Wikipedia

Talk:Gillard government

(Redirected from Talk:Gillard Government)
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Ianblair23 in topic Ministry
Learn more about this page

New Gillard Government article?

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please discuss this redirect at Talk:Rudd_Government_(2007–2010)#New_Gillard_Government_article.3F --Surturz (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Category

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We have no Category:Howard Government or previous Prime Minister's government categories. Category:Rudd Government has one item. I don't think they are needed. Doesn't anyone know a valid reason why we should have these? - Shiftchange (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Referencing

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Just under half of the current references on this page are bare urls. This is totally inadequate sourcing. Please include a date, author and especially title so that if the url changes the article can be found again. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is there a bot that can do that? I usually just put in bare URLs and eventually they somehow end up as proper refs. Unless some bored flesh person is filling them out... --Surturz (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
From my experience it is always best to create a full reference as you are adding material. I would suggest you bookmark the template page or make local copies of the templates which you most often use from WP:CITET. If your source is online, it is just a matter of copying the page title, author, date and publisher into the template. It only takes an extra minute or so and is definitely a good habit to acquire. From what I have noticed it is especially important when citing material from News Limited publications as the url tends to change more than other websites. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Inclusion of opinion polling?

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

There was some opinion poll text here yesterday that I edited to replace it with polling from a credible source (since it was previously citing opt-in polling), and it was then removed with the message "remove opinion polling - WP:CRYSTAL - wait until next election". The removed text as edited was "Various polls in Australia have shown a substantial majority of Australians are against the carbon tax. For example an AC Nielsen poll conducted in August 2011 showed 39% support and 56% opposition."

It doesn't concern me whether information about the popularity of the carbon tax (or not) is included in this article, so long as non-credible polling information is not included, so I haven't edited it back in. However I do query the reference to WP:CRYSTAL. An opinion poll assessing what people think about an issue at a given time is not "unverifiable speculation" - it is a survey of current public attitudes. Even an opinion poll about how people intend to vote at the next election is not speculation or forecasting of a future event - it is a survey of how people currently state they will vote in a future election. Furthermore, it is often virtually impossible to unpick community attitudes to a single issue from the result of an election anyway - and indeed, that's where "unverifiable speculation" often really starts!

The line suggested by WP:CRYSTAL would be crossed if someone posted, for instance, "Various polls in Australia have shown the Gillard Government will lose the next election because of the carbon tax." Therealsleepycat (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Opinion polls are interesting, but they are not encyclopedic and have no long lasting historical relevance. Except for those case where the polls trigger events (eg the knifing of Rudd), my view is that they should not be included. Opinion polls are not facts, they are just a guess at how people might vote, or how much their vote might be affected by an issue - this is WP:CRYSTAL. There is also an issue of WP:UNDUE - we should be covering the actual issue (eg how much it will cost, how much it will reduce/suppress temperatures), not merely how people perceive the issue. Encyclopedias are for facts, not opinions. --Surturz (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the quick reply. WP:UNDUE refers to avoiding giving undue prominence to unpopular views. There is nothing in it that addresses (either way) the question of whether or not the general public reception of an issue is worth discussing. WP:UNDUE would be breached if, for instance, only five percent of the Australian population opposed the carbon tax and the article then discussed their reasons for opposition (especially at length).
There are many Wikipedia articles that are concerned with little but opinion polling and that are fine resources for those interested in upcoming or past elections. An example is Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2012. Opinion polling is frequently discussed in articles about recent and past elections because an expectation that a government would or would not win is often a relevant part of the history of that election, whether the polls triggered any clear events or not, or even if they turned out to be "wrong". Facts include facts about the general state of public opinion. It's the individual opinions that make up the polled sample that aren't notable and don't belong here, but the poll result itself may be a different matter.
The specific poll findings previously included here (even the useless ones that I removed) did not concern "how people might vote" or "how much their vote might be affected by an issue" at all, and nothing was inferred about the government's future in what was reported here, so the basis for concluding WP:CRYSTAL is not a correct account of what the poll questions actually asked. They were simply findings on whether people liked the carbon tax or not at the time of the survey.
All that said, the article is probably improved by the removal of mention of polling about the carbon tax at least from that section; it would be disruptive to include mentions of polling on every issue covered and there will be plenty of time to include a longer historical view on how the issue was perceived by the public later. So I'm tending to agree with the edit while disagreeing with the reasons given.
What about the "Popularity" section at the bottom? Should this remain? If it is going to remain I may improve it as, among other issues, it currently passes off opinionative claims of causation in cited sources as fact. If it is likely to be deleted I won't bother. Therealsleepycat (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
I've deleted the "Popularity" section, for the reasons I have detailed above. There was some mention of events (tent riot, Kev challenge), but these are already covered earlier. --Surturz (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Boat Arrivals image POV

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A discussion is underway at [1] about whether more detail needs to be added to the boat arrivals image to improve its POV. Please have a look and contribute. Djapa Owen (talk) 04:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

NBN roll-out performance

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to see the inclusion of how NBN Co mislead with its statistics for better roll out statistics but discounting connection fault issues which prevented actual connectivity to premises. 175.38.134.146 (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Certainly. If you can provide references to show that this is the case and that it is noteworthy then it can be included. Presumably you will also include how the Abbott government is stopping the roll-out of fibre to the premises and charging prohibitive instillation fees as well. Djapa Owen (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Gillard Government. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gillard Government. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gillard Government. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 26 January 2022

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago11 comments9 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There seems to be consensus that "government" ought to be lowercase in this context; feel free to move some or all of the articles listed below for consistency's sake, as appropriate. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Gillard Government → Gillard government – I don't know why articles such as this one, Rudd Government, Howard Government, etc. have "government" capitalised. It's not a proper name; the prime minister's name is just a descriptive term for describing a particular term of government and associated actions, events, etc. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I would say that all of those should be moved. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
I have notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics and Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board regarding this discussion. SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. As per nom. I believe news articles also quote governments with lower case "g". Even Hansard quotes "Morrison government" with a lower case "g". A thorough search through years of Hansard may have to justify that this is the official casing of the letter "g". Marcnut1996 (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Support The Australian Government's own style guide states that is not capitalised as a general noun, and only capitalised when paired with Australian. Stephen 01:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment - FWIW, there's no consistency among the UK & other Commonwealth realms, concerning how to present these types of articles. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. It is a descriptive phrase sometimes capitalised for significance or importance but it is not "necessary" per MOS:CAPS and not capped in a substanial majotity of sources per this n-gram. See also WP:SIGCAPS. The older they are, the more likely particular governments are to be capitalised, since this reflects the changing trend to (not) use caps for significance. That is why there won't be consistency. We could always make the decision to generally apply lowercase for consistency. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ministry

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

For consistency, having correctly uncapitalised 'government' in context, how about doing the same to 'Ministry' in this and other articles? Bjenks (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bjenks - I have been working my way through these for the past few days, and as you were writing that! (Just did Keating and Howard ministries.) All very tedious but doesn't take too long once you have a group open and ready to publish one after another. Hopefully someone else will help with this task! (I think I've covered all of them back to Hawke now, and the main incoming links - but cannot undertake doing all of the latter. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
p.s. After a bit more tidying, think I've covered back to Whitlam - governments, ministries and their DAB pages. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Bravo! I'd love to help but am knee-deep at present. Bjenks (talk) 07:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hi all, I have just finished moving the remaining pages. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gillard_government&oldid=1201658937"