Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics/Archive 2

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

Palm Island ACOTF[edit]

Hi Wikipedians, as you probably already know the Palm Island article has become the new Collaboration of the Fortnight, this article is in a very poor condition and yet is at the centre of many important Aust. governance and political issues. In 2006 Palm became a restricted zone for alcohol and has been at the centre of the latest controversy in Queensland politics where a Coroner and the Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions have come to opposite conclusions as to how an aboriginal died in custody in 2004. There has been widespread commentary referring back to the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody twenty years ago and how statistics, policies and procedures have not changed in response to the supposed implementation of its recommendations. Lately the local Federal Member of Parliament for Palm Island said that the best solution for issues with Palm would be to shut it down and forcibly move everyone to the mainland! It will be a very interesting project to get involved in and watch it (with your help!) change dramatically over the next two weeks. Hope to see you at Palm! WikiTownsvillian 10:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Major party leader boxes[edit]

Legislative..?[edit]

At what point was it decided that we hold "legislative" elections in the six states and federally? Legislative is a term normally applied to US elections. In Australia, they are referred to as "Parliamentary" or "General" elections. After all, we don't hold executive and judicial branch elections. I'm all for redirects to help our US-based readers, but if the United Kingdom can keep its local naming conventions, why can't we? Joestella 16:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ooooh dear, we could be in for a lot of renaming. I think you might be right. Rocksong 05:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to compile a list of "legislative" elections to be renamed "general" elections. I have checked the websites of each of the nine elections authorities, all use the term "general election" as one of or the sole official name for elections of all lower house seats. Needless to say, not one calls them "legislative" elections. I suggest that "general" be used in preference to "parliamentary", "state", "legislative" etc, since these terms would encompass by-elections.

Let me know soon if you have objections. Joestella 14:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Joestella 19:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
While I appreciate your efforts, this was a big change and I wished you'd waited for more discussion. I don't like "general" either. The SA electoral comission calls it a "State election". For the federal case, surely the most usual nomenclature is "Federal Election". Let's discuss this and get it right. Rocksong 02:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, that happened way too quickly. That's a lot of links that need to be fixed now. Please don't conduct mass moves without allowing for discussion (less than 7 hours does not).--cj | talk 03:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • There are only four kinds of elections: general, by, local government and constitutional convention elections. The terminology we use should differentiate between the four. "State" could refer to any of them.
  • Although we refer to "state" and "federal" elections in conversation, this is because any given citizen has only one state. Wikipedia deals with all six. According to the research I did before moving the pages, the formal terminology for an election for all seats in the lower house is "general election" - that includes South Australia.
  • There are no broken links as a result of the moves, but since every page needs to be revised as part of standardisation, that would be the time to check for links to the old "legislative" pages.

Perhaps I have acted in haste, but an editor isn't required to ask permission before editing Wikipedia. To demonstrate my good faith, should discussion come down in favour of another word besides "general", I'll make the changes myself. Joestella 06:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I realise it was all well intentioned. But now let's spend a few days discussing this and reaching a consensus, since it affects a lot if articles.
While "general election" is technically correct, it is hardly ever used in discussion. Do news items ever refer to the "2007 Federal general election"? Not to my knowledge. "General election" is only needed to disinguish from "by-election". But "by-election" is always used for by-elections anyway, plus there is no such thing as a "Victorian by-election" or a "Federal by-election", so I would contend that "general" is not necessary.
So my preferred format would be of the form "Victorian state election, 2006" for the state elections, and "Australian federal election, 2007" for the federal elections. Because that is what people, amd the media, usually call them. (Actually even better IMHO would be to put the year first, as in "2007 Australian federal election", but that doesn't seem to be the WP way of doing things). Rocksong 11:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"General election", a term used in legislation, is technically correct. "State election" is in common use, yes, but means something different to "statewide" election: even a by-election concerns the state level of government. At a national level, "general" distinguishes from the old half-Senate elections (both are "federal").

It should also be noted that Westminster democracies Britain and New Zealand use "general" on Wikipedia (though Canada uses "federal"). Joestella 15:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The usual terms for these others are "federal by-election", "state by-election" and "federal half senate election". I still would contend that the term "general election" is rarely used so we shouldn't use it either. As for UK and NZ: I think (a) UK and NZ are not federations (so do not have "state" elections), and (b) "general election" is the popular term in UK and NZ (unlike here), so is appropriate there but not here.
Anyway, there's Joestella on one side and me on the other. This affects the naming of a lot of articles and I'd like to hear some other opinions. Rocksong 03:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Back to the infoboxes...[edit]

Compromise for the 2007 NSW election[edit]

Elections infobox[edit]

Hare Clark elections[edit]

How do the proposed boxes cope with the Hare-Clark system employed for Tasmanian and ACT elections? Orderinchaos 19:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The Tasmanian and ACT multi-member electorate systems are not so different that the tables above do not convey an accurate picture. Voters vote (shown in percentage terms), and by various methods, those votes are translated into seats. The number of seats and majority party (if any) is the key piece of information in a parliamentary election no matter what the voting system. Joestella 19:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Election campaign articles[edit]

Flag of New South Wales.svg
Election campaign, 2007
Government Opposition
Party Labor Coalition
Leader Morris Iemma Peter Debnam
Leader since 2005 2005
Leader rating[1] 20% 80%
2PP rating[2] 55% 45%
Majority 17
Seats needed 0 19
Marginals held 5 13
Marginals avail. 11 4

The problem of mountains of poll data was raised in relation to the forthcoming NSW election. Perhaps the solution is this: an election article and a campaign article for each election.

  • [Jurisdiction] general election, [yyyy] would contain results, an explanation of the electoral system, and detail on any factors (redistributions, legislative changes) that impacted on that result. The page would also contain a brief (1-2 paragraph summary) of the campaign issues and messages considered to be most relevant. I think we should aim to create such a page for every general election held since 1901, at the very least.
  • [Jurisdiction] general election campaign, [yyyy] would only be created for future and recent elections, or past elections for which there is a great deal of available information. (No sense getting bogged down creating List of Alfred Deakin campaign gaffes and suchlike.) The campaign page would include leader bios, a summary of campaign materials, a summary of the main parties' platforms, polling results, who 'won' the leader debate and so on.

Roughly speaking, the first page is for psephology, the second for political science. Joestella 22:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

One thing about opinion polls: the level of detail reported by the pollsters is in some cases excessive for the purposes of an encyclopaedia entry. We don't need to know that if an election were held in April 2006, Roy Morgan Research reckons 0.5% of NSW voters would support the Christian Democrats. I'm not proposing a hard-and-fast rule here—and we should certainly make sure that the raw data is in some way accessible, perhaps on the talk page—but I think we can afford to be a little more selective in our reporting of data. Joestella 22:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Above, I've come up with an idea for a campaign article infobox. At the end of the campaign, we could tack on a "Labor win" or similar result row. Joestella 22:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the election article into "election" and "campaign" as a rule is overkill. It might need it if there is such a huge amount of info on the campaign that it spills over (as happened with the 2006 Victorian election), but otherwise I really see no point in doing so. Rebecca 06:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[Jurisdiction] general election campaign, [yyyy] would only be created for future and recent elections, or past elections for which there is a great deal of available information. That's what I said. A great deal of detail will be available to us for all future national, state and territory elections: such as month-by-month polls and party-issued campaign documents. Joestella 09:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I first became aware of it when a considerable portion of South Australian general election, 2006, a featured article which was deemed to meet all criteria in January 2007, was switched out of the main part of the article. DanielT5 alerted me to the creation of the WA 2005 article. My main issue with it is that firstly it is unnecessary, and secondly it can encourage over-dependence on trivial or faulty media reporting which may or may not have had any impact on the election. In Western Australia, where our media is at best biased and at worst completely compromised, this is a major issue. The West Australian was so chronically out on the 2005 election that the voters appear to have either completely ignored it, or voted in defiance of it. I'm not seeing a consensus to establish such a section in the above, and I'd have hoped to see more justification before making major structural changes to an article just after being featured by independent editors on Wikipedia - it actually puts its status at risk, which is unfair to the editors who worked hard to get it there.
Note that I am not discouraging ideas from being tried out - rather the wholesale implementation of ideas that have not been discussed or approved by a broad consensus of politics editors. Orderinchaos 04:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
This infobox contains a fair bit of original research and should be discouraged. DanielT5 05:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
How so? Everything I can see on there is either obvious or sourced. JRG 05:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Leader rating - unencyclopaedic
2PP rating - what on earth is this and who is it determined by
Marginals held - POV / OR
Marginals avail - POV / OR DanielT5 06:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps "leader rating" could be better phrased, but it is based on sourceable poll data from opinion polls on who supports what leader; 2PP is "2 party-preferred basis", which is sourceable poll data also; marginal seats are defined by the respective electoral commissions (well they are in NSW, where I come from anyway) by the percentage of swing required to unseat the sitting member. This is all sourceable data, and is definitely not original research. If you can show me something that is in the infobox, I might support you, but I can't see anything that would lead me to that conclusion. JRG 07:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Marginal seats are not defined by electoral authorities in WA, and the ABC ones are hotly disputed as "marginal" in a state context - some say 5%, some say 2%, some say 1%, some say 10%, and everyone has a case to "prove" it. Until a reliable source can be determined and an appropriate definition set, which I doubt, we should avoid contentious terminology. Also at state and federal levels, they mean quite different things due to the relative size of the electorate - more size = more diversity, and then one has to get into whether a seat is functionally marginal or institutionally marginal (yes, I have done first year Pol Sci :)). Also in the last WA election, one marginal switched, all others stayed with their respective party while one safe and two very safe seats unexpectedly switched. The case of retiring independents is also confusing as for the safe party to re-win the seat, a "swing" is not required. I tend to believe in "let the facts speak for themselves" and avoid interpreting as far as possible. Orderinchaos 07:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, i'd like to point out that citations have been provided that <5.99% is marginal, 6-10% for fairly safe, safe >10.01% for both the SA state, and the federal election. I am unaware of other states. Timeshift 07:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Where's that from? (I'm not disputing it, just wanting to see it I guess) - My interpretation of marginal is "on the margins", meaning that it would be within say 3 or 4%. The definition is meant to mean "a uniform swing will switch this seat to the opposite party" but I think like most political terms it's been butchered to death through misuse over time. (I'd agree that 10% should be the safe seat boundary, but that's OR on my part) Orderinchaos 07:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Page 13 of http://www.seo.sa.gov.au/election2006/pdf/Results_and_Outcomes_Booklet3.pdf "~ Marginal 0-5.99%, Fairly Safe 6-10%, Safe >10% swing needed for seat to change hands" and http://fadar.aec.gov.au/_content/How/newsfiles/124/index.htm "By convention, when a party receives less than 56% of the vote the seat is classified as ‘marginal’, 56-60% is classified as ‘fairly safe’ and more than 60% is considered ‘safe’." Timeshift 08:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

So long as the sources and definitions are provided, use of terms and concepts like two-party-preferred ratings, marginal seats and so on is fine. These are all in common use in the media and politics. Wikipedia has more sources than the WAEC. Joestella 07:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Joh Bjelke-Petersen[edit]

Can a few editors from this project take a look at the discussion Talk:Joh Bjelke-Petersen in regards to the 'Popular Culture' section. I am taking no further part as I have hit a wall. Rimmeraj 00:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Redistributions[edit]

Does anyone know where one would find historical boundary redistributions, in particular for SA? This is our current map, the previous maps can be found here, but for the 1992 redistribution they do not seem to be around. Timeshift 10:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably the State Library. I would try the Government Gazette for 1992 - often they have a file or a separate "Maps" section either at the back of the relevant volume, or as a separate volume entitled "Maps". Failing that, librarians should be able to get it for you off the serials or map stack. I usually keep my digital camera (with flash off, of course) handy for such occasions. Orderinchaos 18:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Question re AUSPIC photos[edit]

Having recently added links to the APH website pages for Jason Wood and John Alexander Forrest, I'd like to know if it is possible for Wikipedia to use the photographs from the APH website. They credit these photos to "AUSPIC", (email address auspic@aph.gov.au). The Copyright page for the Department of Parliamentary Services permits "personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation." Is this compatible with Wikipedia's rules? CWC(talk) 15:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't personal use, nor within an organisation, and doesn't allow images with non-commercial licenses. So, no. JPD (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Renaming of [/general election/] to [/federal/] and [/state election/][edit]

I encourage all editors to take part in a non-binding vote at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Western_Australian_general_election%2C_2005#Requested_move Timeshift 11:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not continue the similar discussion above, since the same arguments apply across the country? Joestella 01:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
OK lets get on with it here then - as the consensus among a very small number of us at the WA project was that we objected to Joestella's mass moving of WA election articles from Western Australian election - to Western Australian General election - and we felt that Western Australia State Election was far more appropriate - but it was pointed out that is was a national issue - so we need to nut our what all the other state elections are named as - so we have something to evaluate ! SatuSuro 03:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
They all got renamed indiscriminately to "general election" per WP:BOLD a month ago so that is still totally up in the air. Orderinchaos 06:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose per Joestella's reasons on the WA page. The former terminology was "legislative election", from the United States terminology (in comparison to, say, "gubernatorial elections" or "presidential election") that does not and should not apply for Australia. Joe is right to use the correct wording for Australian elections; if we become a republic and have a directly-elected president, I might change my mind, but until then Joe's terminology, which is the correct terminology, should stay. JRG 03:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support - Firstly, I feel that articles should reflect their subject to a neutral observer. Just because the Electoral Act refers to a "general election" doesn't mean we should - in fact, even the WAEC, as DanielT5 has pointed out at the WA page, use a random mixture of both. It is a state election or a federal election. As Satu raised, almost nobody in the general public knows what a "general election" is, but everyone knows what a "state election" or "federal election" is, and they are no less technical, specific or correct. One of the issues brought up when the SA 2006 election went to FA is that people outside Australia wouldn't understand that SA was a state rather than simply a region - this would go some way to resolving it. Most non-English speaking countries, furthermore, have a federal-state structure of some form, so it addresses CSB issues. Furthermore, if maintained in this form, the word "general" is completely redundant - the form we'd settled on, although have agreed to change, was simply "Western Australian election". After hearing Timeshift's reasoning, I could see the superiority of that suggestion over ours, as did others who voted on the WA page. Orderinchaos 04:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support State and federal (and lets not forget territory although they already have Territory in the title so probably can just be "election") is the correct wording for Australia as we have a federal government and six state governments and two territory ones. We should reflect common usage as far as possible. Factiva records 6,000 matches for "general election" in Australian papers, nearly all of which are in one publication, the Australian Financial Review and many of which actually refer to board elections (another reason why we should avoid confusion). Meanwhile State election has over 15,000 and federal election 18,000. Even WAEC and ECQ use "State General Election", and in internal publications within WAEC the term "State Election" is freely used, they have three divisions with hierarchical structure in their department, "State Elections", "Local Government Elections" and "Union and Non-Government Elections". As OIC78 said above not everybody outside Australia knows a full list of Australian states and some like Victoria or South/Western Australia are ambiguous or unclear. DanielT5 05:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • We're never going to have union elections as separate articles, and only the very notable Local elections (maybe like the Michael Lee vs Clover Moore City of Sydney election a couple of years back) that caused massive publicity would ever be notable at local level, so there's no point in making comparisons like this. JRG 05:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I wasnt suggesting we should, was more just putting it in perspective how the WAEC see it. in fact I'd oppose local elections because most of them are non events DanielT5 06:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Support as per original link above. Timeshift 06:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support, as I've argued above at #Legislative..?. While "general election" is technically correct, "state election" and "federal election" are also correct, and are far more widely used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocksong (talkcontribs)
  6. Oppose. "State election" is ambiguous in years that see both by-elections and general elections. "General election" is the correct terminology for the topic. Conversely, saying "state" is redundant when you've already said "Western Australian". Hesperian 10:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. My preferences, in order, are: 1) "<state>n state election, <year>", 2) "<state>n election, year", 3) "<state>n general election, <year>". I think all three are correct and unambiguous, so a selection between these is based on what we think conveys the most helpful information to a reader before they have read the opening paragraph which should explain whatever they didn't understand from the title or context. A byelection article is likely to have the name of the electorate in its title, not just the state name, and are extremely unusual in the same year as a general election for the same jurisdiction. I don't feel really strongly between these, they are all better than the somewhat odd-sounding "legislative election" form. I had to think about what that meant, but all three of these are instantly understandable. --Scott Davis Talk 12:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support "State" and "Federal" as both mean something to average readers. "General" is a default which only serves to differentiate from rare by-elections - which I think should be clearly referred to as such for clarity. Peter Campbell 23:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. "General" is probably more technically correct but not widely used or understood. Wikipedia should be about making it easy for our readers, so I think we need say "State" or "Federal" somewhere in the article name. The precise wording I don't have a view on. —Moondyne 02:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose general is technically correct. {jurisdiction} + {general/by-/half senate} + election, + {year} ChampagneComedy 02:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why we're debating this in terms other than what is the correct term. Every state and territory, and Australia as a whole, holds general elections under various electoral acts. General election is the correct term in the legislation that mandates these elections. Any other slang or popular terms could have redirect pages if need be. But all the guesswork about what an "average reader" would understand is pretty irrelevant - original research, in my view. Joestella 07:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

State or federal election is hardly a "slang term", nor original research, as it is a precise description of the event. A quick survey of the state EC websites:
  • SEO (SA) - State General Elections
  • WAEC (WA) - State General Election (singular, despite referring to the same plurality as SA)
  • ECQ (Qld) - State Election/State General Election (also refers openly to Federal elections)
  • NSWEC (NSW) - State Election 24 March 2007
  • VEC (Vic) - State Election
  • TEC (Tas) - House of Assembly Election (note: Tasmania does not have general elections)
  • ACTEC - Legislative Assembly Election
  • NT - Legislative Assembly Election
  • AEC (fed) - Federal Election
Bit hard to disagree with all but one of them - and that one exception rules out using general for that state entirely. Orderinchaos 08:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly what I said... the official body responsible for elections puts these things on official reports to parliament so they are official names regardless of what some 100-year-old piece of legislation happens to say. As I said the scrutiny sheets for Merredin (WA) didnt even include the word "general" DanielT5 11:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

the elections are held because of and according to what the relevant legislation says. just as our articles on seats are called "division of" and "district of" even though everyon calls them "seats", we should use the correct, official term here. this is an encyclopedia, after all. ChampagneComedy 02:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

They're not consistently called that across all states, but we've agreed that it's a reasonable term to use ("electorate" is actually the correct name in most jurisdictions, but electorate has two or three possible meanings - "the electorate" for example can simply mean all voters) Orderinchaos 06:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Order in Chaos hasn't done his research... tassie does have general elections if you read the electoral act. there are four kinds of tas election: "Assembly general election", "Assembly by-election", "Council periodic election", "Council by-election" See Electoral Act 2004, Part 5: Conduct of Elections ChampagneComedy 02:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Your point raises exactly the point I was making - Tasmania does not have general elections as per your list above. Orderinchaos 06:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. Somewhere in the middle Ok, this is pretty long winded and I just for the life of me don't understand why such a long-winded debate has occurred when the original changes were made without consensus. None the less there is an obvious need to come to a clear consensus on the matter so let's find one. Regardless of the names of the relevant legislative body(ies) in each state, can we agree on the term of general elections as regardless of the bodies name, all or a defined portion of the persons within in it are up for election at the same time. Name them State General Election YYYY or in the case of federal, Australian General Federal Election YYYY. If there's a by-election, they it should be named Seat By-Election YYYY, and for the half-senate only - Australian Half Senate Election YYYY. That sounds pretty simple to me. thewinchester 08:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm generally inclined to support this proposal, with the sole exception that I think federal should be simply "Australian federal election, YYYY", as it doesn't risk confusing those who come from countries where the two levels of government have their state/province and federal elections at the same time (South Africa and some European countries come to mind, there are others). For the two territories I think we should adopt the names that they themselves use, as above, rather than general/territory/whatever. I think with a clear consensus to move to something distinguishing, we should do so shortly, but should look for the best compromise possible on each of what I see as five different types of elections (State elec, Fed elec, Byelec, Half senate, Territory) Orderinchaos 09:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Senate-only or half-senate?[edit]

On a related topic, User:Timeshift9 has created articles for the four "Senate-only" elections. I believe the correct term is a "Half Senate Election", e.g. here http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1503152.htm in reference to the 1975 crisis. Googling abc.net.au, "half senate election" gives 59 hits, while "senate only election" gives only 2 hits. Googling gov.au gives 399 hits to 0. I'll rename them in a day or two if there are no objections. Rocksong 00:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As per Template:Australian elections, the only reason I named them senate-only elections is because those four had no lower house election. All senates are elected in halves, except double diss.. but either way I don't mind, just explaining my rationale :) Timeshift 01:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes I'm aware of that. Again it's a question of what is the most common/official usage. ("Common" being a relative term because we haven't had one for 37 years). If there's no precedent for calling them "Senate-only elections", then we should probably call them "Half Senate elections", because that term at least has some prior use. Rocksong 02:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
To some extent it is an issue of common/official usage, but the google numbers are a bit misleading, as most of the "half-senate election" references are taling about talking about normal senate elections in general, whether they occur on thei own or as part of a general election for the Senate and HoR. Whether it is best to use the non-specific term "half-senate election", only suggesting that it was not accomapnied by election of MHRs by the lack of the term "general election", or to spell it out with an uncommon/unofficial term is a more subtle question. JPD (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I've renamed them so they start with Half-senate elections were held in Australia etc, if you wish to rename the page it's up to you, i'm happy to leave as is, but I do suggest to leave the template as senate-only elections to distinguish the four from the rest of the elections that decide govt and the PM. Timeshift 14:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone has renamed them all now to "Senate elections", which is definitely wrong. Sigh. Rocksong 00:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not any more wrong than the other two options. It's jsut not very specific. JPD (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems I;m still learning. The referendum questions Australian referendum, 1977 (Simultaneous Elections) and Australian referendum, 1984 (Terms of Senators) both use the wording "Senate elections" when they refer to elections of half the senate. So "Senate elections" could actually be the most correct term. Though I still prefer the term "half senate election", and it gets used a fair bit. Rocksong 10:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I think "Senate elections" is the correct title - see United States Senate elections, 2006 as an example (and they only elected 1/3 of the seats then!). Aren't all elections "half-senate" anyway? Plus it just sounds silly! Number 57 10:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Who cares about the US? The question is what are they called here. And we elect all senators in a double dissolution. I still prefer "half senate election" because it is more descriptive, and I think it is more widely used, but perhaps I am the only one. Googling "senate elections" at abc.net.au and .gov.au it seems that, in the context of a half senate election (i.e. excluding sentences which are phrased to encompass all types of senate elections), it's roughly a 50-50 split. Rocksong 10:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
half-senate is correct, its different from double-dissolution and general senate elections. ChampagneComedy 02:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

1901-2004 elections[edit]

Would someone with the skills be so nice and kind as to go through the 1901-2004 pages to give it a copyedit? Timeshift 09:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

First, kudos for all the work you've put in, particularly the information directly relevant, such as dates, tables, percentages, leaders and links.
However... as a general comment, I don't like the idea of cut-and-pasting material from one article to another. As examples, large slabs from Australian Democrats at Australian federal election, 1977 or Australia Party and Liberal Movement at Australian federal election, 1974. I really don't see the point; if the reader wants to find out about those subjects, that's what the links are for. The articles should restrict themselves to the election and the election issues. If we don't know the issues, then leave the article short. So my first reaction when I see some of the articles is to take stuff out, though I don't know how popular that would make me. We seem to take opposite approaches: your approach is (or seems to be) full-blown (put in lots of background), while mine is minimalist (put in election stuff only, if you want the background click the links). I don't want to get into an edit war, especially since you've put in all this effort. So... can we reach a consensus on what should and shouldn't go in election articles in general? (And is the answer different for current/recent and distant-past elections?) Rocksong 10:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I've made some alterations and a lot of reduction has occured in the two mentioned. You can always make edits, it takes two to start an edit war but only one of us to back away from it :P I rarely get in to edit wars, if you exclude one certain user :-) Timeshift 11:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

IRV - when?[edit]

http://www.peo.gov.au/resources/history.html says 1924 saw the introduction of IRV preferential voting, this says 1918. Anyone know which is correct? Ta Timeshift 16:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Leader picture copyright issues[edit]

Here we go again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bob.hawke.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:150px-Ac.peacock.jpg on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_general_election%2C_1990 - they have been taken from the Parliamentary Education Office of Australia, who permit use for non-commercial educational purposes:

Copyright to material hosted on the Parliamentary Education Office Website is vested in the Commonwealth of Australia, unless specifically notified to the contrary, and is intended for your general use and information. You may download, store in cache, display, print and copy the information in unaltered form only (retaining this notice).

To the uploader: this tag is not a sufficient claim of fair use. You must also include the source of the work, all available copyright information, and a detailed fair use rationale. - all done. Suggestions anyone? Timeshift 08:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have always asserted that due to most politicians' inacessibility that fair use images should be allowed for them while they are in office (unlike a celebrity where you could take a picture easily, for example) - especially ministers in Federal and State Parliament. This should cover fair use and the replaceable aspect. JRG 04:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone willing to help me debate this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Paul_Keating.jpg ? Timeshift 03:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Adam Carr got lots of free images of politicians; they frequently make public appearances. There really is no good fair use rationale for using fair use media for living politicans. --Peta 03:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is - the fact that it is very hard to get near some of them to take photos. JRG 01:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Peta: that is, quite simply, nonsense. Have you ever tried getting a photo of a sitting politician? Adam was able to get some because he was a staffer to a federal MP - and even then, he managed to cover all of about five people. I'm fed up with people who never actually try to get images for articles preaching about how easy it must be to actually do so. Rebecca 03:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I have uploaded free images of hight visible politicians by way of US PD images; there are pics of these people available online - they don't normally add significantly to a wikipedia article. The fact is that people aren't even trying to get free media and are using fair use images for cosmetic reasons where free ones exist. Using an image in a box across a series of articles like the election ones, which seems to be the principle reason for wanting to use these old fair use images - simply isn't a fair use. --Peta 04:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
In any case, the Foundation's new licensing policy resolution puts an end to any suggestion that this matter is amenable to further debate. Hesperian 04:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
And what would the foundation know about Australian politicians? JRG 07:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
conversely, what would non australians know about access (or lack of) to former politicians? Timeshift 01:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
JRG, even if you can prove that the Foundation are utterly and irreconcilably stupid ignorant and wrong, they are still the Foundation, and what they say still goes. They have ruled that Wikimedia projects will not be hosting non-free images of living people under fair use provisions. End of story. It is pointless to continue this discussion. Hesperian 01:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Two party preferred figures[edit]

Hi ppl - does anybody know a good source for 2PP figures? http://www.australianpolitics.com/elections/two-party/2-party-preferred.shtml is good for federal, but when it comes to state, particularly SA, the only one I can find is http://www.abc.net.au/elections/sa/2006/guide/pastelec.htm which doesn't have the correct result for 1965 anyway as the ALP 2PP figure is lower than their primary vote and the same as the 1962 2PP. I had emailed Antony Green via the ABC site a couple of weeks ago regarding this but no alteration made to the page and no response from the ABC as yet. So yeah, anyone know of any other 2PP sources that would help me out with the 1965 2PP figure? Timeshift 20:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I know in WA, such figures weren't even calculated prior to about 1986, the electoral laws were different in that if a candidate got above 50%, the 2PP wasn't calculated for that electorate. There were also anomalies such as unopposed candidates in some seats (although this got increasingly rarer after the 1960s). As changes in state (WA) and federal electoral legislation broadly speaking kept up, I wouldn't be surprised if this is one of the problems in calculating a 2PP figure in other states as well, as few races were two-player and for some reason there was an awful lot more safe seats in either direction back then. Orderinchaos 22:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

referencing[edit]

How crazy is it that the articles on the minor parties are better referenced than the articles on the major parties?!?! There must be a hundred books and a thousand articles (and a lot more newspaper stories) written about the major parties and their internal workings. WikiTownsvillian 13:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Separate campaign articles[edit]

With the federal election coming up, it's worth working out whether and when separate campaign articles are generally justified. Otherwise, we'll just end up tripping over WP:OWN issues. That there is enough information for substantial campaign articles on elections held in 2001 and later is not in dispute, especially with sources such as Pollbludger and the Green Guide to draw on.

I propose the following division between the articles, where sufficient information exists to do do:

My reasoning is that the campaign article is a work of political and social science; whereas the election article is more strictly a psephological exercise. Put simply, the election article is the what, the campaign article is the why. Joestella 08:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


A previous discussion on the subject was inconclusive, being sidetracked by infobox design issues. You can read the whole thing above, but the key opposing points were raised by Rebecca:

Splitting the election article into "election" and "campaign" as a rule is overkill. It might need it if there is such a huge amount of info on the campaign that it spills over (as happened with the 2006 Victorian election), but otherwise I really see no point in doing so.

And by Orderinchaos:

it can encourage over-dependence on trivial or faulty media reporting which may or may not have had any impact on the election. In Western Australia, where our media is at best biased and at worst completely compromised, this is a major issue.

Without getting into the latter's problem with the West Australian, we did debate the issue of 'flash-in-the-pan' campaign gaffes and controversies on the New South Wales page. While this was a constant problem, the page remained up-to-date through the campaign month and was edited for POV and relevance a week after election day. The editors involved were broadly happy with the result. Joestella 08:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Tagging articles[edit]

(this following talk sequence has been copied from my talk page - User:SatuSuro- where it does not belong)

politics ratings[edit]

discussion moved from User talk:SatuSuro, User talk:WikiTownsvillian and User_talk:VirtualSteve

go have a look at your politics ratings - they are not composed right! - try asking someone - there are not that many politicians who have ever deserved that rating! SatuSuro 10:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

hey, sorry if I did the wrong thing, I figured all Government Leaders (premiers and Prime Ministers) would be either high or top rating to the politics wikiproject, remember we're talking about less then 10% of the articles currently with the political tag (which is obviously going to be no where near all of them. Anyway I will of course stop until I hear further, although as you've probably seen, I've almost finished the Premiers. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 11:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
looking at the lists now it's surprising how disproportionately many government leaders in Australia have first names beginning with J :) WikiTownsvillian 11:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


I am totally mystified no one else chipped in seeing they are across the spectrum of states.

Your should never proceed on such an exercise without looking to see if it works in the first two. It either causes you (or someone else tidying up after you) a lot of work.

|politics=yes |politics-importance=High

Nah that will never work.

|importance=high

might. You must check. Also go to the Politics prject talk page and ask - do premiers get 'high' importance. Always best to ask others first before getting carried away - cheers SatuSuro 11:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi SatuSuro, "|importance=high" is for Wikiproject Australia, I was rating for Wikiproject Aust politics... I don't think we're on the same page here. I was rating for THIS wikiproject rating system, not Wiki Aust... does this address your issue? Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 12:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Nah - cannot do - you have it for the project - and it relates to the standing in the australia and politics project at the same time. SatuSuro 12:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not for both...

Eric Willis is now of High importance to wikiproject Australian politics but not Wikiproject Australia same with all the articles I've done, the "|politics-importance=high" rating does not effect the Australian wikiproject, another example: Albert Dunstan is rated (and was already rated) as of Mid-importance to Wikiproject Australia, but after my edit it is now rated as of high importance to wikiproject aust. politics but has not changed the wikiproject aust rating. I hope this clarifies this for you. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 12:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Always best to find a third party with this stuff - never rely on one other editor - check, try someone else who is on - but I am sure it is for both. SatuSuro 12:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi VS, could you please look at my recent contribution list and the conversation I've just had with SatuSuro and let me know if I've done something wrong, I guess it would have been better to consult first, but it was annoying me that no one was rating for wiki-politics so I decided to be bold and start on it and I thought that all Government leaders at least post-federation would warrant either a top or high rating (top for prime ministers and high for premiers) to a wikiproject based on Aust. politics... let me know what you think. thanks, WikiTownsvillian 12:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Okay Alec - well I'm coming in sort of half way here (but I must admit I did see the initial discussion with you SatuSuro) - so I will stick my (it ain't glass) jaw out and do my best as follows
  1. I agree with SS on the rating (in most cases) for politicians - I would say Top was reserved for the absolute most important ones, EG Robert Menzies, John Curtin, Edmund Barton because they are critical to understanding Australia, High is for most Prime Ministers, John Howard, Bob Hawke etc, I say most because a couple of them only had the job from breakfast until morning tea (like the fellow after Harold Holt took a long swim) and they are not of high importance, Premiers in most cases (probably all) (but Don Dunstan and a couple of others might be an exception) are of Mid importance and all the other politicians would be low (except for perhaps the Don Chipp, Pauline Hanson types).
  2. However I agree with you on the possibility of double grading an article in the same stream of code (I think this is the converation you are having with SS) but I do not think you should be using this code - as for Eric Willis ... {{WP Australia|politics=yes| class= stub| importance= low |politics-importance=High}} but rather use this code in full because that allows the Bot's and the scripts to work properly...{{WP Australia|class=|importance=<!-- Wikiproject specific tags --> |politics=yes|politics-importance=}}

I have adjusted Eric Willis for you to show how it works. Now if I have missed the gist of the conversation somehow just call me a D*head and set me straight. I am posting to both so that we are all singing from the same hymn sheet.--VS talk 13:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

PS I'll just run the Bot through the table at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian politics to see what the tallies are.--VS talk 13:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi VS, fair enough, in point number one are you referring to wiki Aust politics or wiki Aust? I disagree with you on what is important to wikiproject Aust politics, but understand these things are done by consensus, should I reverse what I've done or wait for a consensus at wikiproject aust politics on how to rate leaders before changing it? Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 13:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
(after double edit conflict) Discussion about how the importance scale applies to WP:AUSPOL is better held at that project's talk page. Otherwise, Alec is correct with regards to the importance ratings being separate for WP:AUS and WP:AUSPOL, and has been doing a marvellous job assessing articles. I must disagree with Steve on including the hidden comment in the code; this is simply superfluous text, and insofar as I'm aware, has no affect on any bots or scripts.--cj | talk 13:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Again as I said before I am just in on the periphery of this (politics is not my interest in terms of assesment) but it is obviously important for me to confirm again that the part that CJ indicates above as superflous is most definitely not (I have learned via errors that are caused particularly with the script that he and I are both using from Outriggr) The break created by the comment allows the script to separate its taks and if not included the Outriggr script adjusts the importance for both the parent and the child project.--VS talk 13:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
To demonstrate good faith and so no one else has to tidy up after me, I am happy to put in the work to fix what I've done, whether that is removing my ratings or inserting script text, or whatever. I've achieved my initial goal of getting the ball rolling on sub-project rating anyway :) WikiTownsvillian 13:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't encountered such errors yet (is there a report somewhere?), but I'll take your word for it considering you have a far more extensive experience with it.--cj | talk 13:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, scrap that. I just looked through some recent assessments of mine and found this example of what Steve is talking about. Is this something Outrigger can fix in the script?--cj | talk 13:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment in reply to CJ... Thanks for confirming my comments. Don't want to clag up too much of this page with the outriggr stuff but as you know he is getting indundated with requests (not even including the big (read - good) one you asked for). I found that putting the code line in fixed the problem immediately.--VS talk 14:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm staying out of assessing politics too - but I really have very few problems with Alec's work tonight - it should be up to WP Australia to assess articles for Australia, and up to WP Australian Politics to assess articles for its narrow scope, as with WA, Perth, etc. If there's any issues with particular ratings they can be hammered out on that project's this talk page and changed accordingly. Orderinchaos 13:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Which is why we're now here – to work out what's important to this project. I also don't disagree with Alec's assessments thus far, but I'd like to hear why others do (if indeed they do).--cj | talk 14:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
(Somehow I completely managed to miss that I was in fact here. Long day. :P) Orderinchaos 14:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment following on from CJ & OIC - Alec is doing the best job he can and that's what counts. Assessments are always subjective and as I said just now to him - I suggest that we do them (I am doing the same for Riverina, Australia & Townsville projects) and if someone wants to debate or change the gradings later then so be it. Waiting for an absolute consensus is only leaving 1000's and 1000's of pages with no assessment at all. --VS talk 14:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have finished rating the post-federation State Premiers as of high importance and am now rating the pre-federation State Premiers as of mid importance, except for the first Premier of each state which I will rate as of high importance, any suggestions as to where to go from there please post your ideas here! Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 12:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been rating Australian elections where the Government changes as of high importance because they are generally going to be the more interesting and politically significant election and where the incumbents wins I have been rating it as of mid importance. This formula has unearthed a bit of a quirk. In the 1940 election the incumbent United Australia Party/Country Party defeated the opposition Australian Labor Party, and yet at the next election in 1943 the incumbent Australian Labor Party defeated the opposition Country Party/United Aust Party. One of these is obviously wrong. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 09:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC) - sorry scrap that, I see now it was a hung parliament and the indi's changed side in 1941. WikiTownsvillian 09:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ ref
  2. ^ ref