NT election result books for only a limited time so NT 1990 and 1987 are my next priorities. But with that in mind, I'll move on with SA after that. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

SA Langites[edit]

The short version to this story is that Doug Bardolph was a bit of a Langite Clive Palmer, and basically everyone who got elected with him lost their desire to continue to work with him before very long. There were two other splinter parties: a short-lived one around Martin Collaton before he just rejoined Labor prior to the 1933 election, and a slightly longer-lived one after it which called itself (in at least the source I was looking at when I wrote that page) "SA Lang Labor Party" (as opposed to the original, which was just called the Lang Labor Party), which was also referred to by its members, Dale and Howard. I understand the confusion, though - it's not as if they were terribly creative with naming! So in that edit - the link is right, the piping is not.

The Collaton Langites are probably not independently notable of Collaton, and while I'll go over the sources again at some point whatever they called themselves (which I can't remember off the top of my head) should probably redirect to him. The Dale-Howard Langites I think are independently notable and are a future project. I'm particularly interested in SA stuff at the moment so it's fairly high on my list but it's also exam month so you probably won't see much from me in the next fortnight! The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with them starting out there at least, though it needs to distinguish that they were indeed separate parties. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I just removed the "SA" from the 1933 election article - all we need is Lang Labor, piped to the state article. The main Lang Labor Party in SA wasn't a split from the NSW Langites, but "SA Lang Labor" is the name the Dale-Howard Langites were using when they split from the main LLP after the 1933 election - does that make sense? The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's correct to call Thompson "Protestant Labor", as most of the sources seem to refer to him with that label, and this article links him to the interstate mob, although a lot of the sources seem to otherwise treat him as an independent. It'd be nice to see our Protestant Labor Party article get a bit more solidly referenced than it is at present around what the various Protestant Labor people had to do with each other - A Pox On Both Your Houses is an amazingly crap source for something Jaensch put his name to. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Early common names[edit]

Hey, one little thing I've picked up in your fixing things up here and there is that you seem to have a preference for "Firstname Lastname" naming of early politicians. I kinda feel responsible for this since I think I was one of the people who started that convention that back in the day, but the more widely-read I've gotten on pre-1930s politics the more I think it's often wrong for that era. I think we've got a lot of articles at "Firstname Lastname" when basically every source we could cite uses either "Firstname Middlename Lastname" or their initials and last name: in those cases, I don't think we're using their common name, and I think we're using a naming system that is kind of our own arbitrary invention. Thoughts? The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not too fussed either way. The reason I changed to John Duncan in the first place was because many articles linked to John James Duncan which redirects to a US politician. If you want to add middle names, by all means go ahead, but as far as i'm concerned as long as it links to the correct article, i'll use firstname lastname as the display name unless a number of editors tell me not to. It's easier. Timeshift (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Blah. Stopping there. Don't suppose you want to pick up where i left off? Best way to find out is type their name and "party names" with the " in to google and see what you find. Add to their bio article and in the MLC list. I have no doubt 1897 through 1915 has more affiliations i've missed and/or not available online. 1891 to 1897 still need doing. Timeshift (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I'm completely happy to pick up where you left off, and it's the top priority on my list (and I just deferred my exams so I basically have the rest of June to sit around and chill out on Wikipedia), but would you be able to include specific sources for the non-Labor affiliations you've listed pre-1910?
Every election after 1910 has party affiliation clearly listed in the newspapers alongside the election results, and so is really easy to do. Any election before that doesn't, and so clearly demonstrating that they actually were a member of a parliamentary party is going to be a bit of a cow. I am pedantic and thorough enough to go do this where possible, but it would be a godsend if you'd be able to post sources for the ones you've done so it can be checked off easily. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
At the time I added/ref'd party affiliation in every MP's article that I altered in the MP lists. Timeshift (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's a problem I'd like your opinion on. I've gotten back to the 1910-12 parliament, and I'm damned if I know how to address the conservative party affiliations in that parliament prior to the Liberal Union merger in light of discovering that they ran with this mess of a semi-coalition. If they'd actually run a united ticket I was just going to list them as "Liberal" and footnote that they'd run a united "Liberal" ticket and it was an informal coalition until a few months after the election, but the LDU running independently in nearly a quarter of seats (and winning two) kinda buggers that up. @Frickeg:, any ideas either? The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

My preference here would be to list them all with their pre-1910 affiliation (if known) and then treat the Liberal Union as starting after the election - so people would be "LDU/Liberal", "Farmers/Liberal", etc. I imagine, for the joint candidates, it should be discoverable which of the three groups they represented first. It seems to me from that register article that they were jointly endorsing candidates for electorates, without those candidates necessarily being members of all three groups (a bit like the unionists often do in Northern Ireland today). Frickeg (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

There are two ways of going about it that I've seen people do on here. The first and the most accurate is to find the official gazettal or legislation back in a Government Gazette from the dawn of time and to try to map those lines on to some kind of modern geography. I've seen a few more dedicated editors do this and it is the best solution by far. But while the early 1900s didn't have Antony Green, they did have some coverage of where districts actually stood, and if you dig around Trove you can often get some idea: i.e. when I wrote electoral district of Bulla and Dalhousie I was able to at least name the key towns since neither "Bulla" or "Dalhousie" means anything to anyone in a modern context. In the case of South Australia, where the local party branches were meeting is probably the easiest way of getting a general vibe for the area covered, since those meetings were reported on in detail all the time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Definitely not impossible - could be in Trove (especially if you hit on the rough time that a reconstitution of districts happened), could be in the State Archives (probably would, if you could find it), or if you can find the exact boundary lines I'm sure some helpful soul on here with a penchant for mapping could sort you out. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed that you added the Labor designations to the MPs for the 1906-1910 list. My plan is to create the lists with vacant party columns all the way back to the last missing list in 1884 and then to go back and meticulously cross-check affiliations, because I kept finding useful sources for earlier parliaments while researching later ones and then not being able to find them again. I left the Labor ones off as well as the conservatives because, while they're probably accurate, I want to catch cases like Bill Denny's couple of terms as an Independent Liberal in this decade amidst decades of Labor service (which I would have completely missed if that dude hadn't written a featured article on him). So many of the 1890s Labor people nationally wound up leaving due to early splits that I want to be really diligent about making sure that every election is correct. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm very happy to let anyone do what they need to to ensure all articles are both complete and accurate. Timeshift (talk) 07:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

SA Legislative Council[edit]

I'm really not sure if I can do that. All that data might be a bit too much (having to do 32 tables, 1 for each count), and I'm not sure of a way to simplify it. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for that catch. I was a bit mental with insomnia when I had that burst of activity last night and it doesn't surprise me that I slipped up somewhere! I've checked all the others and they're fine, thankfully. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

National Defence League[edit]

I'm kinda struggling to work out at what point the NDL actually became a party in the sense that we understand it now, like, actually having members of parliament, as opposed to being like an employers' version of say the Australian Christian Lobby and just issuing endorsements of candidates they like.

I found the newspaper's list of candidates for the 1896 election which had people as either "NDL", "Labor" or none, and was working off that. But their relationship to candidates seems pretty murky: Paddy Glynn won by-elections in 1895 and 1897, and was strongly supported by the NDL both times, but in 1895 and 1897 sources make statements like, in the latter, "it should be explained none of the candidates were the direct nominees of the National League". This contrasts with Labor, for who it is always pretty clear who was and wasn't formally a ULP candidate. This might seem like I'm getting a bit finicky, but by this time the ULP had already had its first split and started expelling people and I can't work out at what point the NDL actually started having MPs who were theirs in the same sense.

I feel like I can probably work out the FPPU and the LDU from poring over the papers, because both (and at least the latter) seem to have been parties as we would understand them from the start. But the NDL is confusing the shit out of me. Any ideas? The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

SA Pendulums[edit]

It usually takes about 2-3 hours for each election (I tend to multitask when doing wikipedia work), maybe just 1-2 hours if I'm focusing. Likely less pre-1970 when there's less seats. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon[edit]

Hi Can you help me with Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon? google past stories The Advertiser written at or go through the News Ltd newspaper archive at You can buy credits and download articles for about $20. I don't have a credit card or the money. Paul Austin (talk) 11:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, not interested in the subject nor will I ever pay for a news subscription. Timeshift (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


What was your source for this addition? I don't see how Vaughan could have been the opposition leader after he lost the premiership in 1917: he was leading the government's junior coalition partner from outside Cabinet, even though he wasn't one of his party's ministers. It's either wrong or it's using a very interesting definition of "opposition leader". The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

According to the source, a Crawford Vaughan served as the official opposition leader in 1917. The link to the source is at Leader of the Opposition (South Australia) however the URL needed updating which i've done. FYI I got up to Price. Timeshift (talk) 05:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Fascinating. I wish they had exact dates for that. It'd make a lot more sense if it was just for a very brief period while they reconstituted as the junior instead of senior partner in the coalition; I'm struggling to think of an example anywhere where a formal Opposition Leader was in fact leading a formal coalition partner of the government including ministries. I suspect the first scenario is probably it because it has Kirkpatrick and Labor returning as the opposition in 1917, instead of from the 1918 election when the Nationals got smashed. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Results pages[edit]

Well, I'll have a go. Just everything's a bit hectic this week with starting a new job. But if I have a spare hour or two tonight I'll see what I can do to get the 1968 pendulum up. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 06:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Electoral districts[edit]

Well done for your effort matching past and present electoral districts - that's super helpful! The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I was just looking at Albert and groaned again... there's more I know. It's hard to use keywords for Trove sometimes. I'm about done I think. Timeshift (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Danig Party of Australia[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Danig Party of Australia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG - hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Coverage amounts purely to the fact that the group exists and provides no additional information at all

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hack (talk) 11:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

SA electoral districts[edit]

The reference I used for Sturt has polling booth level data for all elections until he randomly stops about 1920 sometime for reasons I'm not sure of. I'm not feeling up to adding all the data right now, but in the 1890s Gladstone was Port Pirie and surrounds and Newcastle was Port Augusta, Quorn and a bunch of little towns I haven't heard of. It's of no help with Young because he cuts out on the polling booth data before it was created. I'll put all the location data in at some point soon but you're welcome to do it in the meantime if you'd like. (This, by the way, was the polling data I was inquiring about on the WikiProject talk page a while back - not the first time I started working from a NLA hardcopy of something years ago and then discover years later they finally put it online.)

By the way - I'm leaning towards just using Jaensch's information about party affiliation from that file to fill in the gaps for 1890-1910 when I get the last of the member lists done. I'm more pedantic than Jaensch about the details and he's got some marked that I wouldn't have but I feel like it's basically accurate enough for Wikipedia purposes and it would save me a heck of a lot of hair-splitting about the NDL in particular.

Okay, before I finished responding I had a snap of curiosity and dug up polling place data for some of the regional electorates post-1938. Young basically amounts to "Snowtown and a bunch of places I've never heard of", and single-member Newcastle predictably loses Port Pirie, goes way outback instead, and amounts to "Oodnadatta, Marree and a bunch of places I've never heard of". The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Building on your curiosity, I did most of the "manual OCR" of the places in that article. Do we add lists of polling places to these articles? If so, I'm happy to make sure most of them get at least a stub article with an indication of location in them. I don't think I'm good enough to do historic tracks of what electorates any given town has been in and when. Many of the articles for even tiny places already exist (and I didn't do them all). --Scott Davis Talk 10:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I added the list to electoral district of Young (South Australia). Is this helpful enough that I should do it to the others in the list? --Scott Davis Talk 11:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
@ScottDavis:, I think it's definitely helpful. I don't think we need the subdivisions (which seem to just be administrative), and I could go either way on having every locality (some of which I'm not sure even still exist) but would be very happy with if you wanted to write those locality articles. I don't think it's useful to track which electorates each town was in, but I do think it's useful (and not very hard) to track the geographical evolution of each electorate pre-1954 - the source I used for the Sturt electorate has every booth up until about 1920 and Trove can fill in the blanks. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I had kept the subdivisions in as I guessed maybe that was the size of the electoral rolls - absentee votes required outside of the subdivision. I'm OK with them going away too. All of the places in Young exist as LOCB (bounded localities) in the state gazetteer (which is the standard usually applied for notability on Wikipedia for Australian places) except one contained in Kadina, one changed name in 1942 and one dropped an S sometime. Place articles tend to grow as they are found to have been home or birthplaces of footballers, politicians or along railway lines for example, and get linked from the district councils eventually too. --Scott Davis Talk 14:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Namesakes for Napier, Ramsay and West Torrens need articles. Namesake details can be found in the ECSA links at the bottom of the electorate articles. Also some namesakes are missing from some SA abolished electorate articles. If/while someone is at it, can they create South Australian Lang Labor Party, as opposed to the Lang Labor Party (South Australia), as can be seen in articles like Electoral district of Adelaide and Members of the South Australian House of Assembly, 1933–1938? Timeshift (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Danig Party of Australia for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Danig Party of Australia 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/Danig Party of Australia 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. Hack (talk) 08:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


Are you going to do every redlinked member of the House of Assembly? I don't want to be all snarky but it'd be more useful to slow down and include what little information there is in the parliamentary bio pages so someone doesn't have to do another run just to add that (at which point they'd be a good basis for later expansion). The only real thing these two-liners are good for is eligibility in a future stub contest if someone wants some Amazon vouchers. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm about done for now. No redlinks at Parliamentary Labor Party :D IMHO a stub is 10 times as better as a redlink - every reader has a direct link to their parliamentary biography. Every article started somewhere. There's no extra effort needed for the next editor who comes along and expands one or more of them. Hopefully however, it will encourage articles to be expanded sooner. Timeshift (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Nice. It would be amazing to get detailed articles on those people in particular - one of my projects still needs to be to go over the PLP era with a fine-toothed comb. I'm right across the Nationals and the Langites but I'm absolutely positive I missed people and changes regarding the PLP.
I'm not arguing about the utility of the stub-creation - Frickeg is mass-creating them in NSW too, but he's putting in the little information he's got at his disposal, and at least the full names and birth and death dates would be one less thing for future editors to have to follow up on. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Re Wallaroo: I just discovered when I found Jaensch's results file that Hooper was Labor from 1891, and was according to him the first Labor MHA, not McPherson. Haven't had a chance to check it against Trove but no reason to assume he's wrong. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hooper was an Independent Labor member. McPherson was the first actual Labor member. But i've updated as such. Timeshift (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not good with seat tables. Can someone please update Electoral district of Victoria and Albert to reflect Campbell as ANL 1906-1910 and Labor 1910-1912? Also, should we start adding to seat tables all the NDLs, ANLs, FPPUs and LDUs? House member lists all updated and complete. Timeshift (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you know anything about the colours these parties used? I'll need to create colour templates for them and it would be good to use the actual colours. Frickeg (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I have a strange feeling that something so simple will be very hard to find. I'd go generic and make NDL/ANL blue (con), FPPU green (rural) and LDU yellow (lib), sans FPPU like we have for the colour bar at Premier of South Australia. Timeshift (talk) 05:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Sounds sensible enough. They're easy to change if we discover more concrete information. Frickeg (talk) 05:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad we're this far through the lower house, it's a pity though that the ref doesn't cover the upper house. Finding more party affiliations for them may be a bridge too far. Timeshift (talk)
Hmm. I made a start, but once we get to pre-1902 I'm really a bit hesitant. There seems to be a lot of coming and going between official NDL and unaffiliated as it's currently listed (Laurence O'Loughlin was the one who prompted this), and it would be good to get all this nailed down so that I only have to do one run-through. Basically we need to know when they stopped and started considering themselves as NDL. If this is too hard to pin down, it may be better not to list any party affiliations (apart from Labor) before 1902. I also assumed that, say, everyone listed in the 1905-06 list as FPPU joined when the FPPU was formed in 1904, but knowing this period it's probably more likely to have been in dribs and drabs. Before I go on with this, we really need the 1902-05 list updated to include the FPPU. Frickeg (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I've been using this source which clearly indicates election party affiliation or lack thereof. The good thing about that is i've been able to add many affiliations to the member lists, and as the members lists only go back to the last election, it's a perfect match. Seat articles require actual years, so yes, a bit harder. There are a couple of cases where an Independent Labor or Independent Liberal is labelled as Labor or Liberal, but that's how they seem to have been treated back then. Labor had two indies in its ranks in 1893 but the only results we have are Libs 23, Cons 21, ULP 10. I think it's fine to have them listed as such as long as the independence is discussed in the bio article, which it is. Good luck with finding the pre-1905 FPPUies! Timeshift (talk) 06:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, my stance on pre-1910 affiliations was basically "what Jaensch says, and if we can find something better that's great". I think it's of questionable utility to split too many hairs about the NDL - for instance, in the two by-elections that I've brought up before where the papers specifically reported the candidate the NDL were campaigning for was not their direct nominee, Jaensch just lists them as NDL. I don't think it's completely inaccurate to call them NDL candidates considering that the elections were basically straight-out NDL-Labor fights, even if it's technically dubious to call them NDL candidates/MPs. And that saves a loooot of effort on our part working out, as Frickeg put it, when they stopped and started considering themselves as NDL. The birth of the FPPU and LDU in between parliaments is a bit more of a challenge, but I think that's more resolvable out of Trove than the NDL, which is a headache at every level due to their more informal structure. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Question for anyone who might know... South Australian state election, 1905, Labor forced the incumbent govt to resign with the support of "eight liberals". However according to Members of the South Australian House of Assembly, 1905–1906 sourced from here, apart from Labor, ANU and FPPU, there were only seven MPs without an affiliation. How do you get eight liberals from when there's only seven non Labor/ANU/FPPU MPs? And I doubt unaffiliated Vaiben Solomon would be considered a liberal and/or back Labor to form govt. Timeshift (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, the infobox in the 1905 election article, the results table in the same 1905 election article, and our member list for the 1905-06 parliament all have completely different parties contesting the election and seat counts resulting from that, which is awkward and kinda hilarious.
Secondly, the identity of who those people are is, um, interesting. This seems to be the list of MPs who backed Price to bring down the Butler government, the non-Labor people Burgoyne (FPPU), Coombe (Ind Lib), Cummins (ANL), Inkster (Ind Lib), William Miller (FPPU), Mitchell (Ind Lib?), O'Loughlin (FPPU), Peake (Ind Lib), Pflaum (ANL). I am so confused. Why did three of Butler's own MPs and two MPs from the ANL (!?!?) bring down Butler? The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the list! Have you seen how ECSA/Jaensch do their 1893 to 1906 results as opposed to UWA? Timeshift (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean. I have been pretty emphatic about arguing that UWA is not any kind of a reliable source for this era because they oversimplify things and don't explain their working such that it's impossible to replicate how they came up with their figures and who they included. And we've been discussing the lesser shortcomings of Jaensch, but at least Jaensch tells us who he's included in what dataset so, as with the two examples from the other day, we can pick out when he's stuffed up. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
So... are you saying we should change our 1893-1906 election article result tables? And then there's the issue where we've consensused on the LU being formed after the 1910 election but yet with Jaensch on the ECSA ref it specifically has September 1909 and treats them as such at the election... Timeshift (talk) 05:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I realistically don't think it's possible to definitively come up with party results tables when you can't define the parties. Jaensch's data is a bloody lot more accurate than UWA's, and we've found two errors in about three days of closely using it without even trying that blow out the reliability of his figures statewide. UWA's dataset involves making a rough guesstimate of who went where and then going "look, we have exact figures!" when they're really questionable. The case of 1905 is especially bad and amounts to just making shit up: franchise reform was a key issue at the election, but having an exact breakdown for two parties that weren't actually parties is just bizarre, in no way corresponds to the ANL/FPPU/IndLib division in MP numbers, and I have no idea who the third category is supposed to be. Jaensch still fucks up from time to time but at least has a serious crack at explaining what actually went down.
I would be a lot less opposed to using Jaensch's figures, but then we need to know about the cases where we know for a fact Jaensch to have screwed up: do we, ourselves, shift those votes to the correct column in the statewide vote, do we use data we know is wrong, or do we not use it at all?
As for the Liberal Union: they were in intense coalition talks and by September 1909 merger talks were well-advanced, but the claim that they actually merged is just Jaensch getting his history wrong again. They very clearly and in all sources went to the 1910 election as a three-party coalition in most seats under a shared "Liberal" banner, though they still ran opposing candidates in three seats, and formally merged in late 1910. Jaensch is a great political scientist and a great statistician but he's certainly not the best historian who ever lived. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
So we have to WP:IAR and do WP:OR to get it right? Are there any other apparent WP:RS? How about this... we include both results tables with some level of description to each? Timeshift (talk) 06:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
More or less. You could try and find party figures from the time, but I suspect that might be challenging because the party system was still pretty amorphous (look at the list of MPs who brought Butler down!). I think Jaensch is probably the closest there is to a WP:RS that we're gonna get because he's probably had to make calls that would be clear WP:OR for us to do to come up with his data. I am not terribly fussed whether we don't use that data, use Jaensch's data knowing that it's slightly wrong, or fix it ourselves and footnote it.
Also, I realise looking at the UWA site for this conversation that they're citing the same book source that Kirsdarke01 is going back in his results pages: if it's the book authors and not UWA making shit up, this is going to be a broader problem/conversation pretty soon because he's covered so much he's getting back towards the 1920s.
I edit conflicted with your edit about including both results tables: I am adamantly opposed to including the UWA data because as far as I'm concerned it's basically a work of fiction. I think there are a few options of dealing with the Jaensch data alone and am okay with all of them. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Answering your question from 1893: yes. I think it's extremely debatable to say that the NDL had 20 MPs as an actual party in 1893, but it's demonstrable fact that they endorsed candidates and who they endorsed, and reasonable to collate the amounts of votes those candidates collected. Talking about "Liberals" and "Conservatives" without explanation of the details was just shoddy research, and the necessity of having an "unidentified" category showed that they had no business pretending to have data that precise. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyone good to keep going adding affiliations to seat articles? Electoral district of Victoria and Albert is one! I wish I was better at tabulation :( Timeshift (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Frickeg is probably the man to ask for those. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@Frickeg ?
Also, I don't suppose anyone can find an image of Leader of the Opposition Robert Homburg? Timeshift (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
It's on my list. :) (The affiliations; no idea on Homburg.) Frickeg (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I ask about Homburg as he's the only early Opp Leader i've not been able to upload a photo for. Timeshift (talk)
Meet Mr. Homburg. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Timeshift (talk) 06:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

SA results pendulums[edit]

Yes, I'll start on the 1950's pendulums after I finish work on the 1950 SA election, I'll begin with that tonight. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


I used the same source as for the House of Assembly (it was all in the one article/page) but clearly mangled the referencing somehow for the Legislative Council. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you see if you can chase it down? Timeshift (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
It's in the House of Assembly list, correctly referenced - I don't have time to sort it at the moment The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Federal results pages[edit]

I'm thinking I probably won't get a start on helping out with federal results until I've at least done all the state elections back to 1950. It's just I've seen them as lower priority because the results are already on wikipedia while the state ones are mostly absent from the internet. But after I've got everything done back that far I'll see if I can get federal result pages up too. Also yes, I've noticed that too for the pre-1968 pendulums. Interesting too, how seats like Barossa were unopposed for a while but they turned out to be totally winnable for Labor in the 60's. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I dont think its that easily explained. Funny the sort of areas that Labor needed to form govt, unthinkable today - Chaffey, Mt Gambier, Millicent, Wallaroo, Barossa, Unley, Glenelg. Wow. Timeshift (talk) 09:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

SA Elections[edit]

It turns out the reason for that is that Dean Jaensch's publication says the Labor vote was 166,517 and the UWA site says it was 166,106, and that the Communist vote is different by the same amount. I assumed that Jaensch's number is right, but maybe the total number should be counted manually for the right one. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I've counted the Communist vote manually and it comes out at 4,827, which is Jaensch's number, so that must be the correct one. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, fixed. A few other discrepancies i've come across too. I wonder if there's more to be found. Timeshift (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

SA parties[edit]

@The Drover's Wife:

I've done the early parties on the SA electorate pages - could the two of you have a look over them to make sure they line up with what you'd expect? I know nothing about this period so any errors or oversights on the members pages will have been carried through. There are a few inconsistencies there which I wasn't sure about - a lot of people seem to have been in the NDL but then not in the ANL? I treated that as true, but then there are significant differences between the affiliations in Members of the South Australian House of Assembly, 1906–1910 and the pre-fusion parties given in Members of the South Australian House of Assembly, 1910–1912, with movements between all three non-Labor parties in both directions. I have generally ignored these last (i.e. kept them with their 1906 affiliations). If this is in error or there are any other bits and pieces that need fixing up let me know! :) Frickeg (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing up those infoboxes! I thought the bigger catch there was the Labor leader we missed altogether - to think we didn't even have an article on Edgar Dawes until your stub blitz a few weeks ago! The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, September 2015, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kevin Andrews and Non-binding opinion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abbott Government, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrew Hastie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Liberal & National Party Totals[edit]

Hi. Why is such an inadequate representation being used? The coalition agreement consists of the Liberal Party and the National Party. The Country Liberal Party and the Liberal National Party have no Coalition agreement with either party. Individual members choose (or are designated by state branches) to sit within certain party rooms and enjoy the rights of all other members. The impression of the Wikipedia articles under-represent the numbers and influence of both parties in the parliament. For example the numbers would imply that only 81 members could have voted in the last Liberal leadership ballot rather than the actual number of 102.. the number of Liberal MPs and Senators. The CLP in the Northern Territory is legally a division of the National Party, and the LNP (on the insistence of John Howard at its formation) is the legal Queensland division of the Liberal Party. They are the same party and as such have representation in the Federal Liberal Executive and in the Party Room. Given all of this it seems far more appropriate to cite the actual party room representation of the parties in the parliament as they define it and as the Parliament, which for example recognises Warren Truss as leader - and the benefits that gives, including how they are called by the Speaker in Opposition, and the Parliamentary website also refers to it so. Furthermore both party websites include the members of the LNP & CLP in their MPs. If it is possible that the leader of the Liberal or National Party not be a member as so defined by the current standard then it is clearly ridiculous. Furthermore why is this bizarre rule not similarly applied to the Labor Party and Country Labor? They are both different names used to elect members, including on ballots, which differentiate purely on location and branding, not the rights of MPs or their party as referenced by the Parliament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt1772 (talkcontribs) 17:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

We have tallied LIB, NAT, LNP and CLP separately for a long time. The LNP do run on a different party name, and get separate results/% after all. We count the LNP and CLP seperately as far as seat tallies go, which is a completely different and separate context to the Lib/Nat Coalition agreement. If you want to see if consensus can be changed please feel more than free to bring it up (once again) at somewhere like Talk:Liberal Party of Australia or perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


Hi. I have some issues with your recent redistribution changes. To begin with I do not think they make it adequately clear that this is a draft proposal. The commission has frequently changed its mind entirely by the time the final decision comes down, and I think including all this information gives the incorrect impression that these changes are set in stone (not to mention the language - "set to", etc.). I don't really agree with anything in Paterson at all (I mean, what relevance does Throsby -> Whitlam have there?) and I very much disagree with separate headings for this. Also the retention of federation names is a guideline, not a requirement. Overall, while I think it's fair to mention the proposed changes on the pages for Hunter, Throsby and Charlton (not Paterson), I think it should be limited to a small paragraph (two sentences tops), probably in the lead.

On a related note, I've often thought we need a better way to deal with redistributions. I wonder if it's worth having dedicated articles on them? That way all this draft stuff will have a place even when it'll no longer be relevant on the main seat pages. Frickeg (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Please feel free to amend as you see fit. I'm not sure there's enough sources and content to fill out an article. Timeshift (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Vic by-elections[edit]

Thanks, you're right, I have put the "not final" statement back in. I just spoke to VEC and Monday is the cut-off date for votes to be admitted for the count. I also remembered that the same thing happened with Gippsland South—they removed the references to the count being provisional and underway so I assumed it was final but they added 62 votes a week later. I don't think Antony will update his pages any further though, the ABC page for Gippsland South by-election did not update the results after the winner was declared. --Canley (talk)

Yeah i've found Antony to be less reliable of late when it comes to final figures. Btw, is it useful/relevant to say that VEC initially did a Lib/Nat 2CP? It's something that might be of interest immediately after the by-election but now we have distributed 2CPs, perhaps it should be removed? I just don't see a benefit to keeping the statement. Timeshift (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, fine to remove it. Antony also said that the figures were final on 18 March (which I think was why I assumed it was so). Can't blame him though because VEC don't say when the results are final, remove the update timestamp, stop updating the FTP feed, and declare the "result", but then add a batch of postals a week later. --Canley (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Leaders of the National Party of Australia[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Leaders of the National Party of Australia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Graham (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)