Talk:Electoral district of Gisborne

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Australia: Victoria / Politics Low‑importance

	Australia portal Electoral district of Gisborne 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Victoria.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Merge of Electoral results for the district of Gisborne

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

There is no point in having a separate article on the results as both articles are not large. The new article, giving valuable results on previous elections, should be merged here. Please discuss below. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Support as nominator. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oppose. I don't know if that would be a good thing. There's already hundreds of pages such as these already up. It has been standard procedure for the Australian Politics project to have results pages separate from the electorate pages no matter how small they are, since it gives room for the electorate pages to expand with information such as maps, redistributions, information about notable elections and sitting members. If this merger was agreed to, then it would be grounds for all results pages in the project to be merged to their original pages. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 09:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thoroughly oppose. To begin with, the results page still has another ten years or so of result to add. But the main reason is that if these move back to the electorate pages, they instantly dominate them - monstrously, in fact. This was the reason behind the original decision to have the past results on a separate page. This allows us to have the most "important" result - the most recent one - prominent on the electorate page and a nice place to store the historical ones. I also think it would be best to keep these consistent - i.e., all electorates should have a separate results page or none of them should - and there are unquestionably pages (like Electoral results for the Division of Werriwa) where the results pages themselves are almost long enough to split. There's no harm in having the two pages, and it keeps the pages about electorates (which should also be about geography, enrolment, etc.) from becoming glorified results pages. Frickeg (talk) 10:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thoroughly oppose. These pages were created because this information is way, way too much for inclusion in the main articles. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

There is clearly no support for this, so I will withdraw the proposal. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Add topic