Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics

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

MP and WP:ACRONYM[edit]

I have been having a discussion with another editor at Talk:North Sydney by-election, 2015‎ over whether "MP" should be spelled out the first time it is used in an article. Here are the key points on both sides (edited from the original to focus on the issue):

  • "MP" is used to abbreviate Member of Parliament all over wikipedia, including the HoR article, election articles, individual MP biography articles, even previous by-election articles.... WP:ACRONYM also states "If there is an article about the subject of an acronym (i.e. NATO), then other articles referring to or using the acronym should use the same style (capitalisation and punctuation) that has been used within the main article" which would seem to support using MP.... However, i'm leaning toward it being something that would have to be raised more centrally, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics considering how widespread the usage is. It couldn't just be changed here in isolation. Timeshift (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "MP" is pretty well understood in Commonwealth countries to mean "Member of Parliament", but American readers are accustomed to Mp being used to refer to a Military Police office. Readers from other countries, especially those reading English as a second language, may not understand it at all. We can make those people click on the link in order to understand the acronym, or we could just spell it out for them. I am all in favour of brevity, but in this case it would cause many readers to lose comprehension.
What is gained gained here by not spelling it out?
I don't agree that the portion of WP:ACRONYM quoted supports not spelling it out as it specifies "spelling and punctuation". In fact, WP:ACRONYM says: "Unless specified in the "Exceptions" section below, an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses, e.g. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)." "MP" is not one of the eight listed exceptions. This part of WP:ACRONYM clearly supports spelling out MP the first time it is used in an article. (To be clear, I am not suggesting that it be spelled out every time.)
The Australian_House_of_Representatives article spells out "Member of Parliament" in the very first paragraph. As far as other articles are concerned (no examples were provided), there is always room to improve Wikipedia articles to make them easier to understand. Ground Zero | t 13:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
The issue here is that "Member of Parliament" is just not used in the way Ground Zero used it in the North Sydney article. It would be like referring to a CEO as a "Chief Executive Officer" in a similar context. You'll never find a newspaper article saying "so-and-so is a Member of Parliament"; it'll say they're an MP or the "member for such-and-such". It's true that it's not listed in the exceptions at WP:ACRONYM (there are more than eight listed, by the way, there are just eight under the first subheading), but I think it's reasonable to suggest it should be. (CEO is also not listed, but surely you would not suggest "Chief Executive Officer (CEO)" in all the various articles that refer to the phrase.) Frickeg (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
The first line of his Wikipedia article says that he "was the Member of Parliament for North Sydney from 1996 until 2015". His website says “As your federal Member of Parliament, Joe can….”
Hockey uses the term himself. In the Canberra Times, Hockey says about Bronwyn Bishop’s travel expenses "When it is an excessive amount of money or for inappropriate use the individual member of parliament has to explain it and the court of the people will make a decision." He used the term several times in this interview with Andrew Bolt.
Australian media use it: and
The Parliamentary Education Office uses “member of parliament”. Paul Fletcher, and other MPs, used it in speeches to the HOR on Hockey’s retirement.
From foreign media articles about Hockey: Canada’s CTV News; Thailand's The Nation; America’s C-Span
The question about whether Australian newspapers use the term is moot anyway: they are writing for an Australian audience. We are writing for an international audience.
Maybe the problem you're having is the capitalisation. Would "member of parliament (MP)" still be a problem? If so, I'd still like to know why, and why it is a bigger problem than not being clear for our international audience. I am getting the feeling that the argument is "Australians will understand it, so there is no need", which shouldn't be our priority in an international encyclopaedia. Ground Zero | t 17:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Ground Zero, you're clearly cherry picking. Timeshift (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Frickeg wrote: "You'll never find a newspaper article saying "so-and-so is a Member of Parliament"; it'll say they're an MP or the "member for such-and-such"." So I did find references. Lots of them - not just one or two. Ground Zero | t 17:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I think we are skirmishing at least three different topics here and maybe if we decouple them a bit, we might see things more clearly:
  1. the use of imprecise terms (MP). Generally when talking about an individual, we can and should be more precise. Tony Abbot should be an MHR not an MP. Since we should always know the more precise term for an individual, we should use it. The use of the generic MP really only relates to a discussion of a non-specific member of parliament as in "An MP must report any gifts valued over $50".
  2. the use of abbreviations. When I was young (back in BC - before computers), we were always taught that if you had to write something long in full the first time, follow it with the abbreviation in parentheses and thereafter use the abbreviation. And if we were still living in BC, then that is what we should be doing. But in the world of web/wiki we have hyperlinking, I think it allows the alternative of writing MP (or whatever) the first time and then just MP after that. This allows the reader who doesn't know what MP means to click on it and find out . Having said that, I would not use the link-abbreviated form in that important first sentence/para of the lede if it is important to the definition or notability of the topic. If we were writing a lede, I would hope that we would say "Joe Bloggs is a Member of the Australian House of Representatives" rather than "Joe Blogg is an MHR." (Aside I see no reason why we would use the imprecise term MP in a lede normally). But I see no problem with using the link-abbreviated form in a casual reference e.g. in the Smallville article: "On 25 April 2012, Joe Bloggs MHR unveiled a plaque honouring Betty Brown's 50 years of service to the Smallville Country Women's Association."
  3. the relation of body text vs infobox. In principle, the infobox is a summary and therefore contains only a subset of the information of the main body text (which isn't strictly followed in Wikipedia but the exceptions are usually simple facts that would not make exciting prose). But I would argue that if an abbreviation has been introduced in the body text, we can continue to use it in the infobox. But, because we have the ability to do link-abbreviations, I would tend to lean to doing a link-abbreviation on at least first use of the abbreviation in an infobox box because the infobox is presented at the top of screen and may be read by the reader before or instead of the body text. Since there is no visual space cost to the use of linked-abbreviatons in the infobox, there is no reason not to do this.

That's my 10c worth. Kerry (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

My other highly pedantic 2c worth is that there is a difference between abbreviation (a short form) and acronyms (a coined word from a abbreviation). The ABC is an abbreviation because we say it as "A B C" whereas NATO is an acronym because we say it as "nato rhymes with potato". But the written principles presumably apply equally to both. Kerry (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I still stand by finding "Member of Parliament (MP)" needlessly verbose, and I have no problems with simply linking the term MP. On the other hand, we might skirt the whole problem entirely by changing the wording. Either way, super minor issue and I don't think it's a huge disaster either way. Frickeg (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I think it depends on context. "Joe Hockey was the MP for North Sydney" should be "Joe Hockey was the Member for North Sydney in the Australian House of Representatives." However, "The Hon. Joe Hockey MP..."[1] should have MP wikilinked but need not be expanded, the same as if he was "Joe Hockey AM" for example. --Scott Davis Talk 12:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Scott's proposal is the most sensible. It:
  • reflects the spirit of WP:TECHNICAL: "Articles in Wikipedia should be understandable to the widest possible audience. For most articles, this means understandable to a general audience." and MOS:JARGON: "Some topics are intrinsically technical, but editors should try to make them understandable to as many readers as possible. Minimize jargon"
  • it is more precise than "MP", which is always good. Using the acronym "MHR" would ensure that you lose non-Australian Commonwealth readers, whereas "MP" loses only non-Commonwealth readers. Let's be inclusive instead.
  • seems to reflect Australian usage, as far as I can tell, although I confess to not being Australian
Is there any objection to following Scott's formula?
On other comments raised here, WP:ACRONYM allows an exception for post-nominals ("Joe Bloggs, MHR") which is consistent with Scott's "however": "Common exceptions to this rule are post-nominal initials because writing them out in full would cause clutter." I think the point is that a post-nominal acronym provides information that is incidental to the sentence, whereas using the acronym in the sentence to identify who a person is is information that is important tot he reader's understanding.
Some of the arguments here would be better raised on WP:ACRONYM, e.g., suggesting that it is okay to make people link through to understand acronyms instead of spelling them out. So I won't try to address that here. Ground Zero | t 15:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

As several people have pointed out, this is a pretty minor matter. I am not clear what Timeshift's objections are as s/he has not participated in the discussion since 22 December, and there has been no further discussion for five days. nonetheless, s/he quickly reverted my edit and accused me of "jumping the gun as it is still being discussed with no consensus formed". Let's make an edit to bring this in line with Wikipedia style and move on to other things. Ground Zero | t 03:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

A month has now passed without any objection to the change proposed above, and no further discussion. There has been ample time for anyone to bring forward any other arguments or compromise proposals. So I am not "jumping the gun". I will make the change, and if anyone wants to re-open the discussion, they can do so to obtain a consensus before changing it back. Ground Zero | t 13:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Federal Two-Party-Preferred-Votes[edit]

I have discovered a new source on two-party-preferred figures, both before 1937 all the way up until 1980. I notice currently that all the figures detailed on Wikipedia are obtained solely from Malcolm Mackerras. This site here I notice details Mackerras' figures, but also compares them to other estimates, including those of Adam Carr, Joan Rydon and Colin Hughes. Now most of these figures, especially those immediately prior to 1980 are similar, differing only by 0.1% or so. However in earlier elections there is a considerable difference in the vote, significantly so. This would affect some of the stats and facts listed here on Wikipedia. Now I do not know whose figures are more accurate, however I do know that with no figures prior to 1937 here on Wikipedia and with such difference in the vote, an interesting question is raised about how best to approach this prospect. Thoughts? Lord Wreath (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

There's a previous discussion on this topic here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics/Archive 7#Two Party Preferred Results Before 1937. --Canley (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Early Victorian parties[edit]

As my ongoing "stubs for MPs" project continues and I draw closer to the pre-party period in Victoria, I'm realising we've got very little in the way of coverage of state parties at this time. At the moment most of our articles link pre-1917 "Liberals" to Commonwealth Liberal Party, but I believe this was a strictly federal organisation and the equivalent Victorian organisation was the United Liberal Party. There is also the Economy Party (I believe a country faction?) about which I know practically nothing. Online searches are not availing me much so I'm hoping someone may be more knowledgeable and/or know some good sources to get at least basic articles up for United Liberal Party (Victoria) and Economy Party (Victoria). Frickeg (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I know absolutely jackshit about this era in Victoria, but I have a ridiculous amount of time on my hands at the moment and I do love a good research project. I will see what I can find. You are correct about Commonwealth Liberal Party - that was a user error that got rolled out at the beginning which we've known about for years, but which never got fixed because no one wanted to answer these questions. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Ugh, and I thought South Australia was challenging. So, first impressions digging through Trove:

In 1907 and 1908, it seems as if you've still got a "Ministerialist" versus "Labor" divide. There were various organisations running around endorsing candidates, but it broadly looks as if the ministry was broadly supporting candidates and they were mainly known as "Ministerialists" and I don't think I'd call any of the other groups parties by modern standards.

In 1911, you seem to have three anti-socialist organisations in the field, the Commonwealth Liberal Party (!), the People's Party, and the Australian Women's National League, broadly running as "Liberals".

You start to see talk of mergers after this, but in 1914 you seem to have the People's Liberal Party, People's Party, and AWNL. I'm not quite sure of what the deal was yet with the People's Liberal Party, but perhaps it was a semi-failed merger? There was definitely no United Liberal Party by that name in 1914 - every reference to this concerns a local alliance in Geelong that had successfully stood together for the federal seat of Corio. They seem to be more factions of a liberal movement that hadn't come together as a party but were capable of working together in parliament.

And in 1917, you've got the two competing Nationalist factions (the Liberals and the Economy Party), plus the addition of the VFU, and what seems to be a rump National Labor Party?

Which would make 1920 the first Victorian election at which the non-Labor forces seem to have formed an actually coherent party and not as confusing as buggery.

The obvious place to start would be to create an article on the state Nationalist Party, as tracing their history in depth would probably tell you whether it was worth having separate articles on the 1917 Liberals, Economy Party and rump National Labor. Also, tracing where the state Labor MPs went in the 1916 split for our article on that would probably help sort out that mess. For the parties in 1914 and earlier, I suspect it won't work to break down them beyond "Liberal" and "Ministerialist" for the election articles, but that it might be worth creating articles for the various groups as electoral leagues to help make sense of them. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Heavens above. What a mess. Thanks a ton for hunting it up though - you're the best.
I should have mentioned too that Adam Carr has some summaries up - that unfortunately contradict some of what you've said above. It's where I got the "United Liberal Party" name from - it was apparently adopted by Bent's group in 1907? Maybe? Examples of contradictions include the Bent and anti-Bent Liberals apparently forming a "united Liberal Party" shortly after Bent's death in 1909, and pretty consistent references to a "Liberal Party" after about 1907.
Some of the People's Liberal Party stuff may be to do with how we currently kind of skate over a lot of the history of the Commonwealth Liberal Party anyway - I seem to recall it went through a number of name changes and that "People's Liberal Party" was one of them. See, for example, our article on the Australian People's Party (a ghastly mess, but that's an issue for another time). Also here (referring to the merger of the "Liberal League" and the "People's Party", whatever they may be) and here.
Except for a whisper of an implication on James Weir McLachlan's parliamentary bio, the above is the first I've heard about a rump National Labor Party in Victoria. It isn't mentioned at all on Psephos, but I suspect that might be that site's usual frustrating propensity for over-simplifying party matters. Having looked, I've found some evidence for National Labor too. What this means for the 1917 federal election is anyone's guess (it has become increasingly clear to me that once our state coverage is sorted out there will need to be a near-complete overhaul of federal election and candidates pages, because we are oversimplifying something shocking right now). I also found this, which not only reinforces that National Labor was an ongoing thing, but suggests that it survived until 1920!!
The really frustrating thing is the fact that so many secondary sources have just skated over this stuff completely. I wonder if there is an old print source that would set all this out in at least somewhat coherent terms. In the short term, for the purposes of the MPs I think I'll press on for now, referring to them as unlinked Liberals or non-Labor as necessary (this seems hardly inaccurate at any rate). The elections for this period are mostly redlinks anyway - once I get back to that point I'll be creating those too, so hopefully those pages will also be useful for some of this information.
If anyone knows of any print sources, or finds any, I can make a trip to the National Library in a few weeks, so let me know. So far I have been largely thwarted by the difficulties of search terms ("Victorian Liberal" can mean a lot of things), but will keep looking over the next few weeks. Surely there must be some kind of general reference work on Victorian politics at this time - there certainly are federally and for NSW and Queensland. Frickeg (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I think Adam's fallen for the unfortunate tendency to simplify the bejesus out of early party politics. There was pretty clearly a liberal bloc from about 1907 (known as the Ministerialists in 1907 and 1908 and the Liberals thereafter), when the non-Labor forces decided to stop primarily beating the snot out of each other and focus on Labor, but I can't see that it was an actual party in any kind of modern context: it seems to be much more analogous to the informal blocs of 1880s and 1890s SA politics than the nascent parties of 1900s SA. It's a bit like the Kidstonites in Western Australia, where you had a kind of coherent bloc of people but not one that had any kind of party structure. In 1907, it seems to have operated as a mix of the ministry doing its own organisation in conjunction with a loose organising alliance of associated groups, and later on been a kind of mash of the parliamentary MPs and the associated organisations campaigning for people they liked. (For instance, we can start to determine party affiliation in SA from about 1906, whereas I don't think you could really say that MPs in 1914 in Victoria were "members" of the organisations that campaigned for them - just part of the loose liberal grouping.) I suspect you could be right about the Commonwealth Liberal Party: it wouldn't surprise me in the least if that had been simplified as well.
I saw the first article about the Liberal League-People's Party merger - my assumption on reading that was that the "Liberal League" was the former Commonwealth Liberal Party, and the "People's Liberal Party" was the probable result of that. The second article supports that, albeit with a part of the People's Party continuing on in the aftermath. What I might do to contribute to this is actually write up a proper Australian Labor Party split of 1916 article over the rest of the break, and map where the heck they all went in the aftermath - going over the mergers that created them in detail should hopefully clarify who exactly they merged with: determining what state the PLP and PP were in when they merged with the Nationalists might guide us as to if they need articles. I also agree about the need for a broader overhaul in going back to check these pages.
I'm really not sure about book sources: one of the things I discovered in SA was just how sloppy academics tend to get with this period. Even Dean Jaensch has written a number of things about early SA party politics that are provably not just flat-out wrong but way off, and his association with ECSA meant that some of it even wound up on their site. I would tend to disbelieve a lot of broad modern book sources unless they're significantly detailed about this period or can be corroborated against newspaper coverage from the time. One thing you might prove useful (besides a National Library trip that would be great) is - they have a significant but random collection of old Australian public domain books, and some of their histories might be more accurate as they'd be closer to the actual time. I know there's a few broad histories of Victorian politics, and I've got a few on my reading list, though I'm not sure how much they'll gloss over this period.
I don't think it's wrong to just go through and list them as Liberals (1911 and after) or Ministerialists before that until we bash out the details - it's still broadly what they were standing as even if there was no party at that stage. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been invested in this topic for a few years and I've made some tentative steps towards untangling the early and pre-party system in Victoria. I'm in Melbourne, so if you need any refs from the State Library of Victoria or local archives let me know. --Canley (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've got some material on the Liberal parties and Economy Party, so I'll try and set up stubs at least. --Canley (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
That would be terrific! The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
It certainly would - thanks heaps! Frickeg (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I found some of my notes. There is a bit about the "Economy Party" (a faction of the Liberals) in the article on John Bowser. I had also noted a reference from Trove around this time which gave a summary of all the principal political parties in Victoria and their platforms in The Age as of June 1917: Political Parties: The Struggle for Supremacy. It helpfully gives the apparent official names of these parties: The National Federation, The People's Liberal Party, Australian Women's National League and the Australian Labor Party. --Canley (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

There are a lot of articles from around this time talking about a proposed merger between the three non-Labor parties above (National Federation, People's Liberal Party, AWNL), as well the People's Party (which at the time seems to be quite separate from the People's Liberal Party!). --Canley (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
People's Party and People's Liberal Party talking about merging in 1913. --Canley (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Formation of People's Liberal Party from Commonwealth Liberal Party and People's Party in 1911. --Canley (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that, that's extremely helpful! Being that the first link is from 1917, I'm gathering the "National Federation" was the name the Victorian Labor splitters initially went by, which is useful. The main missing piece of that puzzle is when they came together as the Nationalists and how that fit in with the 1917 state election. Those two articles about the PLP and PP are really useful too, basically confirming that they did merge but a rump PP existed for some years afterwards. I feel like we could probably comfortably create a "People's Liberal Party" article at this point. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a summary of the party movements just before the 1917 Victorian election in Colin Hughes' Handbook of Australian Government and Politics, which if I remember correctly identifies the districts contested and won by the three "National" Labor dissidents and how the other parties formed. Hughes calls the Nationalist Party the "National Party" throughout the book by the way, and there are some other odd party naming protocols—as with some of the other academic works mentioned earlier, I don't generally take the party names in the Handbook as gospel. I don't have the book with me but I do have it at home and I will check tonight. --Canley (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually I did have a scan of that page with me. Here is what it says:

The 'Economy' faction of the Liberal Party led by Bowser contested the election as an independent group, and Bowser delivered a separate policy statement. The Victorian Farmers' Union, formed in 1916, also contested the election as a separate group. The Liberal Party, which gradually became known as the National Party followed the formation of the federal National Party early in 1917 (although it did not absorb any dissident Labor members), was supported by its three organisations, together with the National Federation with which three breakaway Labor members were associated. The campaigns of these groups were co-ordinated by a State Campaign Council.

The parties listed as competing are National, National Labor, Victorian Farmers' Union, and Independents (including one Progressive Farmer, two Temperance, one Independent Nationalist, three Independent Labor and one Progressive Labor). The three National Labor seats were: Bendigo West (David Smith), Gippsland North (James McLachlan) and Maryborough (David Weir)—Gippsland North was uncontested. --Canley (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
That's fantastic. I'm a bit confused about the "was supported by its three organisations, plus the National Federation" - which three are we talking about at that point? Do you know if the National Federation and National Labor Party are the same group? The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't that be Alfred Richard Outtrim in Maryborough? David Weir represented the Queensland seat of the same name. Otherwise, this is great information. Frickeg (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, yep, I looked it up on WP, forgot it was the QLD one! --Canley (talk) 07:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

There appears to be at least one other, later, Liberal Party we haven't yet dealt with too. Psephos has them emerging in 1924 and says they "split with the Nationalists over electoral redistribution". They appear to have been led by Oswald Snowball initially, with Alfred Farthing, William Everard, Henry Angus and Alfred Billson comprising the rest of the party. By 1927 there are only two Liberals: Billson retires, Snowball, Everard and Angus are now running as independent Nationalists, while Farthing is again a Nationalist but now loses to another Liberal, Frederick Forrest. The other Liberal is also a newcomer, Burnett Gray. In 1929 there are also two Liberals, Forrest (described as "Progressive Liberal") and Gray (described as "Australian Liberal"). Forrest died in 1930 and Gray was defeated in 1932 as an "independent Liberal". This is what Psephos tells us.

Looking at the Parliament website, Forrest and Gray are both described as "Australian Liberals", while the Snowball group [2] are simply said to have been "not endorsed 1924 after voting against redistribution bill, rejoined Nats". So far it seems likely that we have two separate groups, the Snowball group and the Forrest-Gray group.

However, the plot thickens. Here we have the Progressive Liberal League (formation here) saying they will support the Snowball group, and we will see later they are the same organisation behind Forrest and Gray. These are also described as "Liberals" as some sort of coherent group.

Fast forward to 1927. There is a new Liberal Party. This is the Australian Liberal Party and runs quite a lot of candidates, including Forrest and Gray. Forrest and Gray are also described as Progressive Liberals. In a wrap-up the Argus calls them "Australian Liberals".

And so to 1929. This associates the two as "Liberals". This describes them as "the independent metropolitan members, Messrs Forrest (Prog. Lib., Caulfield) and Gray (Aus. Lib., St. Kilda)." Here Forrest declares himself "not an independent" and describes the "Liberals" as voting certain ways. Here is Gray outlining Liberal policy. Here they are described as in concert. They are definitely given distinct labels (Prog Lib, Aust Lib) though.

In 1932, Gray is still described as a Liberal candidate.

As I see it, the main points I take from all this are:

  • There are definitely two groups here, and one of them (Forrest-Gray) was definitely a party of some kind. The other probably was too, at least in a loose sense, and both warrant articles. Australian Liberal Party (Victoria) could be an appropriate name for Forrest-Gray. Not sure about the Snowball lot - possibly "Progressive Liberal Party"?
  • The "Progressive Liberal"/"Australian Liberal" thing is a real mystery. What to do?

Any further suggestions? Frickeg (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Australian Labor Party (South Australian Branch)... should it be written as Labor or more obvious such as SA Labor et al?[edit]

Australian Labor Party (South Australian Branch) and Liberal Party of Australia (South Australian Division) have been created. I've done a vast amount of disambiguations already, however there are a few areas that still need updating that readily come to mind: Members of the South Australian [chamber], 1989–1993 articles and earlier, List of South Australian House of Assembly by-elections and the by-election articles, some current and all former electoral district articles, and articles of all state MPs who aren't current or weren't a major party leader. Additionally and preferably, new disambiguated template party codings need to be added for several types of templates, for example "| after_party = Australian Labor Party (SA)" for the "{{Infobox election" template. Does anyone have a bot/script they can use to speed all of this up? Timeshift (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

One thing with these articles - if you're disambiguating the MPs, can you not say "member of the South Australian division of the Liberal Party of Australia"? The "South Australian division" is completely obvious from the fact they're holding elected office for them in that state, and it's incredibly awkward wording. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
The reason I did the above wording is so readers can clearly and obviously see the link is to a different article than just Liberal Party of Australia which unless they hover over or click, they won't know is different article? What about "member of the Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division)" or something else? Timeshift (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm with The Drover's Wife here, I don't think it's necessary. They don't need to know it's a different article, any more than they need to know that Democratic Labour Party in Australian articles is not linked to the Barbadian party. Frickeg (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Not a fair comparison, the Barbadian DLP wouldn't contest the linked South Australian House of Assembly? Timeshift (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I can see why you chose to highlight it, but I think it is probably a transient issue. The set of people for whom it is an important distinction are the readers who remember having already read Liberal Party of Australia and would be interested to read an article they did not previously know about for Liberal Party of Australia (South Australian Division). If they are interested but haven't read the former, they will click through anyway and just end up at the more local article. If they think they know enough not to read the party history to understand what they are looking at, they won't click in either case. Once readers have a clue that there might be both state and federal party articles, they will hover over party names to see which it is, just like they need to now if they care which incarnations of National Party or Australian Country Party is linked. --Scott Davis Talk 06:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Scott. Timeshift: that was my point; no other Liberal party would contest the South Australian House of Assembly. Frickeg (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
But how would they know they are getting a different article to Liberal Party of Australia, which they wouldn't have for the past 15 years until now? Timeshift (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Why do they care? They're being taken to the relevant article, which is all that matters. Frickeg (talk) 07:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. Knowing the link will take you to a state-based article instead of presuming it would take you to the federal-based article would matter for a significant amount of readers. Timeshift (talk) 07:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I doubt it. The entire point of piped links is to avoid the kind of awkward wording that "member of the South Australian division of the Liberal Party of Australia" undoubtedly is. To construct an example along lines we use all the time, would you have us say, in Joe Bloggs' bio, "Bloggs defeated sitting member Jane Doe of the South Australian division of the Liberal Party of Australia", or "Bloggs defeated sitting Liberal member Jane Doe"? Frickeg (talk) 07:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Bloggs defeated sitting SA Liberal member Jane Doe? There's plenty of ways to shorten it. The point is, many would want to see the seperate state-based article, regardless of whether or not they've already seen the federal-based article, which would sometimes go un-noticed if both the state and federal articles are displayed with an identical name. Timeshift (talk) 07:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
No. "SA Liberal" sounds like a different party name altogether (i.e. NSW Labor, Victorian Liberal, NT Nationals). We're already saying that they're being elected or otherwise to the South Australian Parliament. This is the last I'll say here; I guess we'll have to see which way consensus leans. Frickeg (talk) 07:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Last I'll say except this: you really have been very thorough with a pretty unpleasant job - great work. :) Frickeg (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way (sorry just noticed this and not familiar with any precedents) why are words like Branch and Division capitalised in the new articles? Surely it should be Australian Labor Party (South Australian branch) and Liberal Party of Australia (South Australian division) or even simpler. Is there any evidence that "branch" and "division" are part of the legal name for either party? Donama (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they're the official names. See for example here, showing the AEC registered names. Frickeg (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
That reference (or the detail page [3]) looks like it should be Liberal Party of Australia (S.A. Division) (with "S.A." instead of "South Australian"). I think the next line that says the party abbreviation is "Liberal" makes it suitable for us to do the same in most cases where that makes sense. The state branch articles will link to the federal party article in the first sentence, so it will be easy to click through if the reader knows they ended up in the "wrong place". I agree with the other comment - thank you for doing the work of separating them out. I found the new article quite interesting. --Scott Davis Talk 09:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The abbreviated version is confusing and vague as shit for anyone not from Australia. We've got a perfectly good system (finally, after this issue stalling us for years about rolling out this badly needed set of articles) - please don't come along and bugger it up over semantics now. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree. Timeshift (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

In regards to my "SA Liberal" suggestion above, I note that at Australian Labor Party (New South Wales Branch) the article starts with "The Australian Labor Party (NSW Branch) also known as NSW Labor is the...", is that wrong...? Timeshift (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

No, but we also wouldn't use it to avoid confusion with Australian Labor Party (NSW). Frickeg (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
However, today's primary usage of the term "NSW Labor" is about the current party, not the former party. Just like the many links in articles to "Democratic Labor Party" which don't indicate if it's the current or former party, however if there's a current party of said name then it is the primary usage. Many articles don't go beyond the name only, and just in case, to clear any confusion with historical parties, we have articles starting off with italic headnotes, ie: This article is about the current branch of the Australian Labor Party. For the defunct right–wing Labor organisation that existed during the 1930s, see Australian Labor Party (NSW). and This article is about the modern-day Australian political party founded after the dissolution of the original party of the same name. For the earlier party, see Democratic Labor Party (historical). At what point did these headnotes stop acting as the main disambiguation indicator after the link hidden and contained within, say, Democratic Labor Party...? Timeshift (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the consensus above is fairly clear on just using "Labor" in these instances. Frickeg (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hold on, I raised very valid points in my last post and you didn't respond to them... why not? And there is certainly no "consensus above" on this. Yourself aside, I only see just one other contributor, ScottDavis, advocating just Labor/Liberal. This discussion and consensus remains wide open, and should certainly be the case considering the points made in my previous post. At what point did headnotes (see the two above headnote examples above) cease party/article confusion and stop acting as the main disambiguation indicator and after the link hidden and contained within, say, Democratic Labor Party...? Timeshift (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I again agree with Frickeg, for what it's worth. It doesn't need a disambiguation indicator (we pipe links all the time), is confusing (makes it look like they're members of some splinter party), and is generally unnecessary. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
This is the first you've actually stated you agree with just Labor/Liberal (from how i've read your replies here anyway) so thanks for the clarification. Timeshift (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I've come here from the notice at WP:AWNB. In my opinion, where the context is fairly obviously the SA branch/division, a piped link with just "Labor"/"Liberal" should suffice. If readers want the national articles, they can follow the links in the first sentence or infobox of each article. This also fits in with common usage of just "Labor"/"Liberal" to refer to the state parties (e.g. in the media, at least for local stories - for instance ABC 2014 election coverage). If the context isn't that obvious (perhaps a bio of someone who was involved in multiple states or also nationally), then some form of disambiguation in the text/link may make sense. For these cases, the wording The Drover's Wife near the top of this section would seem to be the best choice in most cases, rather than appending "(SA)" or the like (except perhaps in tables or spaces with limited width). - Evad37 [talk] 03:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, countless decade-long existing links are to Australian Labor Party or Liberal Party of Australia rather than just Labor or Liberal, which incorrectly has national/federal connotations. How about this compromise? Timeshift (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I have no problem with that edit to the main ALP article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I have no issues with that either. I do have a bit of an issue with this - section titles should not be refactored after so many comments have been made, especially not to such an obviously non-neutral (not to mention long) title. Frickeg (talk) 07:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Changes to list of Senators by period[edit]

I have started to create sublists for Senators in each Parliament by the date on which their respective term expires (see eg. Members of the Australian Senate, 1975–1978, since reverted by Frickeg). My rationale is that the sublists are more meaningful than merely an alphabetical list of all senators in a particular time period. Furthermore since 1975 these time periods have been stretched in the case of territory senators, as has the period following a double dissolution when senators' terms are backdated to a preceding 1 July. I understand that this change will have widespread implications in the style of related and similar articles, but one worthy of consideration. For example, it may be of greater user interest to know which senator's term expires at each election and which party they belong to. The next step would be to have a sublist of continuing senators (ie, those that did not need to stand for reelection). A straight list of senators merely repeats a list readily available off the official website. Enthusiast01 (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I think actually separating them into separate lists creates the impression that there is a greater distinction between different classes of senator than there actually is. It also means they aren't sortable as a whole, which is a dealbreaker for me - this is an absolutely vital function. On the other hand, I would not necessarily be opposed to a "term ending" column or something similar, which means that they could then be sorted easily within the existing table. This would negate the necessity for separate tables and I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) would cover all the functions outlined above. (My drafts page has some outlines of how I thought we might include more info in these lists, which include a similar idea.) Frickeg (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
A term expiry column may be a solution, as well as a possible colour coding. Enthusiast01 (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
A term expiry column solves this problem clearly and cleanly - it's what we currently do for the SA Legislative Council and it works. Enthusiast01's suggestion is a dealbreaker for me for the reasons Frickeg notes, and a colour coding is unnecessary. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that an extra column is the obvious solution.--Grahame (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Notional gains[edit]

One of the kinds of edits I revert most frequently on election result pages are good-faith IPs changing "gains" to "holds" (or along those lines) after there has been a redistribution (i.e. Dickson and Herbert in 2010, example here). Although I am staunchly against showing these as straight "holds", I can see how it's confusing for a lot of people. As such I want to propose that we adapt the coding to allow "notional gain" and "notional hold" as options; they are generally referred to as such and this makes things clearer for readers. Ideally it would be good if there could be a link of some kind in there so that "notional" is explained for the uninitiated, but I am not sure of a suitable target page and so would appreciate input here.

Possibly "notional" could also be used on new seats, but I am less sure about this. I would love to come up with a way to also solve the long-running disagreement about whether defections come into party holding (i.e. was Dobell 2013 a Liberal gain from Independent or from Labor? Was Kennedy 2010 a KAP hold or KAP gain from Independent?) but am not sure of how to do so. Frickeg (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the first paragraph is a great idea and if we can do that we totally should. I don't care enough about the second to wade into that particular minefield. ;) The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
For the first, Redistribution (Australia) (or some other suitable electoral article) could have a section added (say "Gains and Holds" or somesuch) that could be used to explain how gains and holds are determined in principle, then explain how those principles are applied for redistributions, and then for party swapping (surely if they are true principles, then it will all be obvious - famous last words). That section could be the target of the link. For example, Katter retains his seat but has changed party, could we distinguish between "individual hold" and "party hold" as clearly he's held as an individual but not as a party, so something like "individual hold/party gain". Demonstrating my ignorance of all of this, are gains/holds etc strictly relative to the previous election/by-election or does mid-term party-swapping come into it? And maybe there just need to be notes to accompany the "strange cases"? Sometimes a table just can't explain everything. Kerry (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)