Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

SA articles

I'm not very familiar with the politics of South Australia, but there seems to me to be an element of the soap box in Stashed Cash and Budget and Finance Committee, which have recently been added by User:Dgdotcom.--Grahame (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI - both are only linked to from the Rob Lucas article. Timeshift (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Googling, and I'm only finding it on SA Liberal MPs' websites, with the occasional reference elsewhere. It's clear that "commonly known as" means in this case "commonly known amongst the SA Liberal frontbench as". Orderinchaos 10:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone may wish to check the edits of 203.166.27.228 (talk · contribs) - it resolves as "host228.parliament.sa.gov.au". Orderinchaos 10:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Problems at Jon Stanhope

This continual uncited, completely WP:POV rubbish needs dealing with. Random IPs just won't cease. Perhaps a semi-protect is warranted? Timeshift (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ruth Russell

I've uploaded an image that i'm pretty sure is her but there's no name to make sure this is the case. Anyone dispute that this is not an image of RR? Timeshift (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not me. Compared with her photo on her website, it looks legit. - 52 Pickup (deal) 09:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That's her alright. I've met her a few times. --Roisterer (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Electorate articles

An editor has decided that articles on electorates in the Northern Territory look like lists and should therefore be classified on the talk pages as "class=list", rather than "class=start" or as stubs (I do not think any are better than "start"). See his response on my talk page. I will continue to correct these, but wonder whether he has gone outside the NT. --Bduke (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

He has, but I think that this is mostly a case of misidentification. As many of these articles (at the moment, in their embryonic state) are for the most part lists of members, the editor (who has been doing a great deal of commendable rating lately) has glanced at the article and assumed that they were lists without reading the entire article. I'm hoping that he corrects them himself; otherwise, I'll get to it. Frickeg (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

When I first looked at these articles I considered whether they were ever likely to make FA (as subsequently raised by Bduke) and I decided no, because they would be seen as too listy. I thought that it was just possible for them to be make FL, like such fine lists as Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 3), which have very compehensive textual introductions. I'm still of that opinion, but I have no objection to them being altered as suggested by Bduke, and in any event there will be ample opportunity to change their project ratings before FAC/FLC becomes relevant.--Grahame (talk) 07:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at, for example, Perth or, for one in a somewhat earlier stage, Murdoch in WA to see what can be done with them. Orderinchaos 07:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

But they are only stubs :-). Or at least they were assessed as class=stub until I changed them. --Bduke (talk) 08:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The Queen

Why isnt the Queen in the Australian PM's infobox? Note her presence in the infoboxes of the UK and Canada. Would someone like to add her = )? Thanks --Camaeron (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

We had this argument before - the conclusion was to leave it out. In the Australian system it would be the Governor-General anyway, not the Queen, as the Queen beyond being the holder of the Crown has no link with the Australian system of government. But the consensus was on Australian articles to leave both out. Orderinchaos 17:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks for explaining...--Camaeron (t/c) 22:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

International affiliations

A while ago, the issue of party affiliations was raised, god knows where, and those who contributed agreed to keep them out. Someone on my talk page wants them back. It was agreed that although they were affiliated to the parties, they had little to do with them, and were non-relevant in the scheme of things, so the affiliations (Socialist International/Labor, International Democrat Union/Liberal) were kept in the body text rather than the infobox, in an attempt to keep the infoboxes as simple as possible. I maintain that the affiliation does not warrant being in the infobox, just because there is a spot for it and some parties do it, it doesn't mean we need to, per the regional variation issue raised in earlier infobox discussions over monarchy/gg/elections. Timeshift (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Bit of an odd one but as the international consensus appears to be to have it in (for example Liberal Party of Canada, Social Democratic Party of Germany, Conservative People's Party (Denmark)), and it may assist international readers to follow our political system, I'd rather leave it in unless a wider consensus emerges internationally on politics articles. Orderinchaos 17:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

International affiliations are important and relevant information (that's why the Infobox parameter was created!) and should be in both the body text and the Infobox, as is standard practice (examples: United States Republican Party, Puerto Rican Independence Party, Canadian Conservative Party). International affiliations may help readers understand the source of the party's beliefs, and they should not have to read the entire article to find this information. --Agüeybaná 17:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, such as why the Liberal Party of Australia would be in the IDU (with the CDP of Germany) and not Liberal International (such as the LP of Canada) which actually does say a lot about the LPA's ideological base. Orderinchaos 00:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with what appears to be the international consensus and place them in the infobox. If infobox size is the issue, there are a number of other things that can be fixed there - such as shrinking the font size and reducing the spacing, which should be done anyway.

The observation regarding the Libs' affiliation with the IDU and not LI is an interesting one. Expanding on the German case, while the CDU is a member of the IDU (and also of Centrist Democrat International), there is another German party that is a member of LI: the FDP. The CDU and FDP are normally preferred coalition partners, and, from my time here in Germany, the ideology of the Libs appears to be a mix of CDU and FDP which would have led me to believe that the Libs would belong to both IDU and LI. Again, interesting. 52 Pickup (deal) 07:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Should international affiliation be in the infobox or just the body text?

User:	Infobox	Body text
Timeshift	N	Y
Orderinchaos	Y	N
Agüeybaná	Y	Y
52 Pickup	Y	N
Total people supporting:	3	2

Election result tables

I know that this has been partially discussed previously, but I'd just like to raise it again with some new information. I'm talking about the tables on the actual election tables (e.g. Australian federal election, 2007). The UK uses Template:Election table, which I think could probably be adjusted to our needs. Otherwise, is it at least agreed that the colours in our tables should use the party colours templates (e.g. Template:Australian politics/party colours/Labor) so that they are constant across Wikipedia? Frickeg (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. Orderinchaos 10:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to change the colours, but not the tables, which I think may possibly be more contentious. If there's no discussion in some time, I may get round to changing them too. Frickeg (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Colour coding is really a non-event if the colours themselves dont change. Timeshift (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the colour coding. The reason I suggested the other change is to make the tables more compact and easier to use. If there's a template, why not use it? Frickeg (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Because I don't see the point. Templates are there to be used to decrease implementation time for new templates/pages. We already have perfectly functional templates with no complaints. Timeshift (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see at least two things Australia has which UK doesn't, and which don't appear to be reflected in the UK table: (1) two-party-preferred votes (because we use proportional representation), and (2) Coalition groupings. So I believe the table template is not suitable to our needs and shouldn't be used. However party colour templates are a good idea. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hence why Frickeg said it could be adjusted to our needs. I'd personally like to see a templated form - the current ones are nightmares to work with, esp when one has to do lots of them in one heap. Orderinchaos 03:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't usually too hard to modify them to Australian needs; I remember when Template:Election box was changed to accommodate two-party preferred. Frickeg (talk) 07:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would people agree to something without any examples knocked up? Timeshift (talk) 11:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess there's not much point in going to the effort of knocking up something without first checking to see the effort would be worth it. Orderinchaos 12:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

So we're at an impasse? Timeshift (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the consensus above was to develop something and see how it turned out. Orderinchaos 12:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(Futher discussion moved to Talk:Australian federal election, 2007)

DLP

Per this, the user changed the lead to favour South Korea, now says "Korea is one of only two with name "Labor" (not Labour). Other option is to make this page WP:D if u want." Comments at DLP talk page appreciated. Timeshift (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Looked into it - it's a minor party. Parties with the DLP name in Barbados and Brazil are much more significant. This user seems to have a particular issue with the spelling of the party - I've checked the sources and about an equal number spell it with International and US English, with no abiding reason (given it's Korea) to prefer the latter. Orderinchaos 12:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Division of Bonython

Someone's moved this to Division of Bonython (1955 - 2004). Could someone move it back please? Frickeg (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Frickeg (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Minister infoboxes

Having a look at this list of cabinet ministers, it is clear that a uniform standard is needed. What should be in the infobox, what should not be in the infobox. For example, do we need the Prime Minister listed in their portfolio? (but that's just me, i'm not fussed) Nationality? Spouse? Children? Alma mater? Occupation? The list goes on. Timeshift (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say: Prime Minister - yes (to relate them to the government they were minister in); nationality - no (they're all going to be Australian, pretty much); spouse - yes; children - perhaps (may bloat infobox too much); alma mater - yes; occupation - yes. Frickeg (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Liberal Party (1922)

What name should an article about the Liberal Party of the 1922 election be under? According to Psephos, this party ran in opposition to Billy Hughes and included elected members John Latham, Malcolm Cameron, John Duncan-Hughes, and Richard Foster. It's listed on the 1922 election page, but I can find very little information on it. What's to be done? Frickeg (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the party noteable? There are many pre-WW2 parties on the election pages without a wikilink. Timeshift (talk) 05:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but this one actually held seats. I think the only other parties that elected members to the House of Reps but have no WP pages are the Revenue Tariff Party and the Western Australian Party. It also illustrates the opposition to Hughes that caused him to resign the prime ministership in 1922. It was, for example, more successful than the Greens or the Democrats have yet been. The main reason I'm asking this is that when someone gets to making election results boxes for the seats where they ran (e.g. Kooyong 1922), there'll need to be a colour and a link. Frickeg (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hughes was forced to resign as a condition of the country party forming a coalition to give the Nationalists a majority on the floor. Timeshift (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

But the four or five members elected solely on a platform to "Get Rid of Hughes" surely exacerbated his situation. Frickeg (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it definitely deserves an article - the fact that our coverage of early political parties completely sucks is a bug, not a feature. Liberal Party (1922) sounds like it might be the best name for the article. It sounds like you've already got some basic content there, but I'm sure a bit more could be found if we raid the libraries and archives and such. Rebecca (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Another member: William Watt. Together with the others, he makes up the five mentioned in the 1922 article. Frickeg (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Some sources (e.g. Australian Dictionary of Biography, The First Century: Australia's Federal Elections since Federation (Aiton & Lane), and others) seem to refer to this party as the "Liberal Union" or the "Liberal Union Party". Does anyone have anything definitive on this before I create the article? Frickeg (talk) 05:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, as no one seems to have anything, I'll create the article at Liberal Party (1922) and it can always be moved if something conclusive is found. Frickeg (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Orderinchaos 07:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've linked the new page at Australian federal election, 1922 and at all five electorates where they were represented, although in the member tables I've called them "Liberal Union" to differentiate them from the current Liberals. I've given them a purple colour at the moment, as no other represented party has that colour, but of course if anyone has a better idea then they should change it. The article is short but hopefully gives some idea of their notability. Frickeg (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the Liberal Union? It was most likely affiliated in some way with the Liberal Union (1910-22) that I created for SA elections... can't see any issues with the existance of both articles though. Timeshift (talk) 10:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Divisions of SA, Tas

Should there be articles for the pre-1903 state of South Australia and Tasmania (where they voted as multi-member electorates), as in Division of South Australia and Division of Tasmania? It seems logical in order to place members of those divisions. Frickeg (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I raised this with Adam Carr while we were first writing the federal electorates some time back and I think the consensus was that, as we had a lot of other things on our plate, we could safely put it off for a while. It may now be time to write them. --Roisterer (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Frickeg (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Patrick Farmer

This page is currently at the above name, despite the overwhelming preference for "Pat Farmer" from almost all sources, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], and others. A Google search for "Pat Farmer" returns about 22,700 results, while a search for "Patrick Farmer" yields only 8,940, of which Wikipedia is the top. Seems logical that "Pat Farmer" should be the article name. Frickeg (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd shift it. Rebecca (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Should be Pat. Bush shep (talk) 11:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Now moved (and redirected).--VS ^talk 04:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

AEC website

results.aec.gov.au/13745/website has been taken down. I'm replacing all the links using AWB - the new site is http://results.aec.gov.au/13745/website (and the tails are exactly the same - so results.aec.gov.au/13745/website/blah becomes results.aec.gov.au/13745/website/blah) Orderinchaos 06:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Lang Labor

Should there be a Category:Lang Labor politicians (included within Category:Australian politicians by party)? I would say yes: they acted as a party for quite some time. I thought I'd mention it here first in case anyone has any qualms. Frickeg (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me, although the category page should probably say that Lang Labor wasn't the formal name of any of the parties. Rebecca (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Specific seat issues in elections

Is there a way, or any precedent, for a particular seat's contest within the context of a wider election campaign to get its own article? I'm ignoring Lindsay 2007 here as that was an article about an event, not a seat. Orderinchaos 04:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little unclear as to your meaning here. Are you wondering whether, for example, you would include a summary of National Ian Crossland's comments ("It's an unsuitable seat for a woman") in Division of Leichhardt? If so, I would say yes, under a new heading called "History", perhaps. There would need to be a summary of all major events in the seat though, probably along the lines of your own excellent work at Electoral district of Perth. Frickeg (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm hestitant. Perhaps an article like Specific seat issues at the Australian federal election, 2007 but I don't see how individual seat issues are noteworthy for their own wikipedia article. It's also a highly WP:OR area as there wouldn't be many WP:RS available for seat specific issues that fly under the media radar. Timeshift (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I get it! I agree with Timeshift here, but I think that a whole separate article is probably unnecessary. All of the info can probably fit into the article on the campaign. Frickeg (talk) 04:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What I'm saying is if a particular seat's campaign is actually notable enough to merit its own article, and coverage of it would unduly load its parent article - we have articles for by-elections, after all. I know of at least four situations where that was the case, and an encyclopaedic article could be written about it. Orderinchaos 05:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Do the four have enough WP:RS? Timeshift (talk) 05:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The parent articles are not very big, and are probably not serious candidates for overloading. I really think that all possible information could be included (a) in the electorate's article or (b) in the article about the election campaign. I can't think of any individual seat campaigns that are really that notable, with the notable exception of Bennelong 2007, but I think that that issue is covered in the Division of Bennelong article. Frickeg (talk) 05:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of the Electoral district of Geraldton campaign in 2001. An entire book was written about it, the contest alone (separately from the campaign as a whole) received significant media coverage, etc, and it had its own issues utterly divorced from the wider campaign. It would create undue weight issues in both Western Australian general election, 2001 (which I am in the planning stages of from-scratch rewriting) and in the electorate article itself, as it's had a long and interesting history (it was a foundation electorate so goes back to 1890). Orderinchaos 06:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't think it would fit in the Electoral district of Geraldton article? Frickeg (talk) 03:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The book itself doesn't establish its relevancy and if it's noteable enough to have it's own article. What media articles are around? That is the next place to judge the noteworthyness. Timeshift (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to Frickeg, an article about the size of the one on the Lindsay pamphlet scandal could *easily* be written about the Geraldton contest from 2001 from available sources (including, in response to Timeshift, between 40 and 60 news articles ranging from the Australian through to local cover-charge media). If it was to be written in ED of Geraldton, a seat going back to 1890 and interesting in many of those races due to its somewhat marginal nature and rather interesting MPs, we'd be stuck with an undue weight issue in my view. Orderinchaos 03:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone on Firefox 3.0 final? Infobox issues?

Exhibit A Exhibit B

Timeshift (talk) 05:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps upload a screen cap of what it looks like to give a clue as to where the problem might lie? Orderinchaos 06:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Those example links look pretty much the same on Firefox 3 as they do on the Safari browser. Firefox 3 and Safari both conform to W3C standards much better than Internet Explorer. Could the problem be that the page is formatted for I.E, when it may be better to format it for the more standards compliant browsers? --Lester 03:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, i've taken a dump of the two issues that only occur in Firefox 3.0, and cut them in to a single image located here. The problems exist on all election years that use that infobox. Timeshift (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Timeshift. If you are referring to the text up the right-side edge of the box, that's how it's been for years on both Safari and Opera browsers. I'm looking at the pages now on Safari v3 & Opera v9, and can confirm they also have text up the right side of the box, and the image on the left side of the box. One of the improvements in Firefox 3 was that it became more standards compliant, which has now made Firefox more like Safari and Opera. The problem lies with Microsoft's Internet Explorer. You could take it up with the MediaWiki people, but I think it would involve them changing the MediaWiki software to reformat the page if it senses someone is using the Internet Explorer browser. --Lester 03:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

On previous versions of Firefox, and still in IE, it looks like this, for both state/federal. Timeshift (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Candidates of the Australian federal election, 2007

I raised this issue a while ago on the talk page of this article, but it got no response, and I think it's quite important, so I'll raise it here. About six months ago, someone changed the table format in this article from the one still used on Candidates of the Australian federal election, 2004 to the one on the page now. While in general I don't think it's that much of a bad change, the problem with having the writing coloured (for the parties in the column headers) is that they can't be linked, and this I think is a serious flaw, especially in the Senate tables. I think I can safely say that an international observer would have very little concept of the Christian Democrats, let alone a real micro-party like Conservatives for Climate and Environment, and would welcome a link rather than having to search it in the search bar. As such I think the tables should either be reverted back to their original form, or the template being used should be modified. Frickeg (talk) 03:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I would have to agree with you there. --Roisterer (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WA Family First

There is a discussion happening (and a few reverts), as to whether 3 former One Nation MPs are involved in WA Family First, or whether they simply turned up for drinks at the opening night party, and disappeared again. Request some opinions from otherwise uninvolved editors. The talk page is here: Talk:WA Family First. Thank you, --Lester 02:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Albert Palmer

I'm confused about the federal member for Echuca 1906-19. The Parliamentary Handbook says that he was a Protectionist 1906-09; Psephos, on the other hand, is adamant that he was an Anti-Socialist, saying so here, here, and here (search for "Echuca"). On Wikipedia, we seem to have compromised and he's listed as an independent. Someone please help! Frickeg (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that the first two are both right. The Anti-Socialist Party didn't exist until 1909, IIRC. Rebecca (talk) 07:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No, he can't have been both a Protectionist and an Anti-Socialist. The Free Trade Party was renamed the Anti-Socialist Party in 1906. 1909 was the year of the Fusion.

I'd be inclined to go with Psephos, since it has Palmer twice defeating a Protectionist candidate. However, Psephos is internally inconsistent: it has Palmer as an independent here. Indeed, that's what the original Echuca article was based on, created by Adam Carr himself. Bush shep (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: it gets hairier. On the very same page, Psephos has the following:

Albert Palmer (AS, Echuca)

and

1. The election of Albert Palmer (Prot, Echuca, Vic) was declared void in 1907. He regained the seat at a by-election.

:-( Bush shep (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Other instances on Psephos: also an Anti-Socialist on the by-election page, again defeating member for Moira Thomas Kennedy (at least there's no doubt about him). However, he's also listed as an independent here, in the 2007 election guide. A Google search for ""Albert Palmer" Echuca" is not very helpful, as most of the information there seems to derive from Wikipedia. There's also another instance of "Protectionist" on the Parliamentary Handbook here. Frickeg (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be at a standstill. There is another possibility I've discovered looking at the 1906 election, but it needs to be verified because otherwise it is original research. There were a number of other candidates elected (including Agar Wynne, John Quick and George Fairbairn) who are labelled on the election tables as Anti-Socialists but have an accompanying note that says the following, using Wynne as an example: Wynne was endorsed by the Anti-Socialists but campaigned as an independent protectionist. He did not sit with the Anti-Socialists in the Third Parliament. Perhaps this is the answer? Frickeg (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Richmond/Clarence Greens

While working through Electoral results for the Division of Page, I came across (in 1996) the Richmond/Clarence Greens, who ran against the Australian Greens in Page (and possibly other seats) in that year. Apparently this particular Green group wanted more autonomy from the national party. Do they deserve an article and, if not, what should the election box say about them? At the moment they are listed as another Green candidate. Frickeg (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't think the party merit an article, but certainly the incident does - although where exactly is a very good question. Orderinchaos 01:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Admin needed to protect Steele Hall

Assistance appreciated. Timeshift (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

George Colbran election candidate AfD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Colbran to add your comment. Timeshift (talk) 06:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Nick Xenophon

Assistance would be appreciated - edits have been made to remove the fact that the Young Liberals, of which Xenophon was a member, rigged the election with false votes under various names on the roll, all cited. It appears according to the two Liberal sympathiser contributors so far that his editorship is noteable, but the fact the Young Liberals rigged his election to the position, is not noteable. Comments appreciated. Timeshift (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Nick was also "apparently" a founding member of the Young Australian Democrats back in the day. Unfortunately I have nothing in published form to back this up so one can't add it to the article. --Roisterer (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If you find a cite let us know. Timeshift (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

further

For the record another http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24066911-5014047,00.html for an excellent example of a canberra based journo either with a smelly wheelbarrow to push, or perhaps a larger than expected impairment in understanding what wikipedia is about SatuSuro 06:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Christian Kerr is the former chief national editor of Crikey. Orderinchaos 07:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe but the article is somewhat misleading - and potentially either sign of a lack of understanding what wikipedia is about or actually trying to slur - one or the other - in the newsprint pollies get tips on web of deceit - hardly a clever analysis of the issue SatuSuro 07:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Hmmm - he could have checked what had been actually writen about the First Fleet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for example - pretty early iteration (August 2002) said:

  The First Fleet was the fleet of sailing ships that brought the original settlers and convicts to Australia from England.

  Not as reported by Kerr:

  A couple of years ago, Wikipedia was a byword for errors. Its entry for the First Fleet probably went something like this: "The First Fleet arrived in 1878 under the command of Captain Philip Arthur. To commemorate its safe arrival the place the fleet first landed was renamed Port Philip Bay."

  Perhaps we had better scrap The Australian as a reliable source.
  The last line is just plain puerile

  Perhaps the Parliamentary Library will have to publish a tip sheet on something less controversial. A DYI guide to ethnic branch-stacking, maybe.

  I know about DIY - but DYI? - even the copy-editing is hopeless --Matilda ^talk 07:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

How could we? Australia's most feared jounrnalist? http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/03/1088488200420.html bah SatuSuro 07:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

At the elderly age of 43 (39 4 years ago) he should know better - scrap The Age as a reliable source too! Bah humbug to the lot of them --Matilda ^talk 07:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Now now, settle down. He is after all the first editor to expose this parliamentary library practice in mainstream media. Timeshift (talk) 07:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

He could have done a beter job - been funnier and more accurate. But I suppose it is better than nothing. --Matilda ^talk 07:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

He's not the be-all and end all. It's the first mainstream article on the issue. Give it time... Timeshift (talk) 07:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

For timeshift - Ok (1) he is not an editor he is a journalist - (2) print media (3) the info is about in various other media - as to what constitutes mainstream anymore is another question again and no doubt hours at a pub rather than talk space on wikipedia (4) get your facts right - at least thats what journos never do :) - cheers SatuSuro 07:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

1) Meh. 2) Online and in print. 3 and 4) It's on Landeryou's blog. Are you seriously going to compare that to a paper around since 1964, and owned by Murdoch? Whatever you're on I want some! :D Timeshift (talk) 07:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The job of a journalist is to get it right. Plus, he repeated the furphy "Last year the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet was linked to 126 edits to entries on subjects ranging from the children overboard scandal to Peter Costello." which suffers a different problem - factually correct but meaningless, because nearly all those 126 were to non-political articles. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd debate the first point - but thanks for the second SatuSuro 13:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

We should take it as a compliment that wikipedia is seen by pollies to be worth sanitising :-) --Surturz (talk) 04:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC) P.S. me learn to grammar goodly, I should. --Surturz (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Image bickering

I've changed my position, the image of Kim Carr here is now acceptable. Matilda believes it still is not. Input appreciated. Timeshift (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Discussion has been happening at several places but commons:Image talk:080040 - 015 Sen Kim Carr 24 Jan 08.jpg is probably the most useful though Talk:Kim Carr#Photo and User talk:Feadering#Photo are also relevant --Matilda ^talk 02:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Deletion discussion at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:080040 - 015 Sen Kim Carr 24 Jan 08.jpg --Matilda ^talk 05:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the fact the photo will stay as the source link is fine, I just wanted to express my disappointment that it is being disputed. My history shows I was against all the contributions from the staffer, image included, but once the image source link was created for wikipedia purposes I changed my position. It is a momentous occasion for the first Australian government cabinet minister (perhaps any minister?) to have an official image legally on wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• I am not convinced it is there legally and that is what the dispute is about. Interesting that the Minister for Innovation (or at the least his staff) doesn't even care who the photographer is (how do we innovate without individual creativity) and seems indifferent to questions of ownership and copyright. --Matilda ^talk 20:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Just like it's interesting nobody else here is kicking up a stink except you, as we all know the image can now be used without issue? This is getting real old real quickly Matilda. Timeshift (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As the source link from the Australian government and the wikipedia image are the same, and a cc-by-2.5 license is used, can people please add a keep vote here. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 06:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In other words the Government website lied before and was not a source of integrity for this issue of ownership. The Uploader showed either contempt or ignorance of the rules (and in fact the law) regarding copyright, permissions and intellectual property. Must be a great asset in the minister's office - innovation often relies on managment of intellectual property to encourage furher innovation.
However my major issue with the release has now been removed.
I did think though that Timeshift's note breaches Wikipedia:No soliciting of cliques - advice only for sure but advice that I beleived was often followed. --Matilda ^talk 06:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There is also a guideline that is relevant Wikipedia:Canvassing --Matilda ^talk 06:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've raised this image with the APH Parlimentary Librarian. She's indicated to me, in an unrelated discussion, that the Senators and MPs ask for, and get, consent to license their own material (their own parliamentary bios and images) for whatever purpose they want, so it sounds like Sen Carr can license the image this way if he wants. My only concern is that they understand that this means licensing it for use for any purpose by anyone because we don't do "only on Wikipedia" licensing and can't control downstream use. I'm just waiting for her to get back to me but I hope it isn't deleted in the meanwhile because some of us are trying to find constructive ways to work with the Australian politicians. Sarah 08:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

be nice if the Parliamentary librarian can give competent instruction in permissions and suggest they don't lie about who took the image ; give themselves creative commons license and upload it as public domain ... an ever so slightly jaded Matilda ^talk 08:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarah can you do me a favour and inform Matilda that we do not need to know the Author. The image would be valid regardless, as long as the image is the exact same on wikipedia and the official ministerial.gov.au site, and both containing the cc-by-2.5 license. As long as we have that, there is no need to specify any author, be it a person, AUSPIC/Aust Govt, or other. The fact its on the minister's .gov.au site means we believe it and give it the benefit of the doubt - correct? Excuse me if I feel there are ulterior motives, after the comment about the two Carr images here... Timeshift (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the photographer, whether they be staff or contractor, is recompensed for their efforts on the basis that they surrender copyright to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth can then license as it sees fit. Orderinchaos 09:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(after ec)Well, I think we usually ask for "author or the copyright holder". Usually the copyright holder is the photographer but I think in cases like this noting the copyright owner would be sufficient, but I'm not an image licensing expert and I'm really just guessing about that. You could ask User:Pfctdayelise as I also raised this image with her the other night, so she knows about this image and she's a Commons admin. Sarah 09:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Good news, guys. I've heard back from the APH Parliamentary Librarian and she said that she double checked and this image is not owned by the Crown but rather is one that Sen Carr commissioned himself from AUSPIC. So as a work-for-hire, the copyright belongs to Sen Carr and he can release it under the CC license if he wishes to do so. I've emailed Senator Carr just to verify that he is intending to license it under the CC generally and not just for use on Wikipedia and assuming that that is his intention, there is no reason I know of for us to delete it. I will report back if/when I hear back from him but I really don't think we should delete it at this stage. Sarah 14:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's already been closed with a resulting keep. We can give .gov.au the benefit of the doubt. Timeshift (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That's good, I'm glad it's been closed as keep. But we still need to confirm that his intention is to release it generally under the Creative Commons licence and not just for use on Wikipedia and that's got nothing to do with the benefit of the doubt but is about policy, so I'm still going to follow it up. Thanks, Sarah 15:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If someone signs a document do you then chase that person up later to confirm they agreed to what they were signing? If the Australian government on a .gov.au site decides to use a cc-by license then it is their own fault if they do not read the conditions, and being a government, it would be negligent on their part if they did not do so. By all means chase it up, but IMHO it is pointless. Timeshift (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There's certain minor, dotting-the-i's-crossing-the-t's things that need doing so that no staff or MPs ever have to witness a spectacle like that ever again. This isn't merely pedantry - some people did see fit to vote delete on that IfD, and we need to have something in place. I trust Sarah on this one - she knows what she's doing. Orderinchaos 15:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is no "meeting of the minds", then there is no valid agreement. So, yes, we do make sure if the licensing has been less than clear, as it has in this case, but it's far more easier to do so at the start, i.e. now, rather than waiting for later, when people's memories might be foggy and emails lost or deleted and so on. And it most certainly isn't "pointless". I'm not sure what your problem is. I'm not trying to delete this image, and I think that would be clear from my comments above. I'm trying to protect it from any further attempts to delete it. The likely outcome, and the one I anticipate, is that Sen Carr replies to my email and states that he does understand and that he agrees to the licensing, I then file his email on OTRS-permissions and the image gets an OTRS certification, which is only a positive and will help protect the image from any further queries about its provenance. Sarah 18:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem, I just see this image issue as black and white, both images match, both are on cc-by-2.5, and the source is on .gov.au. I highly doubt it will happen again as Matilda had ulterior motives. The other issue here is that by taking these steps it might actually increase the burden of proof required for some users in future cases. Timeshift (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"These steps" are not extraordinary but are things people already do all the time on Wikipedia and it's half of what permissions is on OTRS. I don't understand why you focus so much on the site being .gov.au - the image doesn't belong to the government, it was one that Sen Carr commissioned himself. If he wants to license it under CC then that's his business and has nothing to do with the government, that site is just hosting the license page, no doubt following what others have done previously. Sarah 02:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Read the deletion discussion. We give .gov.au the benefit of the doubt, as no joe bloggs can just upload to Carr's ministerial site. The image was specifically marked cc-by-2.5. Why the rest isn't history i'm not quite sure, it should be a textbook case. Timeshift (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

As a long-time volunteer on OTRS and the permissions queue, Sarah has handled *many* of these issues before, as have a number of our other Australian Wikipedians (eg Gnangarra). I'm not sure why this is even being discussed at this stage or on these grounds, as there's no obvious result to any of it. No matter who is right, nothing comes of the discussion - there's no outcome. Orderinchaos 04:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• From where does Timeshift derive "Matilda had ulterior motives " --Matilda ^talk 05:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Second line here. Timeshift (talk) 06:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes - we had a freely available photo - we didn't bneed to get another one at any cost or compromise to integrity over copyright issues - you seemed to be preapred to ignore all inconsistencies in the release of the immage to provide wikipedia with a phot that matched the minister's website. Why? Partisanship perhaps? It would seem that the desired object of some is to hav "nice" biographies, "nicely" illustrated with "nice" photos and it doesn't amtter whether those photos have been properly released or not. creative commons for example could not be released with "no author" --Matilda ^talk 07:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't particularly been following this debate but I'm glad we've ended up with a reasonable picture. I can't see an ulterior motive in questioning the use of a photo whose status was unclear, compared to a lower-quality but free photo (the one in the hat, looking left). The one in the hat perhaps has more character, the staged shot is a clearer representation of Kim Carr's features. Let's have no accusations of bad faith - this was a legitimate image discussion between the obviously free photo and the possibly free photo, resulting in the possibly free one being legitimately used. Euryalus (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Partisanship? What a total load of rubbish. I was the one to help Andrew Evans Family First MLC get his picture up and correct, and I was also the loudest one to howl down the Kim Carr staffer in both the article and the image and get the necessary people aware that staffers were acting upon that email en masse (in other articles too), the end result being news articles exposing MPs, mostly Labor, and one cabinet MP. Oh yeah, real partisanship here. Read my infobox on my userpage - I can and will be partisan on non-article pages, but articles themselves are offlimits - the project comes first. Timeshift (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Questions on electoral system

Bonjour,

My name is Julien Lamarche. I'm making contributions to the article on proportional representation. I'd like to better understand Australia's electoral system (especially concerning the Senate) and I was wondering if I could chat with an Australian about it.

I would like to use one of the following methods to chat, in order of preference:

1. IRC: jlam on irc.oftc.net (or your prefered network)
2. Y!: drjlamarche
3. E-mail / XMPP: julien.lamarche@gmail.com
4. Talk pages

jlam (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll take your questions. I've just logged onto irc.oftc.net as shepherd. Ask away. Bush shep (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all, I've had my questions answered jlam (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Bob Hawke

It was brought to my attention that the article doesn't mention Hazel Hawke in any more than a passing sense (in fact, only just in a passing sense - it only mentions that they got divorced!). Also the article on Hazel herself spends more time talking about her Alzheimers and her kids than her time in public life. Does someone with more resources on this want to rectify that? Thanks. Orderinchaos 19:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD participation request

For those interested, an AfD is in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randwick-Botany Greens. Timeshift (talk) 04:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"Federal MP's Tutored In The Art of Cleansing Their Wikipedia Entry"

http://andrewlanderyou.blogspot.com/2008/07/exclusive-federal-mp-tutored-in-art-of.html Jmount (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I restored a couple of deleted paragraphs to Mark Bishop's entry just yesterday. Bush shep (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting - the edits you undid resolve to "vp49.aph.gov.au". Orderinchaos 02:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually - whoa. This is only the tip of the iceberg, I suspect. Orderinchaos 02:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we warn IP addresses for WP:COI? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matilda (talk • contribs)

The IP addresses are the ones that are easy to see. The clever party hacks just get a username and join the rest of us.--Lester 02:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Which would explain the rise in newly registered users editting MP pages lately. As Andrew Landeryou put it, Game on. Timeshift (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Any particular directions we should be looking? (I must admit to not having many Federal MPs watchlisted.) Orderinchaos 03:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Not off the top of my head, no. I've had all current and some former MPs on my watchlist for a while now, they're edited more often than I first thought. Timeshift (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Basically looking for sudden peaks of activity after about 11am EST on 21 July. I found one, Donna01 (talk · contribs), who I blocked for edit warring and copyvio a day or two ago. Orderinchaos 04:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got a live one at Kim Carr. What annoys me is that these people replace the entire page with their own version, does not conform to wikipedia writing standards, contains no wikilinks, removes negative material cited or otherwise, and reads straight out of some official bio. Not to mention the constant image changes. How's this for an idea - GET ALL PARLIAMENTARY IMAGES ON TO A VALID LICENSE! Timeshift (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There was some dodgy stuff there, but I see you and Peter are onto it. Honestly, if they'd simply approach us and say "Blah and blah in my article is completely false, please remove it" we'd probably look at it and go "yes, we should" and do so. The plainly obvious censorship in some of these edits though is what gets me. Orderinchaos 07:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. But now we've got some fruit loop at the parliamentary library who thought it be a good idea to make MPs and staffers think its ok to make it a replica of their official sites, ignoring WP:COI. Timeshift (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The parliamentary library staff are ethical and intelligent. I can't see anything wrong with the advice given. Our worry is not with them, but with "fruit-loop" parliamentarians and staffers. However, what's new? We just bulldog them as we do with other 'vandals'. I don't mind watching one or two. (I've had a go at Mark Bishop already and will keep watching that one! Cheers Bjenks (talk) 09:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The email fails to make any mention of WP:COI - MPs and staffers should not be touching the articles related to them. The email is so misinformed, in this bit, it notes, and i'm quoting: If your entry is incorrect or contains inappropriate material you should immediately apply for semi-protection or full protection. This will restrict the ability of others to amend your entry. Timeshift (talk) 09:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that so many have got it wrong and only one or two have got it right (eg Greg Combet - credit where credit is due) suggests there is a problem with the advice as given. Orderinchaos 10:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The parliamentarians and staffers will just have to increase their numbers, so they can achieve consensus by outnumbering everyone else.--Lester 10:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm cross-posting this to WP:AN. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Any reason to do so? As far as I can see it is being adequately handled here. Ah, I see - by crosspost you mean notify. I thought you meant transplanting this whole thread. No worries. :) Orderinchaos 13:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Liz Penfold is another affected article. But the same user also tried in March. Timeshift (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this surprising to anyone? My feeling is we should encourage MPs to be open in editing their own entries. They and their supporters are going to do it directly or indirectly anyway. We should be looking at harm minimisation rather than trying to outlaw the practice. I'm not saying we should be encouraging MPs to edit their own entries, merely that we should be realistic and give MPs an acceptable way to change their own articles. Maybe encouraging them to suggest changes on their talk page or something. --Surturz (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI overrules your feelings - and they can bring attention to issues on their talk pages, that is fine. Timeshift (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• You can use {{subst:uw-coi}} as an appropriate templated warning for editors where you suspect there may be an issue--Matilda ^talk 04:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As I keep saying, editing rather than editors is the problem here. We have absolutely no problem with anyone of any kind editing here, we have problems in some cases with how they choose to edit. I'm sure politicians edit this thing all the time but we don't know because their edits are perfectly reasonable and within policy. If that is always the case, there'd not be a problem. I'm firmly of the belief about 90% of people are totally good faith and will do the right thing. However I also think that if there's going to be any risk of imbalance, it's the intellectually honest thing to do to declare one's hand. It does not have to say "This is Mr Joe Pollie", it could simply be "This user has a connection with the subject of the article Joe Pollie." Orderinchaos 05:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

And WP:BLP and in particular Wikipedia:BLP#Dealing_with_edits_by_the_subject_of_the_article trumps WP:COI. Even self-interested pollies shouldn't edit their own articles because it reflects badly on them. However, it isn't hard to see a situation where a pollie edits his own article due to poorly sourced negative content about him or his family. Is it a WP:COI violation if a Pollie is vigilant about reverting vandalism on his own page? I say no. I strongly agree with "Edits not editors" comment above. --Surturz (talk) 05:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

And those who edit correctly and by policy don't get noticed. It is the POV pushers and/or blatent copyright violators, eg Kim Carr. Timeshift (talk) 06:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Or more to the point, whoever is editing in his interests (we don't know and can't prove it is at his direction, he may be unaware.) Orderinchaos 06:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Roger Price is the latest to succumb. Has been listed here. Stupid bloody dingbat parliamentary library has no idea, I still can't believe their advice. To quote: If your entry is incorrect or contains inappropriate material you should immediately apply for semi-protection or full protection. This will restrict the ability of others to amend your entry. Timeshift (talk) 06:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That article was a bit sparse but certainly not in need of indefinite protection. I reworked it, it's very stubbish and bio-registerish, but others should feel welcome to improve it. Orderinchaos 07:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Politicians' Wiki entries altered (Sydney Morning Herald) Jmount (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC) This user definitely needs looking in to... there's a lot of censorship going on. Edit - oh, that's the parliamentary library IP. Still needs a good kick up the butt... Timeshift (talk) 03:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the feeling is mutual. Perhaps they also feel a sense of smug superiority that rankles with you? --Pete (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

When was the last time someone actually listened to your ramblings Skyring? I'm not surprised by your replies, considering your own COI that dare not be named. But the people who need to know already know. How was your 1 year ban by the way? Fun? Timeshift (talk) 03:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

roflulz - "But a Wikipedia administrator who goes by the handle Orderinchaos, who did not want his real name published, said protection is only applied in severe cases of vandalism or edit warring, and even then that protection is typically lifted after a week."[5] Timeshift (talk) 03:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Belinda_Neal&diff=228755375&oldid=228367544 Belinda Neal staffer? How long till the media pick that edit up! Jmount (talk) 05:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Bneal2008 Lol! Those edits really take the cake. I'm hoping it's a troll rather than a real live staffer. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If we can all keep an eye on the parliamentary library IP that continues to this day to make edits, that would be good. I've tagged the talk pages of their latest two censor edits. Timeshift (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

For someone with more time than I...

Vivaldi27's contributions might need some examination. I can't tell whether it's an issue or not, so am noting it here. They seem... rather obsessed with the Joh Bjelke-Petersen article and it doesn't look like they're enforcing NPOV. Orderinchaos 16:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just as an update, I reverted most of it as some bits were plainly erroneous (eg the 78/89 seats, that was the number of members of the entire parliament!), others censorious (eg the removal of the Koowarta case) and I couldn't figure out the bad from the good. This constructed diff gives some idea of the changes (for those going "huh" at it, the diff compares my latest edit on the left, which is largely a restoration of its 30 July state but incorporating good faith edits by other users such as Timrollpickering), with their last edit some five edits earlier. I have reason to suspect it is Steakknife but am waiting for a checkuser to confirm. Orderinchaos 17:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A checkuser had advised Possible for this account and User:Acij as being Steakknife, but evidence is not strong enough to say Likely. Orderinchaos 01:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Senator articles with {{Infobox Politician}} template seem to generally use the |office= parameter as including the party. I propose that this be removed to so that rather than saying "Liberal Senator for Western Australia" we just say "Senator for Western Australia" (for eg.). The party name is prominently and unambiguously displayed a few lines below in the |party= parameter. Example.

Justification: unnecessary noise. Senators represent their state and party affiliation is secondary (in theory). I've changed a few but thought I better raise it here for a second opinion before continuing. Moondyne 03:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Moondyne. The precise office people are elected to is Senator, or Member, not "Liberal Senator" or "Labor MP". For what its worth neither UK nor US politician articles include the political party in the "office" listing - both refer only to the actual office the individual holds. Euryalus (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, its not nearly as widespread as I thought and was mainly Greens which may indicate something. Moondyne 05:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I forget the name of the field, but there is a separate field for affiliation which should be used for that, rather than bunging it in somewhere where it's completely irrelevant. One cannot be sworn in as a "Greens Senator for Western Australia", for example. Orderinchaos 06:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. I recently made this very change to Natasha Stott Despoja. Bush shep (talk) 08:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Whizzing through a lot of current MHR and Senator articles thisarvo made me realise how many have no infobox at all. Its a shame as they really do improve the appearance. A mini-project to work on this may be in order. Moondyne 08:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If anyone's interested in helping out, see User:Moondyne/Politician infoboxes Moondyne 12:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ordering of Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet members

I count at least four different orderings of the Rudd ministry in Current Australian Commonwealth ministry, First Rudd Ministry, Template:Current Australian Cabinet, and Australian order of precedence. Normally, I would expect the order of precedence to be used, but that page is practically unsourced so I don't even know how accurate it is. The sole source at that page just says "Members of the Federal Executive under summons." The three listings at First Rudd Ministry seem to use almost the same order, though the PDF listing from the Parliament site is difficult to understand. Not clear whether there's some sort of logic to it all or just some sort of internal ALP pecking order.

In the Canadian counterpart, the ordering is clearly using the Canadian order of precedence, "which is established by the chronological order of appointment to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, then in order of election or appointment to parliament if for ministers who joined the Privy Council on the same day."

So which is it? Kelvinc (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: the Shadow Cabinet of Australia listing is also a bit off from the source link. Intentional? Kelvinc (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe the APH list is the 'official' order. [6] Bush shep (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Australian Greens

IP user insisting on clearly POV changes, admin intervention requested. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've protected it. They're trying to say the Greens are *not* a green party and are a "leftwing" (sic) party. While the Greens are definitely left of centre, they are part of a particular political worldwide development which is neither left nor right (the Canadian Green party for example is a right-wing party but they have the same "grassroots" ideal and would agree with our party on a lot of things.) Orderinchaos 02:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Nathan Rees image

I know it's stating the obvious, but if anyone has an image of the NSW Premier to be, it would be greatly appreciated. It was quite a feat gaining free images of every current Premier in Australia. Timeshift (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Assistance requested at Peter Garrett

New user insisting on his addition at this page, I had spoken to an admin last night when it first arose, and they agree it shouldn't be there. Regardless, the user's addition has been reverted, thus the onus is on him to gain consensus before it can be re-added. I however am unable to revert any further, as one more revert would break WP:3RR. Assistance appreciated, thanks. Timeshift (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Brian Deegan

I'd appreciate thoughts at Talk:Brian Deegan (politician), on whether the article title is appropriate. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

MPs/staffers cleansing their articles - the next installment

Bob Day is cleansing his article. Observation required. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Steven Ciobo is the next. And three images that are clearly not license acceptable. I've done way more than my fair share of clearing these articles up, i'll let someone else take the baton on this one. Timeshift (talk) 06:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the images from Steven Ciobo and I've asked the user to explain their claim to have created all three images and explained that "use only for Wikipedia" is not acceptable licensing here because of downstream use. No sooner had I removed the images with what I thought was a clear edit summary and portable Optus NSW IPs started restoring it. If they restore it again I intend to sprot the page. It would be great if others could also keep an eye on that page and maybe someone more familiar with Ciobo could check their content edits to the article. Sarah 11:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Simon Birmingham - MP/staffer keeps removing "He is a junior powerbroker within the 'wet' or moderate faction of the Liberal Party and is very close to South Australian 'wet' leader Christopher Pyne.", added by an IP two weeks ago. The user with the WP:COI then proceeds to inform via the edit summary that they are prepared to edit war over the removal of this. Thoughts appreciated. Timeshift (talk) 07:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The sentence should be referenced. If a source can't be found, then removal is probally justified. Jmount (talk) 07:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think someone said a while back "WP:BLP trumps WP:COI". In other words, unreferenced contentious material should be removed (or referenced), regardless of whether the person who raised it has a COI. Similar to the Kim Carr stoush. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My issue here is who is making the changes. Recent edit history of the article shows a complete re-write of the article and an edit-war-like mentality in that they will keep a contentious sentence out. This is the big issue of concern here. Timeshift (talk) 07:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

At least we know which one Bob Day is. The more cunning politicians get their friends / family / staffers to populate articles. You'll find that those ones will always want to delete content more than add content. That's what "cleansing" is all about. --Lester 12:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry TS, I didn't realise that User:Glenrockave had dropped in a dozen paragraphs of pre-sanitised biography into the Simon Birmingham article. That is not on, and we should revert most of it. I love the way s/he sugar-coats Birmingham's 2004 loss - "Georganas won by just 108 votes, or 0.06%" - and omits the bit about Birmingham losing the seat while most of the rest of country had a pro-Liberal swing. Gotta love those pollie biographies, but Wikipedia isn't the place for them. Peter Ballard (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Birmingham now has an image up and has the obvious license issues. Anyone else want to take care of this one? Timeshift (talk) 10:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The Parliamentary Library IP is edit warring at Malcolm Fraser. This must end. Timeshift (talk) 06:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like a matter worth looking into. Even reliable sources can be mistaken. Bush shep (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Privy_Council_of_the_United_Kingdom#Rights_and_privileges_of_members and List_of_post-nominal_letters#cite_note-pc-1 Looks like the IP is correct. Jmount (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Weird - I found several other sources using the PC. Orderinchaos 20:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

What the? Is this an attempt at vandalism by someone on the parliamentary library IP? Timeshift (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like it is meant to be a follow up to the last paragraph. Though why it was so poorly constructed is puzzling. Bush shep (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Bill Shorten is another. Timeshift (talk) 08:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Australian politics

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Rudd has a hit count of 31,000. How far back does it measure? Timeshift (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Blurry image or none at all?

Consensus is being sought at Talk:Quentin Bryce#Please don't remove the image as to whether Bryce's only known free image should be used. Contributions to discussion very appreciated. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 07:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Election infobox problem

Can anyone determine why this is happening with the election infobox? When I shrink the horizontal size of my Firefox window, everything re-sizes with it, and allows for a correct view of the infobox and results table. In IE, it still looks fine, but if I shrink the horizontal size, the example in the picture above occurs, and even if I re-size it to full screen, the infobox stays as it is. Is this a fault with the coding in the infobox? It was brought to my attention by Bjenks. Timeshift (talk) 04:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Australian political scandals - Stroganoff affair?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Is this really something that is noteable in the long term? Sure he was an idiot for bringing it up, but it just seems to smack of irrelevance/non-noteworthyness to me. Timeshift (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably not, but I think you'd be pushing the proverbial uphill to get it deleted now. Its well-written and sourced and is a DYK nom. [7] I know those things don't set notability, but they do influence some ppl at AfD ... Moondyne 13:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally argue it does not merit a Wikipedia article. It wasn't even an "affair" or a "scandal". WP:NOTNEWS comes to mind. Orderinchaos 13:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses the most common name --Flewis^(talk) 14:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This article clearly is written in encyclopedia style, adhering to WP:MOS guidelines. Choose a random wikinews article, and you'll notice the stark difference. --Flewis^(talk) 14:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd argue it only became a DYK nom because of the triviality of it. Did you know an MP complained about the size of a meal serving from the parliamentary cafeteria? How very encyclopedic. Timeshift (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The triviality of the matter itself, is the reason behind the notability. Google agrees with me --Flewis^(talk) 14:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that news/google articles somehow establishes noteability? Corey Worthington - enough said. Timeshift (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The style of the article's writing determines whether it needs cleanup or not, not whether it should exist. The subject determines that, and this one is beyond trivial. Orderinchaos 14:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(Taken from WP:N)

“ If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. ”

 Reliable secondary sources

 (that are) independent

'tell-ya-the-truth, I've seen borderline non-notable stubs with no references pass afd with less than this. --Flewis^(talk) 14:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

They should be deleted too. Note WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also note "reliable secondary sources" (as a basis of notability, rather than simply a source of general information about a topic whose notability is already established) is not tabloid journalism, and usually has an expectation of peer review behind it. The RS guideline specifically states, "credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" If it appeared in the Political Chronicle publication in the Australian Journal of Politics and History, I would consider it notable - like the survivalists' episode in 1986, which will make for a very funny article once somebody bothers to check up the sources and write it. Orderinchaos 14:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Things don't appear in the 'Australian Journal of Politics and History' overnight. That's where wikipedia comes in. This article is informative and comprehensive. I don't usually like to do this, but occasionally I'm forced to remind editors that this rule exists, and its there for a reason. --Flewis^(talk) 15:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Have we forgotten WP:BLP here? Also, making Wikipedia a laughing-stock is not, last time I checked, to quote IAR, "improving or maintaining Wikipedia". News Ltd and Fairfax have their own agenda - to sell newspapers. Ours is to document human knowledge. If you want to argue on first principles, there is simply no case for this article at all. Orderinchaos 15:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The same argument was used on Corey Worthington. IAR is not there to flaunt the guidelines. Quite simply, review List of Australian political scandals - a 10 year old could figure out which is the odd one out. So, two admins and myself for deletion, article creator against deletion. AfD time? Timeshift (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

1 question, in what form are the sources listed within the article unreliable? I'm not using any ol' newspaper serving woop-woop. The sources come from (multiple) credible and trusted national news organizations that serve the Australia's major cities. Sure we can't always use the "Australian Journal of Politics", but under your rationale, how can you prove to me that even that is "reliable"?--Flewis^(talk) 15:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As for WP:BLP, all the info listed within the article has already been made public. The only way this could violate BLP (in this case), is if I included WP:OR, and you're welcome to cross check the entire article to prove otherwise. --Flewis^(talk) 15:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The Herald Sun is credible and trusted? That's the first time anyone has ever tried to claim that to me. The couple of ABC and SMH articles cited (all of which come from a pair of days over a month ago) are really not a sufficient basis to build anything on - as someone quite familiar with the ABC's newswire and how it works, they release almost a constant stream of information to newswire, some of it even has major factual issues as there is no direct editorial control (they are usually very good at fixing it when notified, however.) The fundamental issue, however, here is that trying to find an interpretation of the policies that suits this article without any sort of wider big-picture view is simply wikilawyering. Orderinchaos 15:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In this case, the articles from competitive news sources corroborate - that's reliable enough for your average reader --Flewis^(talk) 15:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Flewis, he is not saying news articles from mass media cannot be used as references. He is saying that they cannot be used to establish noteability. Again, Corey Worthington. So your argument is based on a false premise. There is no wikipedia guideline you can use to give credibility to the existance of the article. Again, two admins and myself say non noteable. You say noteable. Get the picture yet? Timeshift (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Last time I heard, consensus wasn't achieved by 'counting heads' or wiki-status. --Flewis^(talk) 15:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at AfD. Whoever has the majority gets what they advocate. If a majority go for deletion in an AfD, guess what happens to the article? Timeshift (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I hereby suggest deleting the article: Australian federal election, 2007. Seeing as it's sourced primarily by tabloids, as long as I get a few admins and meatpuppets on my side, I'll garner the consensus to delete the article.--Flewis^(talk) 15:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

How about we take the two articles to AfD on the basis of noteability? I know one will gain a majority of 'delete', and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which one would get the chop... you still don't seem to get it - when noteability is questionable, you cannot use tabloids to establish noteability. Nobody is saying you can't use them to reference, but you cannot use them to establish noteability. In most cases, commonsense establishes noteability. Something lacking perhaps? Timeshift (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, - reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject do establish [sic] "noteability" (taken straight from WP:N) --Flewis^(talk) 16:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The same argument was used for Corey Worthington. I've mentioned him 3 times now, yet you seem not to wish to answer that. Why? Because it bursts the bubble of your entire article. Every media outlet reported on Corey Worthington. Was he deemed to be noteable? NO! Was his article, with many refs from many media outlets deleted? YES! Or did we not follow the whole Corey Worthington saga? Read up, and once you do, you'll realise you have no choice but to admit you have failed in establishing noteability. Timeshift (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The Corey Worthington situation, which lasted over two months if I recall in the media and got significant international attention as well (almost every major network had something on it), went through no less than 8 community processes, all of which resulted in its deletion despite vociferous objection by a minority of inclusionists. Orderinchaos 16:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, wikipedia's article inclusion policy basically boils down to ones personal opinion. But as I stated before, you could in theory delete any article you wished because WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Under your rationale of setting Delaney/worthington as "the benchmark for inclusion", you would have the ability to delete such articles: Children Overboard Affair, Cash for comment affair and so forth --Flewis^(talk) 16:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Corey Worthington had a majority for deletion. AfD does actually work on democracy. If an AfD has a majority for deletion, guess what - it gets deleted! How far do you think your WP:POINT articles would get at AfD? If you have no new legit argument to put forth, perhaps it is best you leave it be and the article will be scrubbed. Timeshift (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:POINT aside, sure you can cry righteous indignation! and point to the wikipedia-Delaney-saga, but unlike Delaney, the Stroganoff affair involved a formal senate resolution (barring MPs from raising such trivial complaints in the future) to the Senate, which, if enacted as law will remain a viable piece Australian political history. This article exceeds the notability of the Delaney saga, because unlike Delaney, all those mentioned within the article are inherently notable. --Flewis^(talk) 16:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I love the demonstration of WP:POINT in action above, but quite frankly, there are at least four gazettals, an Australian Political Chronicle and no less than 14 journal articles devoted to the topic alone, quite aside from the AEC website and upcoming printed report. Oh, and re meatpuppetry, it's interesting that you seem to think certain policies are inviolable and yet WP:NPA is tradable. I would ask you to withdraw that remark, as one on the floor might say. Orderinchaos 15:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You must have misunderstood my comment - This wasn't an accusation of meatpuppetry, just a hypothetical demonstration on how easy it would be to 'damage' the encyclopedia by redundantly citing wikipedia's 'policies and guidelines' --Flewis^(talk) 16:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Not an issue of counting heads at all. More an issue of eliminating a travesty from the encyclopaedia which no rule could ever be interpreted to allow, no matter how creatively examined. Orderinchaos 15:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also point out WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE are very closely related doctrines. Merely not citing OR does not ensure one does not fall foul of BLP. Otherwise, we would have no need for OTRS and other macro processes for people to argue their case to the Foundation. Orderinchaos 15:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The neutrality here is established by the media (sure they can write about whatever the hell they want, but when opposing news sources corroborate, then some element of 'truthiness' is established). There is currently no other place to obtain info for this article. Using the available sources, this article was crafted to remain as Neutral as possible.--Flewis^(talk) 15:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As a regular follower of media affairs in Australia, I could not disagree more. There's no "truthiness" here - the entire thing is basically one big UNDUE mess with a possible BLP component. I am still in disbelief at your having created a redirect from the MP's wife's name to the topic - were we not already in conversation I would have warned you about that on your talk page. Orderinchaos 15:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

So are there any new arguments to put forth as to why it should be kept? Nothing legit has been raised as yet. Timeshift (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how deleting this article would benefit the encyclopedia. As Orderinchaos stated, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - why not spend your time finding nonsense/pure-vandalism articles and sending them through Afd, rather than pursuing this mindless vendetta over deleting quality content that irks you slightly because its "not notable enough" --Flewis^(talk) 16:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As an admin and OTRS volunteer who occasionally gets the joyous task of dealing with MPs directly when they decide to contact us about this sort of stuff (and I must admit I've gained significant insight through that process into the real-world impacts of Wikipedia as a top-10 website), I take BLP and UNDUE very seriously indeed. I could be mean and note that "quality content" does not specify *which* quality of content, but I shall resist the temptation. Regardless, it is going to go. Orderinchaos 16:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

-

I'll start by saying thanks for this post you've just made Flewis, it goes to show you don't have any new argument to put forth, and indeed you too have doubts over the noteability :) Now, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS states that just because one type of questionable article exists, does not give another similar article any form of precedent for it also to be kept. Now why am I raising an issue over this one? Because I came across it in my wondering around. I stick to Australian politics pretty much. If I come across a non-noteable article such as this one, I gain the attention of others to add their opinions like I've done here. Sometimes they agree, sometimes they don't. In this case, everyone but the article creator (yourself) agrees that it is not noteable, per the Corey Worthington argument. News articles from media outlets can be used as sources, but do not establish noteability. Finally, I find it amusing you call it quality content. The fact everyone else agrees it is not noteable means it ISN'T quality content! Your reply states no new arguments, your previous arguments have been shot down, i'll just await the deletion, because going in circles using the same arguments, repeatedly disproven, including two admins, really isn't my thing. Timeshift (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

3 editors have commented in this discussion. If anything, the fourth, Moondyne, remained neutral. Whatever, No hard feelings if you felt that you were attacked. I'm off, real-life interevenes - I'll probably be back on wiki tomorrow. Notify then if you decide to take action. And, after all, It is just a web site for fucks sake. --Flewis^(talk) 16:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Moondyne: "Probably not" - if you call that neutral, I have serious concerns... and real life intervenes? Whoa. Seeing you've made 1000 contribs in less than 2 days, I must say, i'm in shock! Timeshift (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting thread. I won't rehash the arguments above except to say that Worthington was a quite different issue to this. The arguments put forward there and the close related to WP:BLP1E. I've reconsidered my view on this and am now inclined to support retention. I don't think the article makes WP a laughing stock at all—it may make some pollies that, but who knows. The affair was a beatup by the media of a trivial issue, but in the course of that it did gain widespread coverage and did result in a "probe" by the Speaker and a MP was castigated. Far lesser issues have coverage. My one concern is that the article isn't a veiled WP:COATRACK attack on Murphy. Moondyne 01:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue that it in fact already is that, and the creation of a redirect under Murphy's wife's name to the article (which I deleted last night) and the efforts to make the new page as visible as possible together with the high dependence on unreliable tabloid sources really don't suggest much basis for confidence. We need to be very careful how we proceed here, especially given our efforts since the Parliamentary editing situation to get the Parliamentary Library and other bodies which advise MPs to work with us rather than against us. Orderinchaos 01:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already removed some unnecessary editorialised comments. Moondyne 02:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Completely ridiculous that editors are wasting their time writing this stuff into wikipedia. --Surturz (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Care to take it to AfD anyone? That's the only way we'll find out if the community believes it should be deleted. Timeshift (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the substantial argument raised in favour of deletion is that because Corey Worthington's article was deleted, this article presumably fails notability requirements. - However this logic is inherently flawed, because this deals with an issue pertaining directly to the governance of Australia (which establishes basic notability), and contains subjects who are politically notable and well known. You simply cannot use Delaney as a benchmark for deletion.

Regarding WP:BLP is this article: as I mentioned previously in this discussion, all the info listed within the article has already been made public by the media. So if the this article is sent to Afd because the content is deemed 'disparaging' or 'libelous', one must remember that it was 'disparaging' and 'libelous' to begin with. Any prospective reader of the article cannot receive any new information, because all the content can easily be cross-checked with the references within the article. --Flewis^(talk) 02:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how you still do not understand the comparison. The point of Corey Worthington in this discussion is that just because many media outlets cover the story, does not make it inherently noteable. Timeshift (talk) 03:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Rather than responding again to this redundant argument, I'll just ask you to simply re-read my comments a few times over until you understand that each article must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis - not simply throwing a blanket rule over all articles that you dislike. --Flewis^(talk) 03:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And again, I let the non-noteability of this article stand on it's own merits (or lack of). Compare the List of Australian scandals page you added the page to, and a 10 year old could see the odd one out... Petrov, 1975 crisis, stroganoff? Hmm. Corey is only being used to show that media outlet news articles in themselves do not establish noteability. Timeshift (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability, Blah blah notability blah Like I mentioned before, the Stroganoff affair ≠ Corey Delaney - every article must be judged an a case-by-case basis. Sure, this article may be considered less notable than say, the 1975 crisis or Children overboard affair, but it is notable nonetheless. This issue has been discussed ad nauseam and I really see no need for you to regurgitate your arguments, or attempt to convince the rest of us otherwise. In the meantime, if you have any other substantive arguments to bring up, bring them up at an Afd. Otherwise, I will consider this matter settled. --Flewis^(talk) 04:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Stroganoff merge and redirect

• I would support a merge and redirect as being a relatively painless way of dealing with it. To clarify - the merger could be all of one sentence - MP complained in Parliament and looked foolish in the media over the next couple of days - it was very widely reported no doubt because of the punning headlines and also the absurdity of wasting parliamentary time on his wife's serving portion when there were more serious things to be considered. I went to his article at the time and cleaned it up slightly but chose not to add it as I thought we should wait and see. I am bemused that it is all he is notable for - a waste of salary in my view but that is up to the voters in his electorate to decide. If anybody wants to add balance then his article remains unreferenced and a mere stub. --Matilda ^talk 03:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to where? Beef Stroganoff (superfluous merge)? John Murphy ("BLP violation")? Humourous political scandals in Australian history (an article that will no doubt be up Afd immediately)? Why go to all the trouble when all the content is already established within the article? --Flewis^(talk) 04:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how including it in the John Murphy article would be a BLP violation provided it was well verified and presented in a neutral tone. There would be serious undue weight issues but the intricate retelling of Thompson's multiple stroganoff sampling could probably be dropped off for a start.

On the wider isssue of the notability of this page, could I draw attention to the following from WP:N: Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. Is there anything to suggest this issue has an enduring relevance beyond its media bubble? Euryalus (talk) 04:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

See my comment below --Flewis^(talk) 05:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• The merge and redirect with one sentence or no more than two would of course be to the politician. It would not be a BLP violation as it is extrememly well sourced and reported by multiple media outlets. It also relates to his public persona - he wasted parliamentary time on this and he is an elected representative who should know better. However, as I noted on Murphy's talk page at the time we had to wait and see if it was reported on more after the initial flurry. If it lasted more than a week I would be happy to say it is not WP:UNDUE - if not redirect to his artilce, lose the links to it in such articles as stroganoff and political scandals, and don't menion it in his article as being of undue weight. Anybody who types in stroganoff affair will end up there and can make their own connection. --Matilda ^talk 04:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If by your rationale, the article is "extremely well sourced and reported by multiple media outlets" why does it not deserve its own article? There is alot more to this issue (national criticism, investigation, parliamentary response, apology) and a "simple" one-sentence summary on the politician's page will not suffice. As I mentioned multiple times during this convo, WP:UNDUE is not a problem for this article, because the content is sourced directly from competitive news sources which corroborate in their recount of the situation. For all the newcomers to this debate, regarding WP:NOTNEWS see [8]. This issue extends beyond John Murphy to include Parliamentary investigations and referendums (formal resolution barring MPs from raising such trivial complaints in the future). I think these sufficiently negate lack of notability --Flewis^(talk) 05:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Could I request a link to the resolution barring MPs from raising trivial complaints? I can't find it in the references attached to the article. Euryalus (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not everything that is reported by media outlets needs its own article. As to whether it can be summarised, I don't think we need the gory details, however well-reported, of how hungry Alan Thompson was after eating a meal of stroganoff. So - my summary for the redirect is

In September 2008 Murphy complained to Parliament that his wife received an inadequate portion of beef stroganoff, that she had bought from the parliamentary cafeteria.[cite] Despite the complaint receiving much criticism, an investigation initaited by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, found that the size of the portions in the parliamentary canteen were "adequate".[cite] Murphy subsequently apologized for the misuse of parliamentary time following concerns raised by the media and fellow parliamentarians.[cite] In light of the issue, senior figures in both major parties met for a formal resolution barring MPs from raising such trivial complaints in the future.[citation needed]

Four sentences rather than two - but still Two sentences and shorter than the article but I believe an adequate mention. I don't think this is an ongoing issue notwithstanding its mention in a 6 October news report. Murphy will perhaps not live this down too quickly hence the justification for the redirect and a mention in the article. I note that at present the article uses emotive, punning language - ie is not sufficiently encyclopaedic and neutral in style. The last sentence of the article lead and my present summary appears to have no citation to verify. --Matilda ^talk 06:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

 citation inserted--Flewis^(talk) 07:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Discussion now at Talk:John_Murphy_(Australian_politician)#Merger_from_Stroganoff_affair_article --Matilda ^talk 06:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority support the proposal of an AfD here, but this is even better. I've added my support to the merger, and so has every other person, except the article creator. I'm very pleased with this outcome. Let's pop open a bottle of champagne shall we? Timeshift (talk) 11:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

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.

More eyes needed

• Talk:Australian diaspora

Please help to improve the article. Uncle G (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

While we're at it, can we please keep an eye out for vandalism on Michael Atkinson - he's the most targeted SA MP on wikipedia. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Michael Organ

I've done some improvement. Any feedback would be great. --Sumthingweird (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

By-elections page

I would like to redo the list of Australian federal by-elections in the style of the list of United Kingdom by-elections. I have found the UK page to be much easier to use mainly because it (a) divides by-elections per parliament and (b) highlights especially significant by-elections, i.e. those that changed hands. Does anyone have an issue with changing this? Frickeg (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No. Good idea. Timeshift (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Also in agreement. Out of curiosity how do the Canadians manage it? Orderinchaos 05:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

List of federal by-elections in Canada. Various designs can be seen at By-election#See also. Timeshift (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Useful, missed Cook by-election, 1955 in Members of the Australian House of Representatives, 1954-1955.--Grahame (talk) 07:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What happens when image sources are removed?

Andrew Evans and Kim Carr. Both images were uploaded by staffers of theirs, and both images appear to have been removed after they were nagged that verifiable source was needed. For Evans' case, the source link still exists, but the image is dead, for Carr's case, the source link itself is dead. It's not like Flickr images where a trusted user or bot can come along and add a tag to indicate that it has been observed that at the time of checking, that it was available for under the specified license. What to do in these situations? Timeshift (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Timeshift, the important thing is that you create a paper trail. So while they have the license page up, have them email OTRS to notify us of the licensing, or you can do so yourself, then an OTRS worker will check their website and confirm the license is valid. That way there will always be a record of the licensing. This is actually quite a common problem in general with material sourced from other websites as the websites will change over the time and the text or images may disappear but if there's a record of it with the Foundation then there shouldn't be any further problems. I just checked and we have an email from Carr's staff on July 24 releasing that image so that one should be okay. The ticket number is 2008072410004834 and if it's not noted on the image page already you can add it (sorry, I'm just heading out and don't have time to look at the image myself). I can't find anything on OTRS for Evans, though. Sarah 06:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah. Timeshift (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

By-election resources?

Does anyone know if there is an online source for by-elections in state parliaments, in particular South Australia? Timeshift (talk) 06:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a complete list between 1890 and 1964 in a book here, but I don't know where one would get a list either side of that. My book also covers WA and Tasmania, and we've accounted for all WA by-elections since 1890 in the member lists. Orderinchaos 07:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have complete election results for all SA by-elections (and state elections), courtesy of Dean Jaensch's marvellous compendium a couple years back; to my knowledge it isn't online, but I have digital copies and am happy to forward them on to interested editors.

For the other states (for general reference):

NSW: complete results (elections and by-elections) on their website (thank you Antony Green)

NT: complete results (elections and by-elections) on their website

WA: nothing online, but there's a good book, which Orderinchaos has been working from

Tasmania: this page has every countback; the links on the site lead to the general election results (the parliament website has somehow managed to lose their index, but all the actual results are still there)

ACT: casual vacancies and election results

Victoria and Queensland: never seen any records - if anyone finds any, please let me know

Hope this helps. Rebecca (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

David Combe

I suddenly remembered that the fourth ALP figure at right in my pic is David Combe on whom I have penned a stub which some of you might care to hack around and categorise, etc. (I'm still searching for the doc which precisely dates this pic.) Cheers Bjenks (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability questions

The following are articles I have come across where I am not sure that they meet the notability guidelines. However, some of them aren't cut and dried and I'm not overly familiar with deletion policy myself so I thought I'd raise them here first. They're all candidates for election who have failed to be elected.

• Nick Beams - no sources, no apparent notability; failed candidate for the Socialist Equality Party
• Justine Caines - leader of What Women Want; I'm unsure if her presidency of the Maternity Coalition is grounds for notability
• Nola Fraser - I would say she's not notable as a Liberal candidate for Macquarie Fields, but perhaps as a whistleblower, although this seems to be WP:ONEVENT to me
• Mia Handshin - unsuccessful Labor candidate for Sturt; I'm not sure about the conventions on awards such as Young South Australian of the Year
• Jeannette Jolley - unsuccessful Democrats and Australian Progressive Alliance candidate, also author of several textbooks
• Saeed Khan - Greens councillor in Marrickville, also unsuccessful candidate for state and federal elections
• David McAlary - former president of the Liberty and Democracy Party
• Ruth Russell - unsuccessful Democrats Senate candidate in SA 2007; protest info appears to be WP:ONEVENT
• Eddy Sarkis - fairly straightforward, unsuccessful Liberal state election candidate
• Michael Towke - WP:ONEVENT?

I just wanted to raise these here before I nominated them for deletion, as I'm unsure of the conventions in certain cases. Thanks, Frickeg (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but I feel Handshin has definately done enough to be noteable. Russell to a lesser extent but still noteable. Timeshift (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly keep Fraser (for her whistleblowing if nothing else). I'd also keep Handshin; she's done a few things outside of politics (and still is), and as a high-profile candidate who's virtually certain to run again and probably win in 2010, there's a lot of precedent from the US for keeping similar articles.

I'm ambivalent about Towke, Russell and Caines. With Towke, we need to balance the real BLP concerns against how much attention that particular fiasco received during the campaign; if sufficient mention can be given in the election article I'd be okay with redirecting it per WP:BLP1E. I think there's a potential case for both Russell (due to her human shield work) and Caines (due to how often she seems to pop up as a commentator on maternity issues), but I think I'd want to see both those articles expanded, rewritten and referenced before I'd make a judgement on their notability.

I'd torch Beams, Jolley, Khan, McAlary and Sarkis without a thought; PROD could probably be used for these. Rebecca (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Right. I'll get rid of Beams, Jolley, Khan, McAlary and Sarkis (i.e. PROD), and leave the others for now. (Although I must say, to say that Handshin will "probably win in 2010" seems optimistic!) Frickeg (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, those ones are all pretty safe. Re Fraser I'd say writing an account of the hospital situation and redirecting her article to that would be the best ultimate way to deal with that. Orderinchaos 02:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Categories: "scandals" versus "controversies"

We've already got Category:Political controversies in Australia, but in the last few days Category:Political scandals in Australia has been added. When I questioned the editor on this (User talk:Hugo999#Political scandals in Australia), he pointed out that this was to fit into Category:Political scandals by country. Now I see a few options here:

1. The new scheme (two different categories) stays in place. Pretty stupid IMHO, because the difference between a "scandal" and a "controversy" is a POV judgement.
2. Go with the flow, and merge Category:Political controversies in Australia into Category:Political scandals in Australia. I don't like it, because "scandal" is far more POV, but it fits an existing convention.
3. Buck the flow, merge Category:Political scandals in Australia into Category:Political controversies in Australia, and add Category:Political controversies in Australia to Category:Political scandals by country. i.e. every other country has "scandals", but Australian Wikipedia editors opt for the more neutral "controversies".
4. Try for a revolution: endeavour to get Category:Political scandals by country renamed to Category:Political controveries by country, and all other countries to rename "scandals" to "controversies". I for one don't have the time or energy to fight that battle.
5. (edited to add) make "scandals" redirect to "controveries". (Is this even possible?)
6. (edited to add) make "scandals" contain the subcategory "controveries", and nothing else.

I think we should do something because option 1 (no change) is the worst. Personally I'd like to go with option 3 (buck the flow). Thoughts? Peter Ballard (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Why does Australia alone have to be so prim as to term a scandal a mere controversy? Seems a clear enough distinction to me without any undue POV. Maybe you should first try rewriting the respective WP articles :) Cheers Bjenks (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether something is a scandal depends on your POV, I'd have thought that was obvious. Looking through Category:Political controversies in Australia, here are a few: 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, Barlow and Chambers execution, Hindmarsh Island bridge controversy and Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001. Were these scandals? It depends on your POV, but all were controversies. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of the controversies weren't even that - they were just what I'd call policies of the government which some group or other were unhappy with. While some of these *I* was unhappy with, they still weren't "political controversies". Orderinchaos 03:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. A political scandal "can involve the breaking of the nation's laws or plotting to do so. . . some are sex scandals". It may well be a questionable POV judgement to class the legitimate 1975 dismissal (or the lawful Barlow-Chambers execution) as a scandal but not, eg, the Profumo affair, the Petrov affair or a more recent Australian high-level adultery which was a political betrayal of the Parliament and electorate. Also, 'controversy' is surely too weak a term, eg, when an ex-premier is gaoled (Burke, O'Connor) or a diplomat is expelled (David Combe-Ivanov). Bjenks (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Option 3 is certainly simplest; I don't think that you can "redirect" categories (?) (5 or 6) and 4 would (apart from requiring widespread agreement) would require lots of Manual changes to individual pages even it was agreed to. Hugo999 (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be easiest to simply prune the scandal category to the sort of events that fall clearly within the traditional definition of scandal (travel rorts, sports rorts, Bruce stadium, Motorola affair, etc - the sort of things that end high-profile careers). I don't think it's that arbitrary to keep a controversies as well - to group together all those political events that did cause significant controversy, but which weren't really scandals as such. Rebecca (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Much as I still think it's a silly category, if we're going to have then that's an OK solution. I'll go and remove some which, while controversial, aren't scandals. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• By way of response to Bjenks - in my view it would be utterly unacceptable to class the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis as a scandal - not merely a questionable POV judgment. If we have to have only one category then I think option 3 above - ie merge Category:Political scandals in Australia into Category:Political controversies in Australia--Matilda ^talk 20:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's avoid conflict and name these sort of things as controversies. We can easily justify what is a controversy and what isn't by referring to conflict at the time as reported in the media. But calling something a scandal merely sets us up for POV edits. One side will try to score political points by including events that the other side sees as masterstrokes. I went through something like this in another arena where an Arab/Israeli incident was called a massacre by one team and a battle by another. The discussion on what to call the thing resembled the original incident in tone if not casualties. --Pete (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Scandal and controversy are two completely different things, thus both should be kept. Controversy tends to have 2 sides to the argument, and is characterised by ongoing debate. Scandal is something that is universally condemned by society, such as when the law is broken, or if someone is caught indulging in an embarrassing act that society generally doesn't encourage.--Lester 01:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly they are two different things, but it seems that some editors are unaware of this, and presume that controversies affecting their side of pollitcs are not scandals, but the opposing team is full of 'em. Hence the potential for conflict. --Pete (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Or, conversely, that controversies affecting the opposite side are *necessarily* scandals. (Other side of the same coin.) Orderinchaos 02:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Senate appointments page?

Is this called for? I would suggest a similar page to list of Australian federal by-elections, but without the links to the by-elections (obviously the appointments in themselves to not require an article). I think that a list of all Senate appointments is probably appropriate though. Frickeg (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, and I'd been meaning to do similar pages for the states for a while. I'm always referring to the casual vacancy page I cited above when I'm writing Tasmanian politics articles; it'd be nice to have that stuff on Wikipedia. Rebecca (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Australian Senate appointments. How's this? Frickeg (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Good, but needs a source. Adam Carr seems to have overlooked Robert Wardlaw's appointment.--Grahame (talk) 06:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That's excellent, Frickeg - nice job! Rebecca (talk) 07:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Rebecca! Grahame, I actually used the Senate vacancies page at the Australian Parliament website, although I had Psephos up too because the Parliament misses a couple as well (Irina Dunn's appointment springs to mind). It's quite possible that there are a few missing, but I think that they would be very few. I added the source as the Parliamentary website. Frickeg (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

What is (an) Atokist?

Fremantle by-election, 1945 - What is Atokist? Google brings up nothing noteworthy. Timeshift (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, found an explanation here. Timeshift (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Any other sources we can get so we can write an article on it? As a trivial minor party but nevertheless one that ran at at least two Federal byelections, it should have something. Orderinchaos 14:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it'd be notable; based on that article, it seems to be just a neologism coined by one guy - in which case it'd be a useful footnote in both by-election articles, but probably not much more. Rebecca (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Tas naming issue

John Hayes (Australian politician) was a Tasmanian Premier and later Senator, full name John Blyth Hayes. Another John Hayes, likely unrelated (can't tell for sure, no middle name apparently) served as member for Brighton in the Tasmanian House of Assembly from 1862 to 1866. Both being Tasmanian politicians, and being loath to disambiguate to middle name given the former's significant prominence compared to the latter's serving a single term in a state parliament, what would others suggest for a naming convention? Orderinchaos 09:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There's precedent for using name (birthdate - deathdate). I'd probably go with that in the circumstances. Rebecca (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest still using (Tasmanian politician) for the second Hayes, with a prominent notice at the top. Or possibly (Tasmanian state politician), to emphasise the fact that he was never a federal politician. I came across a similar problem with Thomas Brennan (Australian politician), a Victorian UAP Senator, and a Labor MLA. At the moment they link to (Victorian state politician). Frickeg (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

19th century Tasmanian politician and 20th century Tasmanian politician? That's how I'd imagine I'd refer of them if for some weird reason I was doing a speech or paper on them. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Or disambiguate by party (assuming they were in different parties and didn't switch parties too much) as we did for the two NSW politicians called Robert Brown. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately at the time, parties weren't terribly clear - as late as 1906 Tasmanian politicians were still referring to themselves as Ministerialist and Oppositionist and chopping and changing alliances with governments like shoes :) Orderinchaos 01:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

DGS

Anyone know what "DGS" stands for in the context of the 1970 Senate election? They contested Victoria only. Candidates were Raymond Nilsen, Lancelot Hutchinson and Jeffrey Davis. Frickeg (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably Defence of Government Schools. Orderinchaos 02:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

There was a party called that? Frickeg (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed! :) I've since confirmed it. They opposed state aid to private schools, were a single issue party which also ran at the Victorian 1970 state election, doing fairly well in a few electorates (Greensborough approx 8% was given as an example in the source I have). It seems to have been a contemporary obsession on the local political scene for unknown reasons. I guess though when you consider that there is a registered Daylight Savings Party in Western Australia, and now a People Against Daylight Savings party too (which is actually a renamed New Country Party, believe it or not - I have the government gazette issue confirming it)... Orderinchaos 02:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I suppose I should have considered that monumentally single-issue parties are not just a recent thing. Also brings to mind the No Parking Meters Party that ran in NSW council elections earlier this year. Frickeg (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly DGS was later refered to as CDGS (Council for the Defence of Government Schools). Until Whitlam became leader of the ALP was opposed to all aid to non-government schools, as was the Liberal party prior to about 1965.--Grahame (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Changes needed to Australian Monarchy articles

Does someone want to look at List of Australian monarchs? --Lawe (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Help!

What has happened with the election boxes? (Such as here but not, oddly, here.) Is it just my computer or are the colours taking up a huge amount of space? I haven't been able to ascertain what has happened so perhaps someone more experienced with this kind of thing could help. Thanks. Frickeg (talk) 06:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah i've got it too. Been happening for a few days that I know of. Dunno why it changed. Timeshift (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. An edit to an included, protected template on 5 January 2009 ({{Election box begin}}) was the culprit. Orderinchaos 08:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was worried there for a while! Frickeg (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Leaders/PMs - repeat?

Does anyone recall where there was a discussion of reasonable length over the debate on including PMs more than once if they've served more than once? See Template:Prime Ministers of Australia for the example. Timeshift (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but it looks odd. The template is meant to list PMs, right? Not list a chronology of PM'ships. Perhaps a compromise would be to list, say, Menzies twice but drop the "2nd time". But I prefer not at all. --Merbabu (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason I added "2nd time" is due to the SA templates. SA has two different Premier Butlers. I thought a distinction would be a good idea. Timeshift (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

With WA (where we had two premiers with the same surname) the template says "C. Court" and "R. Court". Orderinchaos 00:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm - personally, i think it's best to just list the names twice (ie, Holt didn't come after Chifley!) without stating 2nd or 3rd time. It looks good when I preview this.--Merbabu (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

SA has two different Premier Richard Butlers. Without 2nd/3rd etc time, how would one distinguish from Butler/Butler and Dunstan/Dunstan in SA? Timeshift (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how the SA case has a bearing on the PM template where there is no such similarity in names. . --Merbabu (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Further, your "two Butler's" example is not applicable to this PM template. Even if it was, then I'd recommend using either the initial or the I and II syntax proposed below by Orderinchaos (in fact, I've gone ahead and added initials into the SA template per Order's recommendation). As for the 2 time officers, another point is that the template is not actually linking to two seperate articles. Perhaps if it was, then maybe I'd support the distinction, but again, it's a flawed response to an SA template, and I can't see the need to re-apply it here. --Merbabu (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Consistency? Timeshift (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)PS, if you were after my opinion on SA premiers, the template currently doesn’t distinguish between the two Butlers but does distinguish between the two times the latter was Premier. For me, I’d just write the name in full in the template (I mean, surely the disambig as been noticed well before wikipedia was around – it’s not like we are the first), and remove the “2nd time” etc. regards --Merbabu (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Consistency?? That means applying a response to one problem (SA template) to something that didn't have that problem (PM template) - ie, it's unnecessary. If we were to be really consistent, then we'd put "1st time" against every PM. --Merbabu (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you think consistency amongst the templates isn't a good idea. Timeshift (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

it's got nothing to do with consistency - and your last comment was an unnecessary misrepresentation of my position. The numbers which I now see you added in the first place are irrelevant in the pm template. --Merbabu (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean (in your opinion) unnecessary. It certainly isn't irrelevant. Timeshift (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The SA template is messy and confusing. I would not favour any solution which sees its replication into the Prime Ministers template. As for the Butlers, one is R. Butler whilst the other is R. L. Butler. Or you could adopt the Playford solution from the same template and use I and II. Orderinchaos 02:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, why are we marking in a template that they served twice? Most people, I would imagine, would be more interested in who the premiers were than how many times they served - that in my view is best kept in a list. The WA template, for example, does this (and that wasn't my doing, it was its pre-existing state.) Orderinchaos 02:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just gone through the history of the template. Interesting. I agree strongly with this change by Timeshift. I don’t agree with his latest, in which I’ve already says consistency is not the issue. --Merbabu (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

My $0.02: (1) If a Premier/PM serves twice, s/he should be listed twice, to form a chronological sequence; (2) Different Premiers/PMs with the same name should be distinguished in the template, e.g. R.Butler / R.L.Butler or whatever works best; (3) I'm less dogmatic on this one, but I think the "second time", "third time" etc. bit looks a bit clumsy. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Myself, Orderinchaos, Peter Ballard, and presumably Lacrimosus (who reverted Timeshift's recent addition of numbers) do not want to see the numbering in the template. I am going ahead and removing it, as I think the "consistency" argument is irrelevant and a red herring. It's a flawed response to an apparent issue on another template - but has no relevancy on the PM template that I can see. *perhaps* it would be relevant if the template was linking to two different articles on, say Menzies, but it doesn't. It's the one article. --Merbabu (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

And, let me repeat if it's it any consolation - I do agree with your change where you added the PM's name in a second time - this does make sense. But, the numbering is (a) confusing and (b) it's unnecessary. --Merbabu (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wide comb dispute 1979-1985

I have created the stub Wide comb dispute 1979-1985. Any help would be greatly appreciated! --Surturz (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I vaguely remember this. You should nominate it on the Australian Collaboration page. --Roisterer (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Photographs

The Hon. Member for Riverina. (Photo credit: Bidgee (talk · contribs)

Concrete proof that it's not impossible to get free images of serving Australian politicians. All it takes is some effort to get out and about to where they are (which is nearly always publicised) and generally a polite request.

Let's hope it is a beginning of a big effort to get many more freely-licenced images of pols and ex-pols. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. --Merbabu (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Candidates NSW 1999

Does anyone know where a list of candidates for the Legislative Council NSW 1999 (the table-cloth ballot) may be found? I'm writing a draft and haven't been able to find the Council candidates (although the Assembly ones are easy enough). Frickeg (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

P 48 onwards of [9] Orderinchaos 01:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought Antony must have written something somewhere, but couldn't find it. Frickeg (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it took a bit of crafty searching to find it. I looked up the NSWEC site, and got some of the more obscurely named groups and searched for them all in the same search in Google. Orderinchaos 02:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. Candidates of the New South Wales state election, 1999 - I'm glad I didn't have to vote in that one! Frickeg (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Some conventions in member lists

I've come across a few inconsistencies in these and would like to raise a few issues as well in regards to lists of MPs (like Members of the Australian House of Representatives). Probably the main inconsistency is using "Labor" or "ALP" as a shortened version of "Australian Labor Party". My personal preference is for "Labor", seeing as "ALP" is confusing to foreign readers and offers no meaningful information. The other matter is whether Labor should be linked only once or every time it occurs. The first is currently used in the lists, while the second is used in electorate articles like Division of Banks. My own preference is for the second, because it is both aesthetically nicer and it means one doesn't have to scroll to find the first occurrence. The final problem is whether to use titles (Hon, Sir, Dr) in these lists. This practice is discouraged at the Manual of Style, but I thought I'd raise it here before changing it. Frickeg (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've generally used the first example for linking, if only because it's quicker but I'm all for a set policy on this. --Roisterer (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been slowly changing the refs in the ones I edit from ALP to Labor, given that the party now brands itself Labor, that in some states the "Labor party" was *very* distant from the ALP apart from electing a bunch of members to conferences, and also historically, "Labor" makes sense in times and places where it is not clear it actually was the ALP (eg in the 1910s, where there were United Labor Parties, Parliamentary Labor Parties, Political Labor Parties, Labor Federations and god knows what else). With Hon, unless it's assumed (eg all members of the WA Upper House are Hon) it should be indicated as it's a role *within* their capacity as Parliamentarians - it indicates they either are ministers, speakers or have historically served in such a role for sufficient enough time to become "honourable for life". Dr, Sir and Rev are actually used in formal address (I discovered this when researching former WA minister Keith Wilson), but suffixes are seemingly always omitted, as are emeritus roles and honorary doctorates. Orderinchaos 23:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Finalisation of /Archive_4#Categories: "scandals" versus "controversies"

I've just moved the final "scandal", Branch stacking , out of Category:Political scandals in Australia into Category:Political controversies in Australia.

It seems we chose "option 3" (although I only read the archive after moving the article -- the scandal category clearly looked out of place in the the Australian category hierachy).

Unless someone objects I will put a manual "redirect" at Category:Political scandals in Australia into Category:Political controversies in Australia and add the latter to Category:Political scandals by country and remove the former.

Mark Hurd (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

We should also revert the move of List of Australian political controversies to List of Australian political scandals. Mark Hurd (talk) 04:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think your conclusions are sound - I moved the list. Orderinchaos 05:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And I've adjusted the categories. Mark Hurd (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Candidates articles

I have raised this at Candidates of the Western Australian state election, 2008 but received no response, so I raise it here. All other Australian candidates articles use the format at Candidates of the Australian federal election, 2007 but the WA article uses a different template. I have suggested that the WA article be changed in line with the rest of the articles. My main concerns with the template are:

• the divisions between electorates are indistinct and (depending on your resolution) can be very hard to see
• it is not possible to link column headings, for example "Family First candidates". I think it's a bit much to expect international readers to know what "Family First" is, or to know that to find out you have to search for Family First Party. This is my main concern. This is especially a problem in Upper House candidate lists.

Frickeg (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No problems with it being fixed (it wasn't on my watchlist so I didn't spot the notification). If it can be made to work that will help me later in the year when I get the other WA candidate lists done. Orderinchaos 04:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Mm. I'm not that great with templates, so my frugal efforts have so far been fruitless. However, I see no problem with the format used in the other candidates articles. Frickeg (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ministry list for QLD

I got bored and wrote Beattie Ministry today. If someone wants to improve on the text bits (especially the "Overview" section as it presently only overviews the start of the Ministry) be my guest. I'll try and write a Bligh one tomorrow, at least it should be somewhat easier! Orderinchaos 11:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Disambuguations

User:Roman Spinner has been moving pages like Bill Morrison (Australian politician) to Bill Morrison (St. George), claiming that this is correct practice. This has not been our practice and I don't think it is useful.--Grahame (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I have my doubts too. The problem I see is that on a disambig page (such as this one), "Australian politician" is a lot more recognisable than "St George". Has he been questioned on it and given the chance to respond? Perhaps we can seek a hold on these moves, until we are satisfied it is for the best. --Merbabu (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree that there are serious problems with this. I fail to see how "St George" adds anything to a novice's knowledge of Bill Morrison, while "Australian politician" undoubtedly does. Frickeg (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I asked the Roman Spinner about this, but no reply. Anyway, the moves have been roll backed and I can't see any more further attempts at these moves. --Merbabu (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Exhausted votes?

Scrubbed my earlier request as Adam Carr's electoral archive gave me everything I needed, however I have a question. According to this, there are exhausted votes. But how can there be exhausted votes in a full-preference IRV voting system? Timeshift (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It was a loophole in the Electoral Act known as the Langer vote. i.e. All preferences filled out but one (other than 1) filled out twice. eg. 1223456. This is because the Electoral Act had two provisions. 1. You must number a candidate 1 2. Then fill out all other candidates in the order of your preference. It didn't say they had to be consecutive in order to constitute a valid vote. An amendment to the Electoral Act in 1996 or 1997 following the promotion of this kind of voting by Albert Langer (which I think earned him a conviction, but I can't remember) wiped this out, but it still exists in the Electoral Acts of most States with full IRV. Orderinchaos 05:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

S.240 of the Electoral Act 1918 was amended by s125 of the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Act 1998 (assented 17 July 1998) to add the words: "(2) The numbers referred to in paragraph (1)(b) are to be consecutive numbers, without the repetition of any number." Orderinchaos 05:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:50, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

ALP/DLP split

Do we not have an article on the ALP/DLP split of the 1950s? If we do, can someone please point me to it? Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 02:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you know what? I don't think we do. We've got articles on the Democratic Labor Party (historical), Australian Labor Party (Anti-Communist) and Queensland Labor Party, but not one on the split itself. There isn't one on either the 1916/17 (Labor/National Labor/Nationalist) or 1931 (Labor/UAP/Lang Labor) splits either. Frickeg (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Do we need an article devoted to the split(s)? Timeshift (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be - that way a history of the event can be given in one place and then people can read the party articles for more information about what happened before/after. Orderinchaos 03:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Back in probably 2005 User:Adam Carr and I discussed creating articles about all the ALP splits but never got around to doing it. It's a bit surprising that they're still blank. The ACOTF seems to be in limbo at the moment but even a basic overview article (like "List of Splits in the ALP") would be a good collaboration. --Roisterer (talk) 04:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think they'd all be good articles, and there'd be tons of content for them too. I'd also throw in the Premier's Plan splits of the early 1930s, which stuffed some of the state Labor parties terribly badly - in SA, for example, there were about five Labor factions in parliament after it was done. Rebecca (talk) 07:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

My interest was prompted by the death of Laurie Short. Having little interest in ALP internal politics, I knew nothing about the man and pulled together an article based on the scraps in the news stories on his death. Given his role in keeping the ALP branch together, I thought to link to an article about the split (wasn't there a TV mini-series about it in the 1980s?) and was surprised when there was no article. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you might want to check that Short article - it says that the FIA was a predecessor union to the AWU, but that he was an officer of that union in 1982, when the AWU was created in 1894... Rebecca (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The FIA were a Communist union with a heavy presence in inner Sydney after WWII. Short and Jim McLelland organised a ticket which overthrew the leadership and turned it into a bastion of the Catholic Labor right. After SHort retired the driver behind the FIA was Steve Harrison, brother of Gabrielle. They were a middle-size and very well-organised outfit, until Harrison had a vision of merging with and controlling the massive and somnolent AWU. The merger happened in 1993 and the FIA (now called FIME) played a fairly big role in the NSW branch for about five years. In (maybe) 1998 their preferred candidates badly lost national AWU elections and the separate "ironworkers" presence in the AWU just kind of faded away. The current NSW ALP secretary Matt Thistlewaite was a member/supporter of the previous "ironworker" section as an AWU organiser around ten years ago.

The above is of course original research but easily referenced if I can find the time (or if anyone else wants to do it instead). Euryalus (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As a curious, and unrelated point, are there reliable sources on factions to which ALP members belong? I see assertions made by people in the press and blogosphere that are broadly consistent, so I know the info is out there. It would assist greatly with my WA work :) Orderinchaos 08:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There are reliable sources for the factions themselves of course, but I've never seen anything listing the membership of any particular one at any particular time that would meet WP:RS. The occasional newspaper article listing memberships tend to be wrong - for excample there was a recent SMH article that put Barry Collier in both the Hard Left and the DellaBosca Right. Its pretty easy to reconstruct the faction membership for Federal Labor MPs going back to Calwell's time, but not much else that I've seen. Euryalus (talk) 08:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to do it for these MPs. Unfortunately my sources are generally not that reliable, I'm for the most part relying on what William Bowe over at Poll Bludger's already managed to uncover. Orderinchaos 08:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Antony Green's NSW Election Results website

Hi everyone.

Not being a regular visitor here, I don't know if anyone is aware Antony Green's NSW Election Result website, http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/resources/nswelectionsanalysis/homepage.htm It's hosted by NSW Parliament House and covers every election from 1856 to 2007. Have fun!

Blarneytherinosaur ^gabby? 06:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a great resource. I've been using it for my (very very irregular) lists of MLAs, like Members of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly, 1856–1858. Frickeg (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. According to an admin, Antony Green is not a WP:RS. Timeshift (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC) What? Where? Frickeg (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Talk:Queensland state election, 2009. Timeshift (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Oh. Actually I think that Orderinchaos is right there, because there are other places where it's done differently. But I think that the election site, being on the NSW Parliament website, would be counted as an RS. Frickeg (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC) He did however make the seperate point that Antony is not a WP:RS. I would think the site it is hosted on is irrelevant... ABC is a WP:RS on it's own but not when it's done by Antony. Timeshift (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Yes, but I think the question being asked over there is a style issue rather than a black-and-white "this is the only way to do it" issue. I'm sure you agree, for example, that where they differ, AEC trumps Antony. But for NSW results pre-2003, just as with federal pre-1996, Antony's (or Psephos, federally) all we've got. It's pretty easy to check for my lists with the NSW Parliament site anyway. Frickeg (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC) A pretty black and white statement was made that Antony is not a WP:RS. Timeshift (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC) I was saying that the Greens issue was not black-and-white. Frickeg (talk) 03:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Antony himself is not a RS. Just as any expert, stating their opinion, is not an RS. When he makes a site such as the NSW Parliament one which is extensively reviewed, checked, etc, against reliable sources and most probably by officers and clerical staff of the Parliament, and likewise states its own sources so it can be reviewed (this is why academic publications require bibliographies and footnotes) then there's no question about sourcing - it's an independent reliable source that has been through peer review. Same as if he were to contribute a chapter to a book about elections in Australia, or write a researched report for the WA Parliament (which I now have a copy of and intend to use for some stuff). Those would be RSs. But the ABC Elections site falls into a category which is basically a self-published source, and one admitted by that source to be subject to pressures, constraints etc which reduce its reliability. Orderinchaos 04:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Election results are not an opinion. Since when is ABC elections not a WP:RS compared to his other publications? Seems a bit of WP:OR to me. Timeshift (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC) They're not peer reviewed. Read WP:RS again. Orderinchaos 05:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC) All research and design has been carried out by election analyst Antony Green. Initial funding was provided by the Sesquicentenary of Responsible Government in New South Wales Trust as part of the Electoral Atlas of New South Wales project. Please e-mail Antony Green with any comments on how the site operates. Given the volume of information contained in this site, and the difficulty in finding election results, there are minor errors and also a small number of incomplete results. Who says this is? And WP:RS does not say something needs to be peer-reviewed to be a WP:RS. Timeshift (talk) 05:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC) I am opting out of this particular argument, because I actually do have better things to do, and I'm pretty convinced you are just arguing for the sake of it. Even Antony Green himself does not maintain the ABC Elections is a reliable source in the sense we mean - it's an information resource for the benefit of the general public and has some predictive capacity at a point when little information is available in the initial stages of counting - so you're actually trying to argue something he isn't. Seriously, get into some content development sometime, instead of bickering over minor points and starting random spot fires in an attempt to prove other ones. Much better use of your time, and mine. Orderinchaos 06:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Antony says the Greens lost a seat. I'm attempting to show his site is WP:RS. Upon revealing contradictions in your debating points, not once do you ever admit you are wrong, rather you are prepared to attack and drop WP:AGF as displayed above. I'm surprised at the low blow of lack of content development. I've created hundreds of pages, all the SA state and federal elections, some state and federal by-elections, and some MPs. I've uploaded hundreds of free images of politicians, expanded party leader pages, and contribute to many other pages. But that's not the point. Whenever I reveal contradictions you call bad faith. I can't stop you from not WP:AGF. Timeshift (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC) You have not shown his site is WP:RS, so give up on the POV campaign already - the facts are that the Greens only held a seat due to the predilections of a particular MP who failed to carry his electorate with him when given the chance. This happens often enough in Australian politics - politicians joining minor parties or going independent is not a reason for us to start rewriting the book. As Frickeg pointed out earlier, Green's take on this particular issue is at odds with his own take on identical issues in this election and in the last federal election. And in response to your last point, while you have indeed created a good body of work with relation to SA and federal politics, how much of that shows in your recent contributions? Orderinchaos 06:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC) You said a WP:RS needs to be peer-reviewed. I said WP:RS does not state something needs to be peer-reviewed in order to be a WP:RS. It appears neither the ABC elections site nor the NSW parliament elections site are peer-reviewed. But yet one is not a WP:RS? If it's not a WP:RS then why is his elections coverage used all over wikipedia for sourcing? Even the QLD election article uses his site as a reference, one for the results, another for seats changing hands. It seems Antony Green's ABC elections site is ONLY not a WP:RS on this particular issue alone. Seems a bit strange. I also note that by the criteria you have given, the LNP did not hold any seats at the previous election, so why shouldn't that be adjusted too? In response to your last point, why did you bring up content creation at all? It has nothing to do with this debate, it is a very low blow. I feel a bit stuck with other pages left to create. There's the rest of the by-elections but not much else, unless I start to get in to really obscure abstract areas which don't interest me as much. But why does any of that matter, why should I justify myself on this, why are you raising this when it bears no relation to this debate? Timeshift (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC) "If it's not a WP:RS then why is his elections coverage used all over wikipedia for sourcing?" That's a very good question, and one we should probably address in due course. However it's not a very good argument. If you're arguing for finding better sources, I'll happily support that. But you're basically saying here "Other random Wikipedians did this, so we should too" - they're even less reliable, so it seems you're digging yourself into a hole here. As for the contributions, one can make substantive contributions to areas which already exist. I actually do understand what you're saying there, but then it makes less sense as to why you'd start arguments on otherwise harmonious pages about things that don't matter. Orderinchaos 07:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC) I'm not using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because I still think Antony Green is a WP:RS. You say his non peer-reviewed source at NSW parliament is WP:RS, but his non peer-reviewed ABC election pages aren't. You've used ABC elections as a source on wikipedia yourself, why would you do this if it wasn't a WP:RS? "why you'd start arguments on otherwise harmonious pages about things that don't matter" doesn't make sense. Wikipedia is improved by editors coming together on talk pages. According to Antony, the Greens lost a seat at the election. Timeshift (talk) 07:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Point to one place where I've used it as a source and not simply an external link (for which the threshold is lower as we're explicitly saying it's someone else). Orderinchaos 07:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC) I don't care to scour your many many contributions to find one, but are you honestly saying that up until now you have not considered the ABC election site, designed/written by Antony Green, to be a WP:RS? No doubt you've come across it used on wikipedia as a source many times before, everyone who edits oz politics pages has, admins included. If it were not a WP:RS it would have been pointed out by now. I do not believe you consider it not to be a WP:RS. You seem to be pretty quick when it comes to removing other non RS. Timeshift (talk) 07:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Admins are not authorities - and I've often strenuously insisted when I've been quoted that I, likewise, am not an authority. We keep behaviour on track, we are not here to regulate content or make content decisions. As for "everyone" - no, they haven't. Ever since I saw an email from Antony Green in approximately March of last year, where he stated plainly his views about his stuff being used on Wiki (i.e. that we should pay regard to his own circumstances in producing it and question whether we can find better sources ourselves), I have veered away from using his site as a *source* - and helped to get rid of dozens of pages which depended solely on it on Wiki in August-September last year. It's certainly not a new view. The ABC page is useful for what it is - providing information to a generally clueless public. If you know nothing and you read that, you'll know a fair bit. If you're looking for the best Wikipedia can do, we should be going out finding our own sources and not relying on a hastily-assembled, although expert-informed, web job. I've been doing that for WA for over a year now. Ironically the end result is I've become something of an "expert" on that domain myself, but that's neither here nor there - then again, I'm not quoting myself, so it matters little. Orderinchaos 08:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC) 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.

Political parties

Would be good to get a few more eyes on List of political parties in Australia, since I know a few fair more people read this page.

The list had a fairly sizable section labelled "Not registered with the AEC" containing a few parties that are registered at state level only, a few that appear to be defunct or on hiatus, and a few that it's questionable if they even existed in any notable form in the first place. I've broken out the first of these into its own section, since there's bucketloads of sources for these; there's still the question of what we do with the rest of them. It'd be also good to give some of these articles a bit of a cleanup/referencing, since a lot of these small parties' articles are a bit of a mess to begin with. Rebecca (talk) 10:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

CEC MPs

Responses re CEC MPs would be appreciated at Talk:Citizens Electoral Council#CEC MPs?. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence Springborg Infobox

Can anyone figure out why Springborg's first term as Opposition Leader isn't showing? The fields term_start3, term_end3, predecessor3 and successor3 aren't displaying here. Yet they work fine in other places, e.g. Alfred Deakin, Andrew Fisher. Digestible (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Was some extra duplicate fields that were setting the thing back to null. Orderinchaos 15:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah well spotted. Digestible (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Daylight Savings Referendum

I'm currently working on the Fremantle state by-election, 2009 article. I was hoping to link it to the state referendum (to be held on the same day), but I can't find it. Does such an article even exist? Digestible (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Not that I know of - would be good to get one. That reminds me - I still need to enrol for the damned thing. Rebecca (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't even have one for the 1992 one yet and we actually have a full set of results for that :) Orderinchaos 18:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Independent to Independent

This continues a recent talk page discussion about how to treat an election that sees a new independent win the seat from another (usually outgoing) independent. Is such a victory a "gain" or a "hold"? Personally I'm not fussed, I'd just like for there to be an agreed standard. I've just created this page: Maryborough state by-election, 2003. See also Dubbo state by-election, 2004 and Port Macquarie state by-election, 2008. Digestible (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll just re-state my position that it should be a "hold", because (a) the seat remains in independent hands, and (b) "Independent gain from Independent" is rather confusing, especially for someone unfamiliar with electoral politics. This is especially the case for instances such as Port Macquarie, where Besseling had specific support from Oakeshott (on Antony Green's page, the decreased independent vote is even given as a swing against Besseling). Frickeg (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(a) What if the new independent defeated the sitting independent? (b) Awkward text I agree. But "independent hold" is potentially misleading. Finally, I wouldn't read too much into that last point about the swing; that's done more for the purposes of booth-by-booth comparison, which is how the ABC calls results. Digestible (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point about (a). Has this ever actually happened, though? Ideally, of course, it would have the Independent's name in the hold box ("Peter Besseling gain from Rob Oakeshott"), but that would play havoc with the template. Frickeg (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That sort of thing happened a lot historically. When we get to byelections in the 1930s and 1940s, things will be a lot of fun :) Orderinchaos 04:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Shudder. We're a long way off the chaos of back then, thank goodness! (Anyone who fully understands the various comings and goings between all the Victorian branches of the Country Party, and whether they warrant noting in the articles, please step forward!) Frickeg (talk) 04:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Rebecca was working a while back on the 1930-1933 Labor Party in South Australia. We lost count of how many bits it splintered into and who was associated with each bit by the time of the 1933 election. (I had the fun of figuring out the 1917 Labor and 1923 Country Party splits in WA but at least they were in a strange way fairly systematic and not difficult to research, even if the main sources didn't have things entirely right) Orderinchaos 05:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Victor Dominello

Does someone with more time and NSW knowledge want to have a look at this article? It seems to be largely primary sourced and trivial in writing style. Orderinchaos 10:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Gordon Moyes

Do we now consider him an independent? (He's been expelled from the CDP after attacking Fred Nile.) Frickeg (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I just had a bit of a dig through his website and there doesn't seem to be any mention of the CDP anymore. I think we'd be on fairly safe ground to classify him as Independent now. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC).

Yeah, if he's expelled he's going to be sitting as an independent. I'm hardly surprised - Moyes was sounding more like a Green in his attacks on Nile last year. Rebecca (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Basically the two represent the two opposing sides (liberal vs conservative) within the mainstream church, so it's unsurprising really that in the end they couldn't get along. Orderinchaos 06:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

When is an MP an independent?

Peter King, Gavan O'Connor, Stuart Copeland. Three recent MPs who, having been denied preselection by their parties stood as independents for their seats.

I point this out because the way we treat them is at the moment inconsistent. The following three pages make mention of their break with their party:

• Division of Wentworth
• Division of Corio
• Electoral district of Cunningham

The following three do not:

• Members of the Australian House of Representatives, 2001–2004
• Members of the Australian House of Representatives, 2004–2007
• Members of the Queensland Legislative Assembly, 2006–2009

Personally, I think the latter three have it right. The fact that these guys waited until after the dissolution of parliament to declare their independence means they were never independent members merely independent candidates. However, what we need is a reliable source. I'm not too sure what that is, given some of the parliamentary sites aren't that great in recording changing party affiliation.

--Digestible (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The contrast is say the bizarre situation in WA in 2008, or Franklin federally in 2007, where they clearly did sit as independents. The confusing thing would be what they would be if constituents approached them with queries in that, say, five or six week period. Orderinchaos 13:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we've historically tended to go with the former of the two options across the board: certainly, a lot of the state pages have marked them as independents, and I suspect the latter three might be because no one bothered to do it. I think Digestible's idea is a good one; it's a bit similar to the issues we sometimes get with resignation dates, where if we don't actually make sure we're using the date they formally resigned it can become a bit of a dog's breakfast.

Orderinchaos, I suspect it doesn't matter; the crucial thing is that they were a member of parliament in that period; their partisan status isn't really relevant to their interim duties if parliament isn't actually sitting or is going to sit again before the election. Rebecca (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I fear I may have to take some of the responsibility for this mixup, as the first three examples were all initiated by me. I tend to think the first option is the better one, because otherwise people go, "Hang on, he's a Liberal, but it says in this results table that he was an independent - what's going on?" However, this is only my opinion, and Digestible is quite right to say that we need a source. The logical place, to me, is the Parliamentary Handbook, where King and O'Connor are both listed as becoming Independents in the list of MPs. Unless there's another source, this would seem to me to decide in favour of the first option (marking them as independents). Frickeg (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hm, you do have a point: I notice the NSW parliament does the same for Bryce Gaudry (one of the most recent examples of this at state level IIRC). Rebecca (talk) 05:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, Copeland's page on the Queensland Parliament website doesn't mention that he sat as an independent. It also doesn't mention that he's no longer a member, so take it with a grain of salt. I think the idea here that if a member leaves the party before the election and sits at a parliamentary sitting as such we mention them as Ind, otherwise they're considered to only be Ind candidates and not members, is a good one. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC).

Copeland's page doesn't mention it yet is the key thing. These sites usually take a little while to update after elections; if I remember correctly, O'Connor wasn't listed as an independent until well after the election, when the class of 2007 was added to the handbook. Frickeg (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Australian politics/party colours/Liberal National and others

I've just reverted some good faith changes to this template, but given that the LNP has now been around for awhile, I feel that the templates for the LNP need some discussion.

Firstly, some background: the Liberal National Party was formed from a merger of the Liberal Party and National Party in Queensland. Given the strength of the National Party in Queensland relative to the Liberal Party, certain elements of the press characterised the merger as a takeover of the QLD Liberal Party by the Nats. The party itself has been relatively disciplined about this issue, after the predictably sulky "I'm taking my ball and going home" reactions of a few former Liberals. Even though the LNP comprehensively lost the recent Queensland state election, it looks like the party itself is here to stay for the forseeable future.

When the party was initially formed, I created Template:Australian politics/party colours/Liberal Nationals, and other editors created related templates like [[Template:Australian politics/party colours/Liberal National. As the party did not yet have a representative "colour", I calculated the mathematical midpoint between our colours for the Liberals and the Nationals, and used that. The result was a unsatisfactorily dark and "murky", so User:Orderinchaos brightened it slightly, which produced a teal/aqua colour that was clearly descended from the two "parent" parties, yet dissimilar enough from both to avoid confusion. This lasted until last week, when an editor went and changed these templates to standard Liberal blue, with an edit summary of "LNP Colour is Blue not Aqua ~~~~". I have reverted these changes, as the templates are used on a fair number of pages, but I concede that it's probably time we had a look at what colour we should use in the longer term.

Arguments in favour of changing the colour

• Antony Green used Liberal Blue during the television coverage of the 2009 Queensland State Election.
• The party is registered federally as a branch of the Liberal Party.
• Anecdotally, the party is dominated by former National Party members, thus National green should be considered for use.
• The party logo does not feature this colour (the logo is blue and yellow), and the party itself does not use it.

Arguments against changing the party colour

• The party is also affiliated federally with the National Party, and thus using Liberal blue or National green shows a POV towards one faction of the party in preference to the other.
• The use of a colour that is obviously dissimilar to both previous parties emphasises for our readers that the LNP is a new entity, and not merely a continuation of one of the old entities. Recycling a colour could cause confusion for our readers and give the impression that the Liberal Party just changed its name.
• We have used different colours than the parties themselves in the past - for instance on Template:Australian politics/party colours/Democrats which is a lot brighter than the colour the party uses on its website, and Template:Australian politics/party colours/DLP, which is not the same as the sky blue or Labor red that the party use on their website and promotional material.
• To be honest, I rather like the shade of teal that we came up with =)

I support maintaining the status quo, but I'm willing to make the switch if the consensus is that we should use another colour. Discussion is welcome in case I've missed any obvious for or against arguments. A related discussion we should have is rationalising the templates, because at present we have ones for "Liberal Nationals", "Liberal National" and "LNP", all of which appear to serve the same purpose. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC).

Keep the teal colour (or whatever it is) rather than the lighter shade of blue, as it's a combo of both parties colours. Practically speaking, the Liberals merged in to the Nationals, not the other way around. Timeshift (talk) 06:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion other than, at least for the moment, it should be differentiated from both Liberal and National. Reasonably happy with the status quo, though. As for the rationalisation, I'll get onto that :) Orderinchaos 07:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

As there was only 4 transclusions of the singular and the abbrev, I changed them all to plural. I actually think either of the other two names is better, but at least they're all one now and if we agree to change them, a single AWB job can clear them up. Orderinchaos 07:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought the change was a good one, because (a) the party itself uses blue (b) its a very different colour to the Liberal blue (royal not navy) and (c) the aqua is similar to the DLP colour. see e.g. Electoral district of Bundaberg. Digestible (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the teal/aqua colour was fine; it clearly showed the mix between Liberal and National in the new LNP. We can't always use the exact colours that the parties use, because a lot of them use the same colours. For example, the Liberals and all their predecessors (UAP, Nationalist, Comm Lib, Protectionist) all have different shades of blue. Frickeg (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think basically then the consensus is that we're happy with what we've got and there's no good reason to change it. Orderinchaos 06:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of good reasons, see below.Murphmeister (talk) 07:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I had made my comment prior to your proposition below. Orderinchaos 10:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

SG	LIB	LNP	NEW

OE here. The teal colour may have been a good idea while the LNP set up and went about merging but is outmoded now and is not representative of the new party's branding or livery. The LNP style guide states the party's official colour is a variant of Royal Blue R 0 G 80 B 143 (Pantone PMS 294C). I am not suggesting Wikipedia is beholden to a style guide, but it should follow a common-sense approach to best representing the party. Changing the colour to a Royal Blue differentiates the LNP from all the other state Liberal divisions (Navy Blue) while still keeping in line with the style guide and the traditional blue colouring of conservative parties. They have not used teal in any of their publications or livery, neither have the media, political analysts or the blogosphere. We should stick with the public consensus on this one and change the colour. It's a nice teal, though. :) Murphmeister (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've done a table of the three colours above - "SG" (Style Guide) is the one proposed by Murphmeister above. Orderinchaos 06:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have amended the table to include my proposed colour (NEW). The LNP's official colour probably comes a bit too close to Liberal Party's navy blue and may be hard to discern. Not a big issue. My proposed colour is lighter and cannot be confused with the Liberal Party, while moving the overall tone away from the unorthodox teal to a more traditional conservative livery. Murphmeister (talk) 07:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

What do others think of the proposed colour?

I'm happy to go with the one marked "new" by Murphmeister - the choice between that and our current colour is in my view six one, half a dozen the other, as they both differentiate and they both are neutral (in terms of any Lib vs Nat issues). As a few people contributed to the discussion above I would like to hear others' views before making a decision to change.

• Support Orderinchaos 10:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support For the reasons I stated above. Digestible (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Murphmeister (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - while I did like the teal, if the LNP doesn't use it then there's not much point in us doing so. Frickeg (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It has been 3 days now, with no dissenting opinions. I will go ahead and make the change. Murphmeister (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Already did. :P Orderinchaos 17:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes. There were 4 templates that needed changes to the colour, you only got 2. The others are now updated. :) Murphmeister (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries. At least it's all sorted now. Orderinchaos 17:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Latest state maps for free - Adam Carr

Adam Carr has done these maps if anyone particularly feels they would be of good use to election pages. See State-by-state lower house results for the 2007 Australian federal election for federal use licensing. Timeshift (talk) 06:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think they'd be great for individual electorate pages - if someone who is much better at graphics than me could change them so that they (a) don't show party colours and (b) highlight each individual electorate. Frickeg (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Or you could just upload Carr's electorate images :) Timeshift (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed! Frickeg (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Australian politicians

As posted on the Australian wikiproject noticeboard:

Hello all. Just thought I bring some of your attention to this list here. The missing encyclopedia project aims to make articles that are notable from lists such as this one and once the articles are completed (blue links) they are removed leaving only the unmade articles (red links). Not sure what happened to this page here, but it seems that nearly every article in relation to Australian politicians/politics is created! (c.f. this where nearly everything is red!

So, seeing as this is relevant to Australia, I was hoping if anyone here is willing to have a look at that page and double check that the articles are indeed what they are (and don't lead to a disambig page for example or an article about someone else not related to Australia) and remove the names from that list as appropriate. Then just leave the ones that still need work on or are red links to be eventually created hehe!

Thank you for your time and apologies if this is already on the page somewhere. Calaka (talk) 04:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen that page before! Timeshift (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hehe maybe those articles were just created independently from that list and hence why they were not removed?! Either way, I guess it's good that I placed the link here for others to have a look at it. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 04:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That would definitely be the case. I'll hazard a guess that it was User:Frickeg, who has done the incredible job of creating an article for every federal politician since federation. Timeshift (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Adam Carr made a list of every federal MP we didn't have articles on right back when we started writing the first articles on current federal MPs, back in 2004 or 2005 sometime. Thanks to Frickeg, yeah, bit outdated now. Rebecca (talk) 06:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's nice to see people go and clear out the written articles from this - highlights some categories we still need to work on, such as the judges and NT Administrators. If people are keen on keeping it going, it might be useful to start listing the recent state MPs that still need articles. Rebecca (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If there is a large number of recent politicians that don't have articles and are considered notable, maybe we can ask the creator of that list that I posted to make another list or just re update the list (I am guessing he used a bot to extract all those names from a government website or something and only pasted the red links at the time?). Having said that, not sure if he is still around to do that for us?Calaka (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If it was Adam Carr, no, he's not around any more. And, yes, there's still a huge number of state politicians without articles. A new list would be helpful, I agree, but it would also be extremely long! Frickeg (talk) 05:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm apparently (based on the history of that list of Australian politicians), someone called Wikispork started up the list. I tried to search some sort of government list on Google and funny enough, I find this: [[10]]. I notice (after a quick glance through the list on that list) that 90%+ seem to be blue links. I went a bit deaper and noticed much of the Senate stuff is complete with blue links (all the way back to the early 1900s!) But I guess the state politicians that are missing are not even on any list on Wikipedia yet?Calaka (talk) 08:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

For WA and Tasmania, nearly all member lists (the great majority of which are redlinks before a certain point in history) are on a series of lists (WA LA, WA LC, Tas HoA, Tas LC). South Australia (SA HoA) is next most complete, I believe. QLD is done back to 1969 (LA), VIC back to 1967 (LA) / 1976 (LC). Not sure about NSW simply as I haven't looked recently. Not sure about the Territories, but knowing who maintains those, I'd have a suspicion their lists are completed too, although those only go back to 1989 (ACT) and 1974 (NT) as that's when those parliaments came into being in their present form. Orderinchaos 09:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I maintain the territories ones (surprise); both of those are complete back to the first assemblies. Rebecca (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Without online references, it's a lot harder to create articles for state MPs than it is for federal MPs. I'd be willing to do SA MPs if it didn't mean spending hours in a library. Timeshift (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's something that unfortunately varies greatly between the states. Victoria and NSW have fantastic resources online; WA has comprehensive resources offline - for those three especially, it's not hard at all. SA seems to have drawn the short straw though; there's bugger all for anyone after 1960, and not spectacular resources before that. (This is one reason I can't sort out what happened in the Labor convulsions of 1930-33.) Rebecca (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Tasmania isn't too bad either, although the information available on their parliament's website - which covers every single MP - is basic and not always completely correct. With help of their Parliamentary Library and a related elections site, I got the lists done as far back as I did. They have the handy feature that being a small state with a disproportionately high number of federal MPs, a lot of them cross over. Orderinchaos 15:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I sent an email to the SA parliament website - good news! In their words, "a brief biography of former MP's will be available on the Parliament SA Internet site within the next month", and I also asked about the possibility of putting past premier images in to the public domain, they said they will put this to the site administrators for consideration (not sure about this as I doubt it would be their call to make?). Timeshift (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If possible, could you send an email to committeewikimedia.org.au with the contact details? That way it could be coordinated with Wikimedia Australia's existing outreach efforts in this area (they're dealing with a number of public agencies re cc-by-sa-3.0 and the likes.) Orderinchaos 04:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Should I just forward the email response to that address? Timeshift (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, was trying to fix the email address after you saw it. :) WMAU has as one of its goals the idea of getting as much free content from public agencies in Australia up there as possible. And yes. Orderinchaos 04:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Forwarded. Timeshift (talk) 04:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Division of Riverina

At present, this article covers both Riverina (1901-84, 1993-present) and Riverina-Darling (1984-93). Although they covered roughly the same areas, I'd like to suggest that Riverina-Darling gets its own article, seeing as this is the only instance when two different federal electorates are covered simultaneously. Frickeg (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No objections here. Rebecca (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Election navigation templates

There seems to be some changes going on. Does anyone recall the page on wikipedia that lists all election navigation templates by country? Timeshift (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no page (as not all the templates would show on it - there is a limit to the number that can be transcluded on a single article), but they are all under Category:Election and referendum year templates. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a page, i've seen it before. They were listed alphabetically by country. Timeshift (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There was a page with them on (List of election results by country), but they were removed, as from what I remember, none of the ones after H would load due there being too many for Wiki to handle (see this old version). пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Thismightbezach

This ignorant American keeps altering the succession boxes to put Attorney Generals under Legal instead of Political offices. In his own words: "It's not a minister... it's an ATTORNEY GENERAL." Speaks volumes.

Can he please be dealth with? Digestible (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Read the succession box header guidelines. Thismightbezach (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've read them. I've explained the discrepancy to you. Yet you insist on imposing your own narrow, rigid interpretation of the guidelines. Again I ask: why do you care? You've never shown any interest in Australian politics before. Why don't you at least discuss it with the people who work on and maintain these pages rather than imposing your own stubborn will? Digestible (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sir, you're interpreting your own idea of what is right and wrong. I am only going by what is clearly written on the Guidelines page. So I ask you once again nicely, stop. Thismightbezach (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I will not stop. I will defend the integrity of these articles. If you would like to discuss this then please discuss it. But stop simply imposing your own interpretation of the guidelines on these articles. Digestible (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I am imposing facts, not interpretations.

vii. Legal offices (s-legal) These include positions of power, whose common element is that they deal with the legal system of their respective countries. Such offices include:

Solicitors general
Attorneys general
District attorneys
Chief judges and justices
Thismightbezach (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

We're going round in circles. It also says that ministers belong under political offices. Your assertion that the attorney-general is not a minister is factually incorrect. Your ignorance on this matter is the root of this impasse. Digestible (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sir, you're ignoring the fact that is says right there, Legal offices: Attorneys general, etc. The matter is black and white, there are no gray areas.Thismightbezach (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't be daft. The fact that it refers to offices like "district attorneys" shows that these are obviously American-centric guidelines. The nature of the office of Attorney-General is different in different countries. Take a look at First Rudd Ministry or Fourth Howard Ministry for example. Tell me why you think an Attorney-General should be classified differently to his ministerial colleagues? Don't just say "it's in the guidelines" because we've already established that they're contradictory. Give actual reasons. Digestible (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

They apply to all countries. If any of the boxes were to be interpreted in different ways in accordance to which country it was, then it would say so. So once again, follow the guidelines, sir.Thismightbezach (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Another pig headed response. I am asking you to discuss this. You're telling me "my way or the highway". How about you JUSTIFY the guidelines. Which aren't as black and white as you think. Nor are "guidelines" the same thing as "rules". I would like to know why you are so adament about changing these pages. Digestible (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If there weren't guidelines, then everyone would just label all the boxes according to what they believe they should be. Which is apparently what you are doing. The guidelines are there for a reason: to classify what each succession box should be labeled as, according to WIKIPEDIA.Thismightbezach (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You've still yet to explain WHY you think the Attorney-General of Australia is primarily a legal office and not a political office. Digestible (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It makes no difference why I think so. It's written right there in the guidelines. Therefore, that's what the succession box header is. Grow up Thismightbezach (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You're expected to discuss contentious matters in order to form a consensus. Yet you continually refuse to do so. Digestible (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll post it again, apparently you're too thick headed to comprehend it.

vii. Legal offices (s-legal) These include positions of power, whose common element is that they deal with the legal system of their respective countries. Such offices include:

Solicitors general
Attorneys general
District attorneys
Chief judges and justices

So please stop rationalizing. What is there to discuss? There is no interpreting the matter, it says Attorney General, no if's and's or but's. Thismightbezach (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That all you can give me is guideline cut and pastes shows the intellectual bereftness of your stance. I don't know how many times it has to be pointed out to you that the guidelines are internally inconsistent. Moreover, I want to know YOUR reasoning. Why have you taken such a strong stance on such a minor matter? Digestible (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Both of you long ago breached 3RR, for example at Robert McClelland (Australian politician). So stop it - if it continues you will both be blocked to bring a halt to the edit-war.

On the actual issue - in Australia the office of Attorney General is more political than in (say) the US. While it has a formal role as the portfolio Minister for legal affairs, it is not an independent authority in the way US Attorneys General theoretically are. Whether the position is more political than legal is arguable - I'd say yes, others might say no, and this is a discussion to be resolved via consensus either here or at WP:AL.

Also on the actual issue, I'm struggling to see what actual differnece this makes - both s-legal and s-off generate the same text in the infobox. I also note the example on s-legal is of an Australian Attorney General (Menzies). If the visible output is exactly the same, why is this an important issue? Euryalus (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Thismightbezach has been blocked for 12 hours for edit-warring - Digestible stopped when asked so hasn't been blocked. All other opinions on this issue welcome. Euryalus (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC).

The first para of the Attorney-General of Australia does a good job of explaining the slightly odd status of the Australian Attorney-General - technically it's a legal position, but in effect it's a political position. As the incumbents are almost always Cabinet ministers, who have to to follow and fully implement the Government's policies or resign if they disagree with them, I don't think that the use of the 'Legal offices' heading is appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Good grief, this got rather heated, didn't it? I'd agree with Nick-D, above. The Attorney-General is part of the Cabinet, and is always a politician and an elected MP. The "Legal offices" heading implies that he is an appointed judge or something similar. Frickeg (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the more bizarre discussions I have seen here on Wikipedia. Nick-D and Frickeg are entirely correct. Apparently, Australian political convention can be overwritten by Wikipedia guidelines! In effect, Thismightbezach is saying that when the real world and Wikipedia guidelines conflict, the real world has to change to comply with what Wikipedia says! This drive for conformity on North American standards is becoming more and more common sadly. There has been the drive to rename Category:Australian doctors to "Australian physicians". When it was pointed out that the term physician has a specialist meaning in Aust, the category was renamed to the absurd, tautological, and misleading Category:Australian medical doctors (Not all Australian doctors hold a doctorate in Medicine). There is a current push to rename Category:People by University in Australia to "People by University or 'College in Australia" in admitted ignorance of the meaning of the term college in this country. I am not sure how this can be progressed but there needs to be some awareness from (mainly North American editors) that different parts of the world have different terms for similar things and similar terms for different things and that is important to have some idea about these differences before setting off to standardise Wikipedia on North American lines. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding my support to the above opinion plus those of Digestible, Frickeg and Nick-D. Orderinchaos 00:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Me too - as I've just explained on Zach's talk page. He's clearly factually in the wrong, but seems hellbent on trying to get himself banned. Rebecca (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

So Australia's different. Why can't that point be made and these inaccuracies corrected? The Wurdalak (talk) 02:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Good question. Are Australia (and constituent states), New Zealand, Fiji and Canada (and constituent provinces eg Manitoba, Ontario) the only exceptions, or are there more? I note the subcontinent and Britain tend to use it to mean what we would call the Director of Public Prosecutions. Orderinchaos 02:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've made a change to the relevant guideline to reflect this. I simply added the role of DPP to the end of the list, and added "(for countries where this is not a political office)" to A-G - as there seems to be quite a few countries on both sides of that divide. Hopefully this will help to resolve the conflict. Orderinchaos 03:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk about a storm in a teacup! I support Digestible over Thismightbezach for the reasons outlined above. It's a political office. Timeshift (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hoorah. Sanity prevails. Sorry about the edit wars. I should have been more patient. Digestible (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It happens to the best of us. :) Orderinchaos 02:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Categorization of politicians by party/state

I'd like to bring over a discussions started at Category talk:Western Australian Liberal politicians. The question - should the party politician categories include all pollies state and federal? Or should they be subdivided like the aforementioned category? Digestible (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

In essence the argument for creating them goes something like: Before I started separating out some WA ones, there was well over 700 members of the parent category. It randomly mixed state politicians from various states with federal politicians, obscure WA backbenchers from the 1950s with John Howard. WP:CAT advises: Categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles. They should be the categories under which readers would most likely look if they were not sure of where to find an article on a given subject. The separation system allows people to view politicians who are clearly related, and excludes those who are clearly unrelated. I had the idea for it when talking to a senior Liberal MP, who had read his own Wikipedia article and was bemused about the genericity of the category, and on hearing his thoughts about it came to the conclusion myself that the single-category system wasn't terribly useful.

Independently of Wikipedia's own "this category is not useful because it's too large and links items which are only tenuously related" argument, the MP's thoughts in summary (and what I've since read elsewhere): apparently when you join the Liberal Party, you become a member of a branch which is a member of a State party. There *is* no federal "Liberal Party" of which you are a member (although *elected* Federal MPs are members of a "branch" of sorts called the Federal Parliamentary Liberal Party, and as far as I understand it, maintain their membership though obviously not their voting rights within the FPLP if they cease to be members). If you shift state it's a bit like the RAC, you are recognised as a Liberal member by another state branch but to take up branch membership there you have to resign here and sign up there (although your length of membership in the original state is taken into account for the purposes of determining the 25 years for life membership). Also, for instance, a WA Liberal politician - even a federal one - could be expelled from the "Liberal Party" for violating a party statute which may not even exist in another state. There is all sorts of interesting options that could present themselves in the case of a party split, but a couple of them seem constitutionally impossible so I won't contemplate them here. Orderinchaos 22:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll credit the first argument. Perhaps the present categories are too bloated and need to be subdivided. If so, it'll require a lot more changes. So it's something worth discussing first.

I find the second argument less persuasive. The structure of the Liberal Party is a fairly technical detail, and I don't think this is too important for our purposes. The corollary of this is that Labor politicians, who belong to a party with a more centralised structure, would not be subdivided. But this would leave us with an odd inconsistency. Digestible (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Labor isn't significantly more centralised. It has a stronger binding ideology, but at organisational level, there isn't many differences between the Liberals above and Labor. Labor even has different factions and union affiliations in each state - for example the CFMEU is centre-right here whereas it's left in some other states. When Labor kicked out the ETU and Dean Mighell, they didn't bother to tell several states where the ETU are still affiliated. And at least one WA faction (New Right) does not exist in any other state, while the Centre faction here is not a member of and has no links with Labor Unity (it's a historic union-based faction) and the Left is not a member of the Socialist Left faction (in fact the Left here is effectively two rival subfactions which usually cooperate but not always), although some WA Left politicians at federal level have joined that faction. The separation in the Nationals is even stronger - each party has pretty much its own identity separate from any notion of a federal National Party, with WA and SA probably being the most individual, and had the Nationals won O'Connor, they would have sat in parliament as an independent under the Nationals WA banner. Orderinchaos 00:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

And as a complete aside, anyone who understands the point of caffeine-free Diet Coke is free to make me aware of it. I am suffering withdrawals. :( Orderinchaos 00:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I just don't see the benefit in attempting to group various different parties together in one category; especially for someone who's usually fairly opposed to original research. I'm a bit annoyed that you went and made these changes without discussion, since while, like Digestible, think there might be a case for splitting them, I think you've made a total mess of this one. Rebecca (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

All of the members at present of the WA category are post-1945. Prior to that, WA's was Nationalist, and prior to 1917, essentially pre-party and hence would simply be in the broader LA/LC categories. The Country/National party is a slightly different situation as it was one party that kept changing its name. Orderinchaos 02:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think this category makes any sense under its current name - either in terms of being factually accurate, or as a useful categorisation. While I take the point about the federal/state divide (a technical one that would elide all but the very most dedicated politics-watchers), this mangles altogether different parties in one category. "Liberal politicians" could well put them into about five seperate parties dating back well before the creation of the present Liberal Party, and not necessarily even in ideological agreement with that party. It's confusing, and it's really just factually wrong.

The state and federal branches might be, at a very technical/notional level, separate from each other, but for all practical purposes, and as far as the public is concerned, they're one and the same - everyone in the old category was indeed a member of the "Liberal Party". This is not the case with the revised version. The only case when treating the state branch as a separate party makes much sense, in my opinion, is the Greens (WA) - which actually operated as a seperate entity in more than theory, and to my knowledge had its own categories prior to this anyway.

I'm not really seeing the need to split it up into state and federal MPs in the first place, and I'm not seeing where this helps our readers. The alternative, if we stuck with this system, would be to come up with some long and esoteric alternative to reflect the federal/state distinction - though what benefit this serves our readers I'm not sure. Rebecca (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You are aware that for several years in the 50s and 60s, most SA and WA Lib politicians weren't even a member of a Liberal Party at all? Also the present LPA category contained several people whose membership of antecedent parties preceded the LPA. The situation is difficult and complex because the situation on the ground was. Orderinchaos 02:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Image query

File:Dunstan1970caucus.JPG

Dunstan 1970 caucus

Does anyone know of a way to remove this flash mark? Timeshift (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't. Is it not possible to take the photo again with the flash turned off? Digestible (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. Timeshift (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have the image as a RAW file, or is it a JPEG? It might be possible to get some more information out of the flash highlight if you have a RAW file. --Canley (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

JPG. Timeshift (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

How is this image possibly in the public domain? There is no details about who owns the original photograph and its copyright status. You can't release nto the public domain someone else's creative work just by taking a photograph of it, especially a two-dimensional object like a photograph. See Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images. "Photographs of three-dimensional objects almost always generate a new copyright, though others may continue to hold copyright in items depicted in such photographs. Photographs of two-dimensional objects such as paintings in a museum often do not." This is not copyright paranoia, simply common sense. Otherwise I could take a picture of a newspaper or magazine photograph, claim it as my own work and release it to the public domain. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm temporarily uploading it to see if anyone has a suggestion. I don't plan to keep it there. Timeshift (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool, just inquiring. Thanks for taking the time to explain. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

John Paul Langbroek

This article was created by User:Johnpaullangbroek -- not the actual politician, but almost certainly another sockpuppet of Universe Daily (see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Universe Daily for details). I've cut this article back to a stub because of reliability concerns; I invited editors here to have a go at expanding it into a useful, reliable article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The previous version was well referenced. I think this change is unnecessary. Digestible (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirected to John-Paul Langbroek. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Beat me to it. The new article was just a copy and paste of the old. Digestible (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

With one linkspam. True to form. Digestible (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Saeed Khan

This article was re-created after a prod some time ago. The author of the article is suggesting that he is notable for his literary work. I'm doubtful about this, and at the very least it needs a going over. Could someone more familiar with the policy in these areas take a look? Thanks. Frickeg (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Election results for abolished electorates

As some of you may know, I've been periodically adding pages of past results for federal electorates. At some point in the not too distant future, I'll get up to abolished electorates, and so I'm getting this in early to aim for consensus. For extant electorates, we leave the most recent result on the electorate page and have "Main article: Electoral results for the Division of _____" (for example, Division of Banks). What should be done for abolished electorates? It seems rather illogical to have the most recent result when in some cases this could be many, many years ago. Should it just be a heading with the link to the results underneath? Frickeg (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say heading with link to results underneath. Most recent result isn't terribly relevant esp if the electorate existed for a long time. Orderinchaos 08:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Might be worth starting on the current state electorates at some point, too. Rebecca (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Appointed Australian Senators

Does this need to be a category? It seems pretty esoteric to me. Digestible (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was simply basing it on Category:Appointed United States Senators. What's good for the goose ... Also, if it's a good thing to show them all in order of appointment (and with other relevant details) @ List of Australian Senate appointments, then surely it's worthwhile having them in a category, where they appear alphabetically. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Digestible. It's a huge category, and you've got a not insignificant portion of all Senators in there. It's just not a particularly unique one, and not one I'm really seeing the need to tag every article with. Rebecca (talk) 11:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Especially given a fair number of appointed senators end up getting elected anyway, hence making the whole point moot :) Suitable for a list though. Orderinchaos 11:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Digestible, Rebecca and Orderinchaos. There is no real difference between an appointed senator and an elected senator, and most appointed senators end up being elected too. It is like having a "MPs elected in by-elections" category. Frickeg (talk) 03:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Any chance of getting this undone then? Someone have a script that can make it easier? Rebecca (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't help feeling that we're slightly jumping the gun. A 4-1 against vote looks damning on the surface, but it doesn't exactly feel like a consensus. Is that all it takes for a decision, 4 users out of the hundreds who might have some interest in MOG issues? -- JackofOz (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There isn't hundreds of editors, though; this is about the standard response you're going to get to a query of this nature. I suppose you could ask Mattingbn, Canley, or a couple of the others that read this page with any regularity if you want more opinions. Rebecca (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I've now nominated this category for deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 5. Digestible (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Electoral results pages

Another question regarding these, and one that could potentially be a major pain. Electoral results for the Division of Werriwa apparently has too many expensive parser function cells, whatever they might be. This puts it into a maintenance category and also means that the final election box doesn't implement the template for the Protectionists. Now, Werriwa is a federation division and has had more by-elections than any other seat, but this means that all the other federation division election pages will get to this stage in a few elections' time. My question: what's to be done? Frickeg (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Warning: This page contains too many expensive parser function calls. It should have less than 500 calls, there are now 502 calls.

Fascinating. I'm not sure... Timeshift (talk) 07:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand the problem but am not sure how to fix it. Parser function calls are like your if statements in programming terms and would be used to turn the party name (a word or a couple of words) into a colour and name. Orderinchaos 09:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Embling

I've been updating the page on Thomas Embling. It's a work in progress, and I'm most focusing on his work at Yarra Bend Asylum as psychiatry is my interest. I've tried to update and clarify some of Embling's political history but politics, seats, assembly vs council etc aren't my strong points. Could some of you please look over the politics section for me? Please check over the rest if you're interested too Shelbypark (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

All looks fine to me. Thanks for an interesting article! Orderinchaos 12:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Uncontroversial moves

I wonder if I could trouble an admin to move Robert Sercombe to "Bob Sercombe" and Phillip Barresi to "Phil Barresi", as they're both overwhelmingly known by the latter names. Frickeg (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, done. --Canley (talk) 06:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Labor factions

I have a vague recollection of someone wanting information about Labor factions and members thereof, but I can't find it anywhere. I've got a source that may be useful for this (in print), and I can make a relevant list if this is helpful to anyone. Frickeg (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think OIC might have been the one looking for that, IIRC. Rebecca (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, was me :) This was as far as I got with it. Orderinchaos 13:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, they're WA state. My source gives basic "Left" or "Right" designations to the federal parliament of 2001-04 (with a few exceptions) - is that of help to you? Frickeg (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Greens state-wise

In the wake of the Fremantle by-election, I wonder if I might raise something that's been bothering me for a while. Adele Carles has everywhere been described as a Greens WA member (in member tables, on her biography); similarly in the WA upper house, the ACT, SA and several other states. My question is this: why is this distinction made with the Greens, and not with other parties? I realise that the Greens are registered in WA as "Greens (WA)"; but in NSW Labor is registered as "Australian Labor Party (NSW Branch)". This is only one of many examples. I would suggest that these distinctions with the Greens be removed (with the obvious exception of the period before the Greens WA actually became affiliated with the Australian Greens). This distinction is also made with the Nationals in WA and SA (but not in the other states); this too, I think, requires examination, although I'm inclined to think that the fact that a federal WA or SA National would be unlikely to sit with the federal Nats perhaps makes this a less salient point. Frickeg (talk) 07:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

When I was in the NT, the Greens there were always referred to as "Territory Greens" (or words to that effect) and they would state that, if elected, they would work with the Australian Greens, as if the two were completely separate. Personally, I believed this was so to give the local branches an excuse to distance themselves from other branches if a branch made a controversial decision but there may actually be a legal reasoning behind it as well. --Roisterer (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hong Lim

I'm currently starting on a quality drive through the articles on Victoria's state MPs, with the intention of making sure that every one is up-to-date, referenced, and has an article that doesn't suck. I'll get to the rest soon enough, but I just came across Hong Lim.

This one's a huge BLP violation. It might be right, but it's filled with random opinion and it's entirely devoid of references. Can someone give this one a look? Rebecca (talk) 09:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I just removed the material in question as per the normal process for unsourced BLP violations. Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Succession boxes on electorate pages

An anonymous editor has recently been adding succession boxes to electorate pages represented by the Prime Minister, for example Division of Bennelong. The editor has also added boxes for those represented by the Speaker, e.g. Division of Scullin. My view is that these boxes are rather unnecessary and would be better dealt with by a note in the text stating that the member is or was the Speaker. Thoughts? Frickeg (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Timeshift (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree too. I don't think this is a succession worth noting - it seems like trivia, it almost implies that an MP's role as Prime Minister somehow elevates their status as representative of their electorate (i.e. Griffith gets some kind of special status or treatment), and it's kind of redundant to the Prime Ministerial succession chain. --Canley (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In reality the experience often is that the safe seat MPs get to be ministers and then neglect their seats at home :/ I suspect this is why when there is a big swing on you usually get about 5 ministers losing their own seats. Happens at state level too. (You actually wonder what it must have been like in the old days - a lot of northern WA state seats had members who lived in Perth, were part of the Establishment, had never even been to the seat, saw it as a sinecure to give them access to the Ministry, and their only opponent at election, if there was one, could usually say the same for themselves.) Orderinchaos 09:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Also agree. Rebecca (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. They're gone. Frickeg (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Content removal at Belinda Neal

It seems 203.15.73.29 is engaging in "Removal of defamtory material subject of legal proceedings aginst News Limited". I had already reverted once but the removal occurred again. Thought on the issue? Timeshift (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The disputed section is immaculately sourced, and the actual prose looks okay to me. If anything it plays down the notability of the incident, skimming over the media storm that erupted around it. I don't think any legal action they might be taking against News Limited is our problem, as long as what's there is neutral and reliably sourced - we're merely reporting what has been covered elsewhere.

This said, the article does have some BLP issues in that form. Having more than half the article in a "controversial incidents" section, and having more on her soccer red card than on her entire career in the Senate is pretty poor. It should be rewritten chronologically, with her earlier career expanded to avoid issues of undue weight, and the various controversies integrated somewhat. This is especially important as some of them - especially the red card, but also to some extent her Mirabella comments - would have never made it into the press outside of a gossip column if it hadn't been for the media storm already surrounding Neal; both of those should probably be almost a footnote to the bar incident. Rebecca (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

While the incidents are well-referenced (at least I'm taking Rebecca's word on this!) and they appear notable enough, the article shows how often wikipedia fails. More than half of the article content is devoted to 3 incidents hyped up in the media. There is almost nothing on Neal's career as a parliamentarian, which is a clear case of undue weight. While no individual editor is at fault, Wikipedia has failed in this instance. --Merbabu (talk) 04:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem at least is that these incidents have (in the real world) completely overshadowed her career in the HoR - and it's almost the case that as soon as one bizarre incident concludes, another emerges. The way to fix it would be to add more stuff about her previous time as a Senator. Orderinchaos 07:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - I'm not saying the existing info should go, but one of us should add more on the rest of her career. I'm sure 3 media events is not the only thing she's done. --Merbabu (talk) 07:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for extra eyes/watchlisting

Could I get some people who actually know about Australia politics to watchlist Phil Edman please? This article had a history of edit warring and possible autobiography. It was deleted at AFD over two years ago for lack of notability (several political runs, no notable political wins). After several recreations after the AFD, the page was WP:SALTed. Well, he finally has a win, and is now apparently in one of the Australia state legislatures. An editor creating stub articles for all the new state legislators asked me to un-SALT the article. And given that he now meets the notability requirements, IMHO the old AFD was pretty much moot. So I've restored the history, and a new, NPOV stub has been created.

My concern is that, just because he's now notable does not mean that the autobiographical editing could not start up again in the future. I would just like to see him added to a few watchlists of people who have interest in the subject, so that, down the road, POV edits do not slip into the article undetected. - TexasAndroid (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I am the editor creating stub articles, in case anyone's wondering. And yes, I'm keeping a watchful eye on this one, but any further help would be appreciated. Frickeg (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the earlier issues to our attention. Orderinchaos 03:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

NSW Legislative Council candidates

Can anyone help me find candidates for the Legislative Council between 1978 (first LC election) and 1991 (inclusive)? I can't find any online so I can only hope that someone has access to print sources that could help. Frickeg (talk) 03:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The National Library seems to have a collection of books on each individual state election going back to the 1920s, or at least a lot of them - they seem to have been done in the mid-90s[11]. I could find a couple of random ones in the NSW state library, but they've got the most useless search engine in the history of the universe, so it's hard to say.

If you can't find those, I'd probably ring the electoral commission and go "help!". Rebecca (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ta-da! [12] It looks like it's just a case of watch and wait ... nonetheless, this will be inordinately helpful once it's done. Thank heavens for Antony Green! Frickeg (talk) 06:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful! Good to know they're on the way... Rebecca (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Utegate

Just a head-up to let people know that a Utegate page is now up. I've had a quick stab at getting it started but I ran out of time sadly. Plenty of work left to do to get it into shape. Manning (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Misleading parliament

With the Utegate kerfuffle I thought I'd look up the term Misleading parliament on WP, only to find it doesn't exist. Does anyone know much about the concept? Is it a legal concept, or just a bit of jargon used in the press? Why is it so bad? --Surturz (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't just jargon; it's a long-standing doctrine that one should resign if found to have mislead parliament. It would definitely be good to have an article laying out the history of this, though; a quick search doesn't turn up much, so one might have to hit the books. Rebecca (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've created the article To mislead parliament, with redirects from Mislead parliament and Misleading parliament. It's a pretty crappy article at the moment, but it's a start. I have googled the term a fair bit and found very little material on the web, so this article would be a good one to flesh out. --Surturz (talk) 08:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm - this article smacks of a POV tool. WHo says it is convention to resign? From which parliament? THe two sources offered to support "by convention" are a Ministerial Code from the Scottish Parliament, and a news article about the sacking of a NSW govt minister. That's pure WP:SYNTH which is WP:OR--Merbabu (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "POV tool", please clarify. Unfortunately, I can find very little material on the concept of "misleading parliament" through Google. Almost all the hits are various ministers around the world accused of misleading parliament. I agree the text is WP:OR and the refs are very poor quality - I noted that in my edit summary. But it is a start. Ideally, we could find some parliamentary handbook or parliamentary standing orders online that defines the term. I agree that we should not have refs that refer to individual ministers that have been sacked for misleading parliament (unless used as particularly notable examples). It is clear to me, though, that the article is WP:N since the term obviously has a special meaning and is used in various countries. --Surturz (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that there's enough material here to support an article. I'd suggest that it either be moved into an article on parliamentary conventions per the suggestion for treating articles which can't be expanded beyond a stub at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The article seems more like a definition, which is not what wikipedia is about. --Merbabu (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I also think that it's on the borderline of a definition. Transwiking to Wiktionary is another option. Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

A decent article could be written *if* the sources exist. It seems like something that belongs in an article on the Westminster model of parliament though. Orderinchaos 12:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

As a counterpoint, I think Perjury and Motion of no confidence are similar articles. However, I think you all are correct that there isn't enough material for a stand-alone article (for that we'd need a history, some notable examples etc). I do think a subsection in another article would be worthwhile. Any suggestions as to which article it should be moved to? It doesn't look like it would be a good fit with the obvious candidate, Westminster system --Surturz (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Parliamentary_procedure seems a promising start point. --Surturz (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Parliamentary_Procedure#To_mislead_parliament - probably more appropriate for that project than this one, as it is not a particularly Australian topic. --Surturz (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Will Fowles Lord Mayoral Campaign

The above article does not appear notable to me, however when it comes to local government I seem to be more deletionist than most. If others here think it is worth keeping I am happy to defer to that. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

He placed sixth in a race with less voters than a typical federal electorate. I'd say it's rather non notable. The article Will Fowles is also somewhat dubious. Both written by the same editor too, I would say it is basically advertising / promotional. Orderinchaos 12:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm curiouser - [13]. Looks like an SPA/sock. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 13:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirected both to City of Melbourne election, 2008. I expect they will be reverted. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 13:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope if I ever run for council I don't end up with some bizarre spammy page on here about it :) Orderinchaos 01:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm Turnbull

Malcolm Turnbull's article appears long overdue for some work - it has only two sentences on his career since becoming leader of the opposition. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I've thought this for quite a while. Timeshift (talk) 11:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Opinion polls

Hi, I'm not a regular in AUSPOL, so my apologies for not being aware of subcommunity standards, if any. My scouting around did not turn up an answer to my question, hence I'm posting here. In regard to this edit [14] and this discussion: Is there a AUSPOL subcommunity consensus that opinion polls are not encyclopediac?Manning (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Opinion polling for the 2008 United States presidential election ;) Timeshift (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Update - it appears there has been a misunderstanding. The dispute is not about the opinion poll per se, but the fact that the poll in question has no irrefutable relevance to the article topic, which I regard as a reasonable objection. I leave this topic open for general discussion, but note that the specifics of the above links are no longer relevant. Manning (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

However it's not synth when you have many WP:RS directly blaming OzCar for the poll slumps. If we made the connection ourselves it would be synth. Timeshift (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Tirath Khemlani into Loans Affair

I have proposed to merge Tirath Khemlani into Loans Affair according to WP:BLP1E. Please see talk here to discuss the proposal. --Surturz (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Tasks

The "tasks" section on the project main page is hopelessly out of date - most of the "recently created" pages were created back in 2006! Can I suggest that we either format this so that it automatically updates (I'm not sure how to do this), or get rid of it all together? Frickeg (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If I remember rightly, this was back in the days when we still had key senators without articles. The problem now is that all the major holes are gone, and the remaining holes are specialised enough that highlighting them here doesn't really do any good at getting them filled - i.e. the Sports Rorts affair was sitting in that list for about two years before it ever got an article. At this point, I'd actually like to see us getting some kind of ongoing collaboration project going - it's far more pressing on a project-scale that we deal with the fact that Malcolm Turnbull's article totally sucks than the fact that John Cain's Treasurer doesn't have an article. We've got enough good people here with the right resources that we could make a big difference to some of these high-profile articles if we pooled our resources. Rebecca (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I notice Orderinchaos has deleted the template, which makes sense, but as I suggested here - how about replacing it with something more catered to our current needs? Rebecca (talk) 06:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The "Tasks" section in the main page is still available for that - I left it intact. Orderinchaos 06:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Jack Lang

What would you all think about moving Jack Lang (Australian politician) to Jack Lang? There's a French minister by the same name, but he appears to have not been nearly as influential as his Australian counterpart. Rebecca (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd support a move. Timeshift (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Same. Orderinchaos 05:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Pendulums

I've created a draft pendulum for the 1901 federal election here, and I'd appreciate a few extra pairs of eyes - I'm not entirely happy with the colouring, and I also would appreciate comments on the formatting. I based it on the Current pendulum for the next Australian federal election. I'm also wondering where this should go when it's ready - 1901 election page, 1903 election page, separate page ... ? Frickeg (talk) 05:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Oooooooooooooooooooh! Nice one! I like, I like! Though three columns won't display for smaller resolutions... I'd suggest doing just two columns. Put Protectionists and Labor in the left column together. Timeshift (talk) 06:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Would you suggest mixing the Protectionists and Labour up a-la the Coalition on the Mackerras pendulum, or leaving them separate, as with the Independents? Frickeg (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd mix them up. Lowest to highest %, colours/party names distinguish between them. Timeshift (talk) 06:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! There was one other thing I wanted to ask - and this will apply only to 1901. For that election, South Australia and Tasmania elected seven and five members respectively for the lower house. This was done by each South Australian casting seven votes, and each Tasmanian casting five. I have absolutely no idea how to work this into the pendulum, but as it's supposed to represent the Lower House I'd really love to find a way. Anyone got any ideas? Frickeg (talk) 06:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we have pendulums for any Senate or state upper house elections? If we have, I'd use that. If we haven't, damn. Orderinchaos 06:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we don't have those ... it's hard to think of how one would go about making a pendulum with proportional representation. Frickeg (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm moving the question of placement of the pendulums down here. Would the 1901 election go on the 1901 election page, the 1903 election page, both, or neither? And what about redistribution pendulums? Where should they go? Frickeg (talk) 07:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Do it like it is at the moment. The 1901 pendulum goes on the 1901 page, the 1903 pendulum goes on the 1903 page etc. If you plan to also do pre-election post-redistribution pendulums, for post-1901 you should put them it on 1903 and distinguish them as pre-election and post-election. As for SA/Tas, is there a way to code it so the division of South Australia is listed, then have the seven names going downward, leaving blank spaces to the left for the last six, and on the right do something like "PR"? Then just add a footnote at the bottom explaining the deal. Timeshift (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Was it actually PR though? My understanding of early-century multi-candidate races was they were more like first-past-the-post contests with merely the first X instead of the first 1 winning. I could be wrong re federal as my knowledge is of the states at that time. Orderinchaos 05:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

One thing i've just noticed. Some pendulums have 0.1, others have 50.1 when giving margins. See South Australian state election, 2010#Current pendulum and Current pendulum for the next Australian federal election. One also has % while the other just has the number. What should the convention be? Timeshift (talk) 09:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It probably matters little as long as there *is* a convention. What do Green / Mackerras do? Orderinchaos 11:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Green. Bowe. Not sure where to find Mackerras'. Timeshift (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Orderinchaos is right about SA/Tas - it wasn't PR, it was "everyone votes 7 times, and the seven highest win". Perhaps I could just put their winning margins or something? And I'll take that as consensus for 00.1 rather than 50.1 (it works better to have 00 because then it aligns with 10). Frickeg (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Found a journal article by Mackerras (1996) with the lower numbers, so seems reasonable. (Agreed with Frickeg about the minor change for our purposes) Orderinchaos 03:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Barry O'Farrell

The article on NSW Opposition Leader (and probable next premier) Barry O'Farrell needs some attention - at present it covers only the high points of his career, and may as well have been written by the Liberal Party. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This is why I think we need to get some sort of organised collaboration going. These sort of big articles are a lot easier to tackle with a few hands on deck - something like we used to have with the Canberra WikiProject - sort of like the old collaborations of the week, but instead a "keep focusing on this article until it ceases to suck" project - could really help us get these bios of major leaders under control. Rebecca (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Norfolk

One. Two. Three. Should Norfolk be included? Timeshift (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

My personal feeling on this one has always been no. Orderinchaos 06:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope. We've been over this a few times. Rebecca (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Timeshift (talk) 07:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Dodgygate

Anyone else think this warrants an article by now? Rebecca (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Given it actually brought down a leader, I don't see why not. Orderinchaos 08:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Want to do it? :) It would certainly take a chunk of text out of MHS' article regarding the last week or two's leadership hijinks. Timeshift (talk) 08:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What should it be called? "Dodgygate" is a pretty lame name, but I don't know what other RS name exists for it. Orderinchaos 11:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It is a bad name but there's not much else to call it... Timeshift (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Barrier and Darling

Between 1901 and 1922, both divisions existed, and both covered "Broken Hill and surrounding pastoral areas"? Did the divisions cover these areas at separate times? Or is it a mistake? Timeshift (talk) 09:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

My guess would be that they're both right, and initially covered separate areas, before Barrier was abolished and Darling expanded to cover the territory of Barrier over the subsequent 50 years before it too was abolished. It'd be nice to have a better explanation of the boundary changes over time, but it's a royal pain to research. Rebecca (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If someone is in Melbourne, the SLV in their Genealogy section (?!) has a big (2xA3?) book with maps (by state and metro) of all Federal electorate between 1901 and 1989 available for viewing. The pages look like this. I saw it when I was there in 2007 and it seemed fairly central to their collection so I don't doubt it still would be there. Unfortunately no idea of publication details so I don't know if it is available anywhere else. Orderinchaos 07:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Australia 1901-1988 Electoral Distributions ISBN 0644 08083 3, which I own a copy of if you have any questions on this period. Darling throughout this period did not include Broken Hill, instead it was based on Bourke, Cobar, Nyngan, Coonamble and Gilgandra. From 1906 it also included Dubbo. Barrier included Broken Hill, Wilcannia and points north from 1901 to 1905 (but not Menindee). From 1906 it also included Menindee and Wentworth. From 1913 to 1921 it also included Balranald and Deniliquen.--Grahame (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've now added a potted history to the two articles.--Grahame (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Naming issue

OK, so Western Australia got responsible government in 1890 and a Legislative Assembly was created and divided into "electoral districts". The then-Legislative Council was abolished and recreated as a nominative body and 4 years later, when certain conditions were met, it became elective again and was divided into "provinces", which had nothing whatsoever to do with the earlier system.

But it turns out that from 1870 until 1890, the Legislative Council also used "electoral districts" and in many cases there are name clashes with the LA ones. In many cases the districts were consistent enough that the LC member for the ED, upon the chamber being abolished, ran for and won the LA one of the same name, but in other cases it is not that simple (boundaries were determined by an entirely different process and were not the same).

What should I do naming wise - should I write a section in each ED about the LC seat, or should I create an entire new article eg Electoral district of Wellington (1870-1890)? Orderinchaos 11:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I'd create new articles for them all. For the ones with the same name, we'd already be using the same convention as we do for federal electorates recreated under the same name with totally different boundaries. Even for the other ones, considering that the entire system's changed, I think it might be less confusing to have seperate articles. Rebecca (talk) 11:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - do you think we should disambiguate per above, or (Legislative Council)? Also Wellington specifically as it's not just a WA electoral district - there is or was NSW and TAS ones. I'll be doing this next week once my TAFE assgs are out of the way - they're rather over-urgently due. :| Orderinchaos 21:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If they were definitely called "electoral districts", then I'd say to use the (WA Legislative Council) as disambiguation. If there are too many of them, using years becomes a bit confusing. I agree that they definitely warrant articles. Is there any way that they could have a different prefix ... I have no idea what this would be, and obviously it would have to comply with whatever they were officially called, but something like "Electoral council district" or something. I'm not aware of any other upper house districts that currently use "electoral district" - I know Tasmania uses "electoral division". Frickeg (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There's about 15 or so, with only three or so not requiring disambig. Wellington is a special case like I said. I've verified from the Legislative Council Act 1870 that they were definitely "Electoral District of ____". It only related to the 1870-90 Council (noting there was no other assembly at the time) and the naming (and the districts and most of the members) passed to the Assembly upon its creation. The council then became nominative with no districts at all, then 4 years later was divided by the Constitution Act Amendment Act 1893 into "provinces" (I note Victoria used the same naming for its divisions). Orderinchaos 00:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just chucked up this which shows what the districts were, and what happened to their final members. Orderinchaos 00:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

MPs birthdates

Where's the best place to find an MPs birthdate? I'm looking for Isobel Redmond's but I can't remember where to look, and can't remember where it would have been found for Mike Rann... Timeshift (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The SA parliament has the least useful website in the country, so we're down birthdates for a lot of SA MPs and probably will be for the foreseeable future. I've never seen a reliable source for the group as a whole, but some individual MPs might be mentioned on other pages on the parliament site or in newspaper articles. Rebecca (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I emailed SA Parliament a few months back to ask if there were any plans to do more detailed bios on MPs past and present, they replied back saying that a brand new and more detailed website was on the way and to keep a look out on the site for the launch in a month or so. Still waiting... Timeshift (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Might be a good idea to send them a follow-up query. It'd be great if that's true, though. If they'd hurry up and do something like the NSW and Vic parliaments did with their biographies, I'd be content with my spare time for the next three years... Rebecca (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sent and received on 16 April 2009...

Firstly a brief biography of former MP's will be available on the Parliament SA Internet site within the next month, so keep an eye out for it.

Secondly I am not aware at this time of any changes to the Past Premiers images on the Internet site. However your suggestion I will put to the site administrators for their consideration.

My query was...

I have two queries. Is there any brief biography of historical MPs available, and if not, are there any future plans for this site? My second query is the possibility of changing the image licensing of Past Premiers to public domain so they can be used on Wikipedia?

I've replied for a follow up. Timeshift (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No reply yet, but something does appear to be happening. I only came across them by changing the pid number when I strolled across Eastick's link in google and noticed a photo-at-the-time. I'll be darned if I can figure out how to navigate to them off the parliament.sa.gov.au site though. Maybe they aren't supposed to be navigated to until they release the new website... Timeshift (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That's really interesting - a look around seems to show that they go back to about 1970. They look very similar to the crappy bios that the site used to have up for a handful of past MHAs a few years ago - which we used to have as cited sources for some of the 1993-1997 members - and I thought they might have been leftovers from that, but I'm pretty positive the old bios didn't go back that far, and weren't as comprehensive. It's still not a heck of a lot of use to us at present - everything in there is in the Statistical Record, apart from the pictures which we can't use - but it might be a promising sign if those actually get expanded more. Rebecca (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As you know, our Former Member database has been in production for some time now and we are very close to going live with the it. Technical issues have caused a delay in getting it completed so we are eagerly testing and tweaking to get it ready for release. I'm hoping we should have something available to the public by the end of this month....stay tunned!

Nothing on image licensing though. I've sent a followup email. Timeshift (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately there has not been any consideration of your request to change the image licensing of any of the photographs on our website. However i am happy to keep this in mind and raise it with Management at a later date.

So in other words... no. Timeshift (talk) 02:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Titles of articles about state governors

I note that, apart from Western Australia, all the articles about Australian state governors start out "Governors of <State>". Western Australia's is is "Governor of Western Australia". It's good to see the sand gropers being individuals. However, I actually think "Governor of ..." is the better title. The articles do contain lists of names, but in essence they are about the office, not merely about whoever the holders of the office happened to be. We have "Prime Minister of Australia", not "Prime Ministers of Australia". Etc. Can we achieve consistency? I'd prefer all the others to drop the "s"; but adding an "s" to WA's article would still be better than having a foot in both camps. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It's even worse with premiers/chief ministers. The same 5 states are "Premiers of <State>", but WA is "Premier of Western Australia", ACT is "Chief Minister of the ACT" (not Chief Ministers), and NT is "Chief Minister of the NT" (not Chief Ministers). -- JackofOz (talk) 11:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This is because in most cases no one's ever written an actual article about the premier or governor role, and some well-meaning doofus has moved the article on the basis that it's now a list. They should all really be at "Governor of...", "Premier of...", but that would make more sense if someone could actually write a decent article for each. Rebecca (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Current parties

I notice there are only two federally registered parties without articles at the moment - Australian Fishing & Lifestyle Party and Carers Alliance. The Carers Alliance did have an article which was deleted on the grounds of being non-notable. I wonder if an admin could have a look at the history and see if a decent article could be made? Also, could someone move liberals for Forests to liberals for forests, if possible? It was originally created at Liberals for Forests (as the coding didn't allow initial lower-case), but as it does now ... Thanks. Frickeg (talk) 03:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Have 1. undeleted Carers Alliance, and 2. fixed the naming for LFF. Carers Alliance might need to be edited to indicate its notability. Orderinchaos 04:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Extra eyes at Isobel Redmond

Extra eyes would be appreciated. Content removal began under an anon IP, then moved to User:Sweeper9, and now User:Sweeper10. Both pieces of content being removed are cited, relevant and noteable. Timeshift (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Removals at Isobel Redmond continue. Could others provide assistance and/or advice? Timeshift (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Frickeg (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I get some help with User:Ttruth? Timeshift (talk) 06:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Page has been protected. For some reason I got the feeling right from the beginning that I was dealing with WP:COI contributors, and it appears I was right - and the contributions since the IP who first began content removal have been from new editors. Timeshift (talk) 08:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hajnal Ban

Who would object to an afd? She doesn't seem particularly noteable apart from extension legs... Timeshift (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd vote to keep. She's been a fairly high-profile candidate from the Nats (a bit like say Mia Handshin), there's enough reliable sources to form a solid article at this point, and she's likely to stay in the limelight, considering the likelihood she'll be contesting LNP preselection for the new seat of Wright. Rebecca (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hajnal Ban--Grahame (talk) 12:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Diane Teasdale

I seem to remember this being deleted a while ago but thought I'd bring it up here before I prod it. Yes, the Australia First Party has been in the news a lot lately, but I still don't think she's notable. Thoughts? Frickeg (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Was deleted at AfD almost exactly a year ago - I G4'd it on that basis. Orderinchaos 00:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Leaders of political parties in Australia

Heads up. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_28#Category:Leaders_of_political_parties_in_Australia

Digestible (talk) 04:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Brennan, Hughes and Higgins

This recent edit to the Frank Brennan article caught my eye. The change is indeed consistent with the Billy Hughes article.

In 1903, he [Hughes] was admitted to the bar after several years part time study.

But seems to me at odds with this passage from the H. B. Higgins article:

The Labor Party's confidence in him was shown in 1904 when Chris Watson formed the first federal Labor government.
Since the party did not have a suitably qualified lawyer, Watson offered the post of Attorney-General to Higgins.

Why was Hughes not considered a "suitably qualified lawyer"? Digestible (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the Australian Dictionary of Biography: "Hughes, who had qualified for the Bar in November 1903, showed uncharacteristic modesty in refusing the post of attorney-general and took external affairs, with second rank to Watson.". So it appears he was offered the position, but declined and it was offered to Higgins instead. --Canley (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks. Perhaps that part of the Higgins article should be reworked. Digestible (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Fiona Patten

I'm not sure that she's notable, but seeing that several respected editors had contributed I thought I'd raise it here. As the leader of a minor political party, I doubt she warrants an article, any more than Craig Isherwood (leader of the CEC) or Diane Teasdale (leader of the Australia First Party). Frickeg (talk) 02:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, on the basis of a quick Google search I don't think that she meets WP:BIO and this article should probably be merged with the Australian Sex Party article. Nick-D (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think her leadership of the ASP makes her notable on its own, but I do think her role with the Eros Foundation makes her notable as a public commentator. She was its first president, she's been the most prominent spokesperson for the sex industry in Australia for the better part of 20 years, and she's cited in quite a few sources on Google Books. It could really do with a decent expansion so it's not all about her role with the microparty. Rebecca (talk) 06:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Division of Wright

Further opinion appreciated on whether this article should exist just yet. Discussion on the article's talk page. Frickeg (talk) 06:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Victor Dominello

Help requested at Victor Dominello - I'll be going over 3RR if I revert any more. [15] Thanks, Frickeg (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

3RR only applies if you revert for a FOURTH (not a third) time within a 24 HOUR period... however i've reverted anyway. Timeshift (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, right - thanks. I've rarely been in that situation, so my WikiPolicy grasp is a little rusty ... Frickeg (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Creating spammy Wikipedia articles about yourself is certainly a good test of the IQ (or lack thereof) of MPs. And it's depressingly common. Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Tony Abbott edits and/or vandalism

I've gone as far as I can, it's bordering on vandalism. Timeshift (talk) 07:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've given the editor a 3RR warning and reverted them. This should be discussed on the talk page though, as it may be a legitimate nick name. Nick-D (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It might be a legitimate nickname but that isn't the point. Are we going to start adding sourced nicknames to all MPs pages? I can imagine PM infobox nickname lists would be rather long... Timeshift (talk) 08:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Constant vandalism... assistance on this page would be appreciated... Timeshift (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, some people need to get a life... you wonder what inspires them. :| Semi'd until after the new year. Orderinchaos 17:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

2PP estimates

I notice that a lot of the pre-1984 results include estimates of the 2PP where no preference count was conducted. e.g. Electoral results for the Division of Bradfield. Obviously these results have been taken from Psephos, but where did Psephos get them? Is it just amateur guesswork or more is it more professional than that (e.g. restrospective analysis by the AEC)?

I think all estimated 2PP results need to be marked clearly as such. Though I'm not sure they should even be there at all. Digestible (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you email him? Timeshift (talk) 07:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say that Adam has estimated them based on the distribution of preferences in other seats, and on the candidates' how-to-votes. While I agree that it is probably a good idea to note when they are an estimate, I think they add quite a lot to the basic result. We can get no useful swings without them, for example. Frickeg (talk) 00:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think that Adam himself came up with the estimates? Timeshift (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

My guess is yes. Having recently done the page for Gwydir by-election, 1989, he explicitly states that he estimated the margin (as the AEC inexplicably did not) based on assumptions. I don't know about the rest, but it seems likely. Frickeg (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

He explicitly states it for that by-election and not others. "Although it is a requirement of the Electoral Act that preferences be distributed, the Electoral Commission has no record of this having been done for this by-election. The estimated majority assumes that 75% of O'Regan's preferences went to Uebergang." So I still don't know why we're assuming Adam is estimating them himself. Timeshift (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

In WA Labor Party publications predating the Electoral Commission's public determinations (I'm thinking in particular of 1977), 2pps to 1 decimal point for federal seats were sometimes given leading up to an election for the previous one. I'm not sure whether these were Mackerras's estimates or whether the Labor Party scrutineers had determined one or whether the Electoral Commission actually did calculate the number but just didn't publish or record it. But they did exist. Orderinchaos 03:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, looking at Mackerras's book "Elections 1980" (which despite its name is about the 1977 election) such figures, even given down to vote numbers, are published as "Final Count (estimate)" and give figures all the way back to 1969, mostly shown as (est)s with a few (act)s. Bradfield's are 71.7, 69.3, 63.5, 80.7 and 80.1 from 1969 to 1977. (Mackerras, Malcolm (1980). Elections 1980. Angus & Robertson. p. 49. ISBN 0-207-14141-X.) p.42, interestingly, marks it the safest Coalition seat in NSW. Orderinchaos 03:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

He has explicitly stated for 1989 because it was a requirement then. But it wasn't a requirement before 1984. --Digestible (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

An interesting side-point with Bradfield is that despite it being the safest metropolitan Liberal seat in Australia, it's only swung three times to the Liberals since 1975, compared to nine for Labor. Timeshift (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Carr, Iemma, Rees NSW Labor Government ...?

Is this really a valid page? It's one thing to have *leader* government, but there's no precedent in AUSPOL for a page like this... Timeshift (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That should be either split into three articles or be given a more sensible title. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree. I think it's fair to have government articles under premier (I'm planning to write a series of them one day for WA) but have to be careful re BLP etc. It took a lot of work and eyes getting Howard Government right. Orderinchaos 11:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The article certainly seems to have a bias towards the low points of these governments... (sample sentence: "Carr retired in 2005 amidst growing disatisfaction over failure to deliver on key policy areas such as the State Rail and Hospital systems, while the NSW economy was had lagged behind the other States"). Nick-D (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I was addressing the issue of the existence of the article rather than the quality of the present iteration of it. One of the reasons I'm hesitant to do WA is I think the Burke one would become a battleground. Orderinchaos 12:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the author had linked the article to all sorts of articles, many of them only tangentially related. I have reverted those additions. Orderinchaos 13:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with all three Premierships in the one article. They need to be split otherwise it is inconsistent with other *leader* government articles. Timeshift (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

In agreement with that stance. It also fits well with the cabinet listings (I'm not sure whether these have been done for NSW but they have for some other states and for Federal). So in other words you would have X Ministry (or in some places First/Second X Ministry depending on how they do gazettals), X Government etc. Orderinchaos 00:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Also agree. Needs to be split. Frickeg (talk) 04:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't have a problem with 1995 to present listed as article even though there are a number of leaders. We don't want to be picky and it encourages a dis-jointed approach when the govt under the different leaders has more in common than not in common. As for the above comparisons to other govt articles, the Howard and Rudd articles are no-brainers as there was/is only one leader, and I'd strongly suggest making the Hawke-Keating govts one article as like the present Labor NSW govt, the periods under the different leaders had more in common than not in common. The name is a little silly though - perhaps we could call it the NSW Labor Government (1996 to present) or just NSW Labor Government explaining in the first sentence that it refers to the 1995 to present. PS - I support the existence of the article which is of course not an endorsement or otherwise of the quality of content. --Merbabu (talk) 04:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've outlined my objection to this at (probably excessive) length at the article's talk page. The broad summary is - 1. There is no precedent anywhere for including "Labor" in the name (or any other party designation) - the only people who do this are govt members trying to burnish up their achievements for their electors' benefit, or opposition members trying to tag them all with the same brush. 2. Iemma was in power for more than 3 years and Rees probably will be too - each of their administrations was quite distinguishable (in the sense that one can distinguish one from another by what they say and what they do), we have Prime Ministers who have lasted less and the same situation applies in any state where there's been a follow-on in the leadership. Trying to link three very different administrations (the relative stability and policy coherence of the Carr government vs the factional dominance and policy extremism of the Iemma government vs the vacuum of the present one while the party tries to rebuild while being unfortunate enough to have to do so in government rather than opposition) into one confuses the issue for readers in my view. Orderinchaos 08:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Could we perhaps cut and paste this conversation to the article's talk page, leaving just a link and a one sentence description of the topic - otherwise, we will continue to have two separate conversations. --Merbabu (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Would make sense I think to do the exact reverse - as this page has considerably more visibility. Hence why I provided the potted summary here so people could read it in brief and, if they chose, read my extended comment at the other page. Orderinchaos 09:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Following *rather* strong feedback after I asked some neutral admins about this, I have removed the article from mainspace and advised the user to read BLP very carefully before proceeding. This is something that hypothetically affects all such intended articles, but has been very carefully managed by Merbabu etc on Howard Government so as to not be a problem. Orderinchaos 04:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

SA Parliament MP bios now available - and conflicting "facts"

Here. Timeshift (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant! I'd been hoping for something like this for a while now (although, unfortunately biographical details are scarce in the entries I looked up). --Roisterer (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately the bios aren't the most detailed... Timeshift (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Am I missing something, or has someone got something wrong? At the South Australian state election, 1965, one lower house independent was elected - Tom Stott. So who is Percival Quirke and how was he the independent MP for Burra? Timeshift (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks as if the parliamentary bio has missed his other party change. See Members of the South Australian House of Assembly, 1962–1965

Burra MHA Percy Quirke was elected as an independent in 1962, but joined the LCL during the course of this term

--Digestible (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Timeshift (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Two small things

Two things to raise here before I take them further: a) the Secular Party of Australia is, as far as I can see, the only never-registered political party with an article. It's got no third-party sources and has been largely inactive since the 2007 election. It was the subject of a previous deletion discussion in 2006, with consensus appearing to be that it should be given time. Well ... and b) probably more importantly, the Australian Shooters Party has successfully applied to change its name to the Shooters and Fishers Party. As far as I can tell this applies only to the federal branch, and the NSW branch is unaffected. Currently there is a fairly messy mix on the Shooters Party page; I'm wondering if they should be separate. What are others' thoughts on these two issues? Frickeg (talk) 04:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

With the first I'd say move to delete. With the second I'd say as the NSW party is more notable, leave it, but note (with a bolded title) that it is known as blah federally, and create a redirect from that name. If the federal party becomes more notable you can use {{main}} and expand the redirect into an article about the federally registered entity. Another interesting one is the Communist Party of Australia and Communist Alliance - the CPA is unregistered but has set up and registered the CA (and theoretically it is possible to join the second without joining the first, purely for the purposes of electorally supporting them) Orderinchaos 05:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Mike Rann - noteable/verifiable?

The man behind the magazine attack that left Premier Mike Rann with a bruised face is known to him. While the reason for the attack is not yet known, the Sunday Mail can reveal the man who bashed Mr Rann with a copy of Winestate magazine had repeatedly tried to contact him over a period of three years. Labor Party MPs are aghast at both the violent attack on the Premier and how subsequent events may unfold. Labor sources say details which may emerge in the court hearing in December have the potential to influence the March 2010 election and the reverberations may impact on Mr Rann's leadership. "This could go anywhere - we don't have control over it," one MP noted.[16]

At first, when it was just that Rann got hit with a magazine a few times, I didn't think it was noteworthy, but things have changed. It's now revealed that he's known to Labor MPs and that details to emerge in the court hearing could derail Rann Labor. At what point does this become noteable and verifiable, and at this early stage how would one go about phrasing a contribution to Rann's page, if any? Timeshift (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think the whole "this could impact on the election" is a mixture of media beat up/ALP doom merchants and is most likely some random idiot with a grudge. I think the fact he was attacked is noteworthy but I'm not going to pay heed to any possible reverberations until they happen. --Roisterer (talk) 02:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The media beat everything into a "this could bring down the government" bubble which usually goes nowhere. (Utegate, anyone?) That being said, given it was a physical attack on a serving leader, I do think the actual incident itself should be included (in no more than a single line) in Rann's article. Orderinchaos 03:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Parl Handbook photos

As I'm not hugely familiar with the ins and outs of copyright, can someone check whether I'm reading File:Johnbutton.jpg correctly? Is it really granting us the use of any photos from the Parliamentary Handbook? If not, what exactly is it saying? Frickeg (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The template and rationale are invalid. The image was uploaded at a time where it was believed to be ok. A copyright photo cannot be used if it was created within the past 50 years, and the person is still living. But as Button has deceased, the image can now be used. Timeshift (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

So if the person is not living, we can use the photos? (Of, say, Peter Andren, or something.) Or is the Button photo actually a violation? Frickeg (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct. I've fixed up the rationale on Button's image. Just copy and paste it and modify as needed for other deceased politicians. Timeshift (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant. Right, thanks. Frickeg (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

A lot of it has more to do with Wikipedia's copyright policy than copyright law. Copyright law allows fair use of copyrighted photos as well. But the logic of our fair use policy is that we could theoretically take a photo of the guy and release it on a free licence and hence the photo is "replaceable". Unless we can get a copyright holder to release photos under a free licence themselves, this policy leads to substandard but legal photos. Once they're non-living, we can't take photos of them any more so the copyrighted photo is not replaceable and we can use it. Orderinchaos 00:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Done Peter Andren, Bob Collins, Jeannie Ferris, Peter Nugent, Greg Wilton. P.S. Can anyone figure out Andren's place of death? Digestible (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Help! Someone wants to delete File:Jeannie Ferris.jpg. Digestible (talk) 05:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It needed one of those fair use rationale thingies. I copied one off another article and pasted it in - might need to do the same on the others as well. (Alternatively, I just realised Timeshift was saying above he'd fixed one up for John Button, that one can also be used.) Orderinchaos 05:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Andren's death place: no idea. I've had a look but it doesn't seem to be in any of the major reports. And with the images (nice work Digestible), it seems that anyone still in parliament after 1998 has their photo online. As far as I can see the only applicable one not yet covered by Digestible is Jane Gerick; I don't have time to fix that right now but I can do it tomorrow if no one else gets to it first. Frickeg (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

An update - he died in Orange in New South Wales. Unfortunately this came through an enquiry and I don't think any reliable source has it. Orderinchaos 08:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"Sir" in member lists

User:Watchover has recently added "Sir" to the member lists in electorate articles (Division of Lowe, for example). My view is that this creates more problems than it solves. For example, in the Lowe case, McMahon wasn't knighted until 1977, and spent most of his time as an MP as simply William McMahon. I also understood that we had consensus a while ago not to use these titles. Help appreciated. Frickeg (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. As a relevant example, military history articles refer to military personnel as whatever their rank was at the time of the events the article covers. If we're going to start adding 'Sir/Lady' we also need to add in all the various other honourifics these people are entitled to, especially in the period since knighthoods were abolished. I don't see how doing so would add any value to the articles and would lead to confusion over the relationship between when these awards were given and when the person was elected (eg, John Howard AC didn't gain the 'AC' until after the 2007 election). Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe Sir or any other awards or titles should be used at any time in any sentence or any list, except for the first sentence of the article on them. Timeshift (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, except for the member lists (which are time based, usually to at most three or four years, and so we can switch them on and off as appropriate). But in electoral lists and in just about any other context I think not. Orderinchaos 22:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree about the member lists (as in, Members of the Australian House of Representatives, 1954-1955). But yeah, for the rest it's a bit hard to govern. Frickeg (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Why should we include Sir etc in lists? Timeshift (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

We generally shouldn't. But in those member lists, since they're limited to a small timeframe, it helps to have them - also because having "Hon" in those lists identifies ministers for that period (and former ministers). Frickeg (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

What about lists on seats/division member lists, and party leader lists? I don't think we should have Sir etc on them. Timeshift (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Frickeg (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Also agree. Orderinchaos 10:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like consensus. I'll revert them. Frickeg (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

New South Wales Division of the Liberal Party - here we are again

Yes, we've been down this road before. There's pros and cons to having state pages and not having state pages for the major parties. I'm undecided. However so far we've been deleting state pages. This one was a leader page which a few days ago got converted to a party page. Thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This one is unproblematic in my view as it's factual and fairly straightforward (although might need a rename)... Hunter Liberals, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have a raison d'etre. Orderinchaos 16:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't noticed it had been moved today. Orderinchaos 16:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that state divisions of the main political parties would be notable. The well regarded historian Ian Hancock has written a comprehensive history of the NSW division of the Liberal Party and its factional disputes, preselection actions, etc get lots of media coverage so it easily meets WP:ORG. I don't see any reason to assume that local branches of parties are notable though; most have only a small number of members and haven't received much (if any) coverage in reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not against it in principle (indeed, a good article could be written about any of the state Labor, Liberal and National parties in my opinion), but the particular instance had basically supplanted a leaders article, hence my move (sort of) back and expanding as a list. There's a book by Katharine West from the 1960s as well which goes through each state Liberal party. Orderinchaos 08:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

While I think this is probably a good idea (for major parties only), we certainly need to work some things out. For example, sometimes WA Greens politicians, especially state-based ones, are listed as Greens WA in members lists. Should this apply to all parties or none? Hunter Liberals, on the other hand, can most definitely be turfed. Frickeg (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree re Hunter Liberals. As for WA Greens, until 2003 or 2004 they were actually an entirely separate party which merely had a cooperative agreement with the Australian Greens, and since merging, have continued to use the Greens WA name in all correspondence and officially with the state and federal Electoral Commissions. Orderinchaos 23:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

So do NSW Labor and NSW Liberals. And most of the other states, I imagine. I agree that previous to their amalgamation with the Greens they should of course be labelled as WA Greens. After then, I think we need a consistent policy applying to all parties. What's good for the Greens (and, I note, the WA and SA Nats, although they're a rather special case) is good for everyone else. Frickeg (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The WA and SA Nationals are indeed a special case - both have complete autonomy in administration (not to mention a very different history - the WA ones actually preceded the federal ones by several years, while the SA ones were only created in the 60s as a protest party) and the guy running against Wilson Tuckey last time was talking about sitting with the Independents as a WA National if he won. Orderinchaos 22:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Just noting for reference I have nominated Hunter Liberals for deletion. Orderinchaos 15:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Rather than having a 'consistent policy' I would recommend that it be determined by content. If there is enough notable content for a state division then it should stay, otherwise, a section in the national organisation article is enough. --Surturz (talk) 12:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Jennie George

A couple of times in the SMH, Philip Coorey or other reporters have mentioned that Jennie George is retiring at the next election. ([17], [18]) Other media outlets seem to stick to "she may retire", but the SMH is presenting it as a fait accompli. Does anyone know anything that could shed further light on this? Frickeg (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

A post in today's Crikey by a NSW Labor member suggests she fell victim to the NSW political machine. I don't know how reliable that is, but was named alongside Irwin who has already announced her retirement. Orderinchaos 04:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything definite, so I suspect she's probably in a similar boat to Chris Hayes (but probably without the chances of being able to jump elsewhere). Her article totally sucks, though - for someone who (despite her pretty dull political career) was probably the most high-profile ACTU figure before Greg Combet, it mentions bugger all about her union career. Rebecca (talk) 04:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it needs fixing. Reminds me of when Nelson's article didn't include any AMA stuff. Orderinchaos 04:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly O'Dwyer - assistance appreciated

Clearly there is no noteability established, not one wikipedia guideline has been advanced to say otherwise, yet there are two keeps. I'd be appreciative if those with more knowledge of wikipedia guidelines can leave a comment. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, I've referenced WP:BIO as part of my keep vote and User:Digestible seems to be stating that being the first woman nominated by the Liberal Party for a safe seat Melbourne is enough to ensure that WP:ONEEVENT isn't an issue. Nick-D (talk) 04:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, where's the WP:RS source indicating noteability outside of contesting a seat an election? Timeshift (talk) 05:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

While I'm against "open slather", I think there's nothing wrong *if* the candidate has a much-better-than-odds chance of winning, but the day they become a failed candidate and not an almost-certainly-future-MP, they're ripe for the picking via the WP:POLITICIAN route unless they have a very strong claim to notability outside politics (or in a different jurisdiction, eg state MP fails to win federal seat). Orderinchaos 06:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the decision to keep this article before she is elected, we are now left with a very difficult situation about what to do with future election candidates. As it stands we are virtually saying that if some is 'very likely' to win then we can create an article for them. This would seem to be at odds with WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL and seems to stretch common practice for Wikipedia:POLITICIAN. -- Barrylb (talk) 03:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Rules should never be iron clad in my view unless there's a good reason for them to be so. Common sense suggests that deleting an article in this situation would be counterproductive for several reasons, while not deleting it can't harm anything. Once the deadline ticks over, if she is not elected, she is a failed candidate for political office and a PROD would fix it; if she is elected, we have a decent article. I can see the point of the guidelines and what they are trying to prevent, but this wasn't it. Orderinchaos 03:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's what's trying to be prevented. It's all good and well to say we can apply common sense retrospectively in AfD situations, but as Barrylb so very well points out, we're now left with a situation, come the next election, where people will make their own biased judgements as to which candidates deserve articles and which don't. Very poor decision. But upon reflection AfD wasn't the best place to take it, as fighting to get a non-noteable article moved to userspace for the time being does not come under the AfD realm. Timeshift (talk) 04:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The outcomes of individual AFDs don't serve as a precedent for other deletion discussions, so this result means nothing more than that Ms O'Dwyer is considered a suitable subject for an article. Nick-D (talk) 05:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

What it does is put about a belief that a candidate is noteable/worthy of a page if considered "likely enough" (whatever that means) to get elected. This won't be good come the next election. Timeshift (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Only in those of the 50 or so ultra-safe seats where the incumbent is not standing and the result is pretty much a foregone conclusion. Orderinchaos 07:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

But on AEC terms, 7% is on the lighter side of a "fairly safe" seat. By allowing these articles to remain we're allowing contributors to guess if someone will be noteable. Timeshift (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Not when there's no opposition (in terms of the seat) candidate. Orderinchaos 22:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I've gotta say, it's debates like this that made me give up on Wikipedia for good. We're the only country on Wikipedia that maintains this ridiculous total ban on election candidates, compared to places like the US that actually have informative and really helpful articles on all major candidates in competitive races - whereas we're having an argument over whether to add one on someone who, unless she gets hit by a bus in the meantime, will definitely be a member of parliament in less than a month. Rebecca (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. My attitude is - at the worst, the article gets uncontroversially deleted if they fail to win office. Think of it this way - the media do use us for a source sometimes when they can't readily get info elsewhere, so rather than have a big fat nothing, we have the possibility of a well sourced article they can use. Orderinchaos 05:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If we want to do is that way, then lets make it our policy. We need to update WP:POLITICIAN to reflect what we want: "A candidate may be considered notable if overwhelming educated opinion is that they will win". Right? -- Barrylb (talk) 08:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline." It's not a policy. Orderinchaos 11:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I find modern Australian politics too depressing to contribute to articles on it any more, but I have to agree with Timeshift - a candidate being "likely" to win an election doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN, and a couple of newspaper mentions solely in the context of a being a candidate in an upcoming poll isn't much to justify an article. Judging by current NSW opinion polls, the Liberal candidates in all 50-odd Labor seats are shoo-ins for 2011 - should we have articles on all of these people too? Or should we stick with the rules and create the article in 4 weeks when O'Dwyer gets elected? But AfD has spoken, O'Dwyer will win in a few weeks, so the recurring "wannabe MP notability debate" seems done for today. Euryalus (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In reply to Orderinchaos, perhaps I need to say that we need to update the guidelines: the guidelines need to give clearer guidance. So does my wording above reflect the thinking here? -- Barrylb (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with Rebecca - we should be able to create articles on election candidates. But so many in the past that I and others create get AfD'd. To say the exception to this is to crystal ball and judge what is likely enough of a chance to warrant an article isn't a good thing. If being an election candidate isn't noteable, then it isn't noteable. Timeshift (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not have an article about the election in the particular seat that has a short entry for each candidate? Then you can redirect from each failed candidate's name as needed. During the election campaign there will be interest in each candidate, and after the election a seat-by-seat breakdown isn't such a bad thing to keep. And it is in keeping with WP:ONEEVENT --Surturz (talk) 11:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I had a suggestion like this a couple of years ago about a rather strange race in the 2001 WA election which got plenty of publicity, but it got kind of rained on. If the consensus has changed towards that sort of article, I'd support it. Orderinchaos 11:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think trying to start articles on individual races would be unfortunate, and I don't see why we need to depart from what the rest of the encyclopedia does. Regardless of what some random guideline says, we're the only country on Wikipedia that persistently nominates candidate articles for deletion and doesn't defend them. If anyone nominated Doug Hoffman for deletion, they'd be peed on from height. We should be taking the same stance here. Rebecca (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

In the particular case I alluded to, the 2001 election race in Geraldton, which became notable (notorious?) in its own right, had a book published about it and has plenty of unrelated sources, would be a WP:WEIGHT problem in any of Shane Hill, Bob Bloffwitch or 2001 state election articles. I'm sure it's not the only such case where a single race article would be appropriate - although I'd hope they'd be the exception rather than the rule. Orderinchaos 06:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Gordon Moyes/CDP and POV

An edit war of sorts continues on at this page... more eyes would be appreciated. Timeshift (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Protected it and warned the user - I had been thinking of taking such an action a couple of days ago but he appeared to have desisted at that point. More eyes on the article would be a good thing - it seems the user causing the issues over there is a Nile supporter (or more) waging a campaign against Moyes. Orderinchaos 00:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Nick Xenophon content removal?

Can editors just lift paras off the article to the talk page, saying "Unsourced, moved from article to talk page. Per WP:BURDEN, do not add back, unless properly sourced." ? Timeshift (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd tell the editor to get stuffed, while working to source the material. None of it's negative, and most of it is pretty well-known. Rebecca (talk) 02:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly - its well known and not negative... cites should be for contentious material. One thing I dislike about wikipedia lately is the tendencies for people to come along and cause work for others when it's not necessary. Timeshift (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I re-added with cite tags but the editor seems intent on the removal of information. I don't have the time to do the research at the moment. Cite tags are the correct way rather than moving to talk, isn't it? Another opinion anyone? Timeshift (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Timeshift9 got blocked for one week for his reversion of this (with BLP cited as the reason), I unblocked, and the whole thing is now the subject of drama at AN/I. Orderinchaos 04:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

While this material is very likely well known to Australian editors, it is just as reasonable that OS editors have not heard of Xenophon, or his politics. Asking for a source showing that Xenophon is an "activist", has been the subject of "ardent criticism" and has "suffered severe health difficulties" is entirely appropriate, and is exactly what the BLP policy calls for. Not commenting on the block, but an editor who has been around as long as Timeshift should have known better. Kevin (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:BURDEN. Paras shouldn't be removed before they've had the chance to have tags on them to draw attention to the fact the paras were refless. Timeshift (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have read that, and it does say that it is good practice to find a source before removing material. WP:BLP though makes it very clear that material such as this should be removed immediately. Kevin (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have found sources for most or all of the info. (Incidentally I support the removal of the "health difficulties" line on relevance, even though it may be able to be referenced.) Orderinchaos 04:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That's great. I would have found a source as well, because I know the edits were true, and have a good idea where best to look. But put yourself in the shoes of the editor who does not know him (talking hypothetically here, not about Cirt or NW). They see something that could reasonably be described as contentious, and per WP:BLP they quite rightly remove it. Now in this case it was trivial to source, but imagine how much better this situation would have been had the source been added first, or at least the first time it was queried. Kevin (talk) 05:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I can see your point - although this is a WP-wide problem, and the points in some cases had stood unchallenged since the very first edit on the article in 2006. I was concerned at the time - although that may on reflection have been an incorrect view - that this may have been an effort to damage public opponents of Scientology. I had noticed the reverter's activity in Scientology areas including writing featured articles on related topics. Orderinchaos 05:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I be so sceptical as to be suspicious of the coincidence of the timing of this issue from overseas editors, and his attack on scientology? It seems Xenophon is scratching some very sensitive areas that are rocking the core of scientology... Timeshift (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think i've ever seen more of a mountain made of a molehill. I've never seen a block applied so quickly over nothing. What a pile of rot. Thank god common sense appears to ever so slightly be prevailing. Timeshift (talk) 04:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: The above issue has been resolved amicably between myself and Orderinchaos (talk · contribs). :) Hopefully we can all move forward, and work together to improve the article. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Cirt's suggested a GA drive to get the article up and happening. I'm happy to help once my exams are out of the way next week. Orderinchaos 08:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

AFD: Liberal leadership ballot

Input welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberal Party of Australia leadership election, 2009. Digestible (talk) 03:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sir in member lists

Can someone please direct me to where the discussion of the use of "Sir" in lists etc can be found? It was a very recent discussion but I cannot find it. Timeshift (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics/Archive 4#"Sir" in member lists Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Oceanic Viking at Kevin Rudd

Some editors seem to think that the Oceanic Viking episode was not notable for Rudd personally, and that there should be no mention of the episode in his BLP. I'd love some feedback at Talk:Kevin_Rudd#Oceanic_Viking. Thanks. --Surturz (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It belongs in Rudd Government as others have already mentioned. Timeshift (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not whether it should be in Rudd Government (it should), but whether it should also be in Kevin Rudd. BTW I think you mean "as another has mentioned". "Others" would imply more than one other editor supporting your position. AFAICT only User:Nick-D agrees with you that it should not be in KR. --Surturz (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

...and no-one has posted in support of your view. Nick-D (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I still maintain that there should only be one Rudd page not two - but if we must have it this way then it's a Rudd government issue. Timeshift (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't feel it belongs in an article on the man, as it's the business of government. I've long held the view that individuals get too much credit/blame for stuff which is actually the collective position of a cabinet. Orderinchaos 08:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Chris Spence (Australian politician)

This article is well-written and well-sourced, which is why I'm raising this here rather than AfD or anything. I'm not sure that he's notable, to be honest. Yes, he might win The Entrance in 2011, but that's a long way away. Yes, there's been some press coverage, but all over the fact that he is a candidate who used to be important in One Nation. And yes, he was involved in Iguanagate, but not to a degree to be notable. But this might be just the habit of seeing candidate articles. Does this one genuinely qualify? Frickeg (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If he was just another candidate, then we would apply the usual candidate rules to the article. But he's got a history, and has regularly popped up in the media over the years, and been mentioned and debated in parliament on numerous separate occasions over a period of many years. Also, a controversial figure, who has been surrounded in media controversy on numerous occasions. We had One Nation leader David Oldfield praise him on more than one occasion in parliament. We've had premiers (eg Morris Iemma) condemn him in parliament. And all that was before he announced his present candidacy, which has caused yet another uproar in the parliament.--Lester 01:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I personally think not, although am not sure what should be done with it if it's removed from mainspace as it is well written and sourced. Orderinchaos 02:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

His notability looks pretty marginal at best; his only real claim to fame is being preselected, though this has led to stories covering his previous political and legal career in a bit of detail. Nick-D (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see it go to userspace in case he is elected in 2011 (I'm happy to host it myself if no one else wants to), but I think it's far too early for an article yet. Frickeg (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable position to me. Orderinchaos 08:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep per "significant coverage" at WP:N. The article centres on more than his 2011 candidacy. If the portrayal of his involvement with One Nation is accurate then that alone makes him notable. This is a useful, well written piece. It would be a shame to purge it (or hide it indefinitely). Digestible (talk) 03:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's well-written and helpful for someone curious about him, but that doesn't make it notable. The coverage for One Nation does not qualify as "significant", really, though. If anyone can find any articles particularly on him explaining his notability outside the 2011 preselection, then ... being praised (or condemned) in parliament is certainly not enough. Frickeg (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There are major media references dating back to 2000 and 2001. Those references don't even mention his preselection.--Lester 05:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

And do they explain why he is notable? Just being mentioned is hardly enough. I understand the articles are not devoted to him. Frickeg (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Naming of article for redistributions

Various federal electoral division and election articles mention redistributions but no article definitively documents them all, or the process, as far as I am aware. Any suggestions what to call such an article? Perhaps Redistributions of Australian federal electoral boundaries or Redistributions of Australian House of Representative Divisions.

A source for content: http://www.aec.gov.au/Electorates/Redistributions/index.htm -- Barrylb (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind some clarity on this either as we can do them for state - I have sources for every one back to the start of WA's legislative assembly and even a couple of Victorian ones (1965 and 1975). My guess based on other things is we'd have something like "Electoral redistributions in Australia" as the main article, and "Australian federal electoral redistribution, (year)" as the child articles - note this is more a pattern rather than my final suggestion so if someone can improve on that, go for it. Orderinchaos 03:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

How about each redistribution gets an article in its own right? e.g. Redistribution of New South Wales federal electoral boundaries, 2009. Digestible (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think that is a good idea since redistributions are on a state-by-state basis and we would have enough content for an article for each. We can have Electoral redistributions in Australia giving an overview of the federal and state processes. We probably need an article "Federal electoral boundary redistributions in Australia" with links to the individual redistribution articles (assuming there would be too many for the overview page). We could have articles for states like "Electoral boundary redistributions in Western Australia", with individual articles for each redistribution too if warranted.

In WA, as a curiosity, the 1988 and 2007 redists came about due to major changes in legislation and 1911 was probably the straw that broke the camel's back for the incumbent government who lost on boundaries which definitely appeared to have been designed to favour them. The post-Fitzgerald redist in Queensland, and that in SA following the reforms of the early 70s would all be interesting articles to have - and for anything newer than 1955 (both state and federal) we have ready-made secondary sources about all of them in the Political Chronicles. Orderinchaos 05:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Robert L. Graham (Australian politician)

Can someone move this back to Bob Graham (Australian politician)? It's been moved against policy. Frickeg (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

New NSW Premier Kristina Keneally

Extra eyes appreciated, cheers. Timeshift (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Peter Slipper

His DOB has been changed by an anon IP and removed the ref but when I look here I can't find Peter Slipper? Am I too tired or have the APH forgotten to include Slipper? Timeshift (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• You're right - he seems to be missing! Orderinchaos 23:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

On analysing the list, there are 2 missing (Peter Slipper and Dick Adams), two with only years (Annette Hurley and Dana Wortley) and no by-elections have yet been accounted for (former member in, new member not). Orderinchaos 23:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Peter Slipper was on this Google cached version of the page. but he seems to have been removed. --Canley (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that's the 41st Parliament and he's still listed there, but I wonder why he's not on the current Parliament page. --Canley (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The National Party website still lists Peter Slipper with the birthdate 14 February 1950. Looks like someone is changing it on the article to 1960? --Canley (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Continued watchlisting of the article would be appreciated as the person keeps coming back and reverting the correct edit. Thanks Timeshift (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Issue at The forgotten people

Is it really wiki-kosher to add a speech of 17,000 odd characters to an article rather than a link/reference? Timeshift (talk) 09:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Texts should be at Wikisource - we can then link at the bottom of the article to the Wikisource text. Orderinchaos 09:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I knew there'd be something like that. A 17,000 character essay length speech in full in a wikipedia article... I mean honestly... Timeshift (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - it can be summed up as, Wikipedia's meant to talk about the stuff, not reproduce it verbatim. Wikisource is meant to reproduce it verbatim, not talk about it. Orderinchaos 10:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Constitutional Convention

I've been working on a draft list of members for the Republic Convention here. Under what name does this belong in the mainspace? Or does it not belong at all? And which of the currently non-linked delegates are notable? Any help is greatly appreciated. Frickeg (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a really helpful list. I only spotted one delegate who isn't liked who was notable - looked like a former Vic state MP. Rebecca (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Patrick O'Brien (more commonly known as Paddy O'Brien) is notable, although doesn't have an article at present. I might drop a reminder at WP:WA; I know it was on our list to create. Orderinchaos 22:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Conroy continual crap added

It's moved from IP to user contributions now. A higher protection is warranted. Timeshift (talk) 11:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Federal by-election drive

Anyone interested? Many hands make light work! Timeshift (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I could probably do a few. What would be really good if we could fill out some of the existing ones. For instance, the Bass by-election, 1975 was a reason for Whitlam's reluctance to face the electorate, and Fraser's assertiveness. The Flinders by-election, 1982 played a role in the downfall of Hayden's leadership. Alas, I don't have the sources to document this history. Digestible (talk) 06:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Kumanjayi

This link is interesting (to me, anyway). Not sure where in WP it would be useful, though. --Surturz (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Monarch/Queen in PM infoboxes

I believe we all came to a consensus that these should not be in PM infoboxes? It seems a new user has come along and added them all. Timeshift (talk) 09:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point of including this. Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

What are the arguments for and against? --Merbabu (talk) 11:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The argument against, I think, is that it's really not relevant what monarch the PM served under. I'm not sure what the argument for is. It's one of those cases where I'm not so much against it as that I can't and don't see the point of it. Orderinchaos 11:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a reasonably good argument against it. Given the length of QE2's reign, it's almost like mentioning the colour of the sky during each PMship. --Merbabu (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I could imagine the colour of the sky being a flame-war topic between UFO conspiracists and the rest on US President articles :P Orderinchaos 12:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Useless clutter. Shouldn't be there. Digestible (talk) 12:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

normally with info box discussions like this, there would be an element arguing for inclusion simply because the parameter exists. The stupidity of this increases if it's one of these fangled wikipedia-wide infoboxes. --Merbabu (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The argument for is that it's relevant to know whose prime minister he was. It's the Queen's government, and the people her representative appoints to make it up are her ministers. This argument seems good to me in theory, but in practise it would have more weight if we changed sovereigns a bit more often. As it is, for now we can take it as read that all PMs since Menzies have been Elizabeth's ministers. Maybe in 20 or 30 years this decision will be revisited. Consensus can change, you know. -- Zsero (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

But it has not and likely will not :) Your argument is correct in theory, but in practice, the Queen is meaningless and has no power over anything, which is probably why nobody cares. Timeshift (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Paul Keating photo

On the topic of photos, has anyone got the contact details for Paul Keating's office? I'm thinking of contacting them to see if they'll provide a photo under a CC licence we can use to replace the current rather embarrassing photo we're using (File:Paul Keating 1979.jpg). His website has no content whatsoever, including a contact email address! Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Many moons ago I did use the feedback section of that site to request to pass on to Keating or the appropriate place a free image, but never got a response. Timeshift (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony Abbott photo nominated for deletion

I've just nominated File:Tony Abbott.png, which is presently our only photo of Abbott, for deletion at WikiCommons on the grounds that it is unclear whether it is really a Wikipedia editor created photo. Editors who would like to comment on this nomination should do so here. Nick-D (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Current longest-serving MP... Graham Gunn or Michael Hodgman?

Bit confused as Hodgman seems to be in and out of seats... Timeshift (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe Gunn is the longest continuously serving MP, while Hodgman was elected the longest time ago and has served a longer time in total. As to how we want to say that ... Frickeg (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the breakdown of Gunn's and Hodgman's days in parliament(s):

Michael Hodgman:

• Tasmanian Legislative Council (Huon): 14 May 1966 – 25 May 1974 (2933 days)
• Australian House of Representitives (Denison): 13 December 1975 – 11 July 1987 (4228 days)
• Tasmanian House of Assembly (Denison): 1 February 1992 – 29 August 1998 (2401 days)
• Tasmanian House of Assembly (Denison): 21 August 2001 – present (3058 days)
• Total time in various parliaments: 12260 days (33 years, 7 months, 2 days)
• Time since first election: 15941 days (43 years, 7 months, 21 days)

Graham Gunn:

• South Australian House of Assembly (Eyre): 30 May 1970 – 10 October 1997 (9995 days)
• South Australian House of Assembly (Stuart): 11 October 1997 – present (4468 days)
• Total time in South Australian House of Assembly: 14463 days (39 years, 7 months, 15 days)
• Time since first election: 14463 days (39 years, 7 months, 15 days)

So going from date first elected to [a] parliament, Hodgman has been in politics the longest, elected to the TLC on 14 May 1966. However, Gunn has served more time in a single parliament, and has actually served more days in parliament given Hodgman's switching between state and federal politics and losing his seat in the THA from 1998 to 2001. PS. Thanks WolframAlpha for calculating the days! --Canley (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hodgman's aggregate service to parliaments is just shy of 35 years (in 4 separate periods), whereas Gunn's is almost 40 years (one continuous period). Hodgman's only claim to any sort of record is that he was first elected longer ago than Gunn, and longer ago than probably anyone now. But that's not much of a claim, as a person could conceivably be elected 40 years ago, serve 3 years, then have a 37-year break from politics before returning now. It's very much so-what territory. Gunn has it all over Hodgman in terms of actual service. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

How to fix the articles' wording is another question... Timeshift (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made a change to Hodgman's article. Better than the misleading wording that was there before, but it can still probably do with some tweaking. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Help salvaging an unreplaceable image please

Here. Obviously no free fair use equivelent is possible. Timeshift (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Due preparations for the plague

If only he'd put the photo on Wikicommons

As I imagine all members of this project know, this year will see a Federal election and state elections in Tasmania (March), South Australia (March) and Victoria (November). For Wikipedia, this means trouble; we can expect to be spammed with articles on non-notable candidates and articles on notable candidates will become battlezones - some will be re-written by their staff (hello Cory Bernardi, to name just one offender) and others will be defaced by their opponents. As a result, this means watchlisting lots of articles and calling in admins when things get out of hand. On the up side though, it should lead to many out of date articles being updated and bring an influx of fresh blood into this project. Moreover, all the political events provide a good opportunity to expand our currently woeful holdings of images of politicians - the photo at the right I took of Kevin Rudd a few weeks ago is a fair illustration of how most politicians respond to a camera phone. Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about SA, as always i'll keep an eagle eye out for any trouble ;) Federally too. Timeshift (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If past years are anything to go by, the state elections shouldn't be too much trouble - it's the federal one to be prepared for. Constant vigilance is the tactic, though. Frickeg (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

There's already a lot of nonsense going on about NSW politicians, and the ACT election in 2008 saw a fair bit of vandalism/POV pushing, so I'm not that optimistic... Nick-D (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah NSW is (perhaps half-expectedly) getting a little messy... Timeshift (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - NSW is the exception. Hardly surprising, really ... but it's still (sigh) over a year away, so it shouldn't get too intense for a while. Frickeg (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

NSW is still suffering from the leftover effects of one editor from 2006-2007 who operated during Wikipedia's peak in early 2007, and drove away so many productive editors that NSW politics is our gaping black hole. Also, I don't know but the politics in Sydney seem to be far more hostile than in other locations, and it breeds a type of antagonistic political hothead who's likely to try their hand here. I think that's why it's exceptional. Orderinchaos 10:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

NSW does have a political hothead POV! ;), sorry couldn't help myself. :P Bidgee (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I remember him! Pity I can't remember his username. Charming fellow he was. Also, what peak did Wikipedia experience in early 2007? Timeshift (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's generally understood that a peak of new article creation and new regular users signing up was in the first half of 2007. It's declined slowly ever since, despite continued growth of the encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 12:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael Atkinson

I'm starting to get sick of all these 15 year old gamers who thinks anything to do with Atkinson and gaming is somehow automatically noteable and suitable for adding to the article. A concerted effort was made to document the censorship situation. Yet again more trivialities have been added, but this time it's from a gamer who isn't new to wikipedia and has reverted my revert in the belief it's suitable for Atkinson's article. A little help would be greatly appreciated. Timeshift (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It's doubtful you'll be getting a lot of help, as he's generally unlikeable in this regard. Also, this is a fully relevant article as it comes from the gaming-related press. Why not just let it go and move on. ShawnIsHere (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

An admin, who follows wikipedia guidelines rather than bias and popularity contests, has reverted your changes. Do NOT re-instate your changes until you have formed a WP:CONSENSUS. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I choose to form a different opinion and, per WP:CONSENSUS revise/repost my edit in more neutral terms. If you disagree, please talk to me directly on my Talk page instead of whining. ShawnIsHere (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't address the fact that it is not relevant to the bio of Atkinson. I and an admin believe it should not be there, if you disagree then discuss before re-adding what only you support. Timeshift (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion opened. Feel free to rebutt. ShawnIsHere (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Timeshift (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Is List of Australian Prime Ministers who died in office really worth it's own page...?

Another User:Watchover creation... Timeshift (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that's adequately covered in the main article on Australian PMs. Nick-D (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hell no. Digestible (talk) 07:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it can all go in the main article. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If there had been 20 of them, or even 10, it might make for something worthwhile. But 3? No. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's needed. THey are AUSTRALIAN prime ministers. They died in office. And there was only three!

</sarcasm> Delete please --Merbabu (talk) 08:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it can safely go. Orderinchaos 13:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems almost useless to add an opinion here simply to agree with such overwhelming consensus (!), but it can certainly go. Frickeg (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Prime Ministers of Australia

Notice of a proposal for a new format for this list now posted at Talk:List of Prime Ministers of Australia#New Format. BartBassist (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Opinion - does the division of Wright currently exist as a seat or not?

Per here, I say Wright should not be on the current pendulum as it does not become a seat with an MP until the next election. Especially seeing as all the other divisions margins have been left un-updated despite the redistribution. Thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess the question is whether it appears on the pendulums used in reliable sources. As Malcolm Mackerras has included it in the pendulum on his academic website as a notionally Liberal seat with a margin of 4.7 percent, the answer is yes. Nick-D (talk) 08:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What you've got there is the 2007 post-election pendulum. That's not the same thing as the 2010 pre-election pendulum. To get pre-election pendulum, you have to take account of the redistributions in WA, Tas, Qld and NSW. So yes, the pendulum should include Wright. And Durack. And put Swan, Dickson et al on the Labor side. And change the margins of a number of other seats. Digestible (talk) 08:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Dig, however Wright shouldn't be added if the rest of the page isn't updated. Timeshift (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As the article is called "Current pendulum for the next [...] election", I would have thought it should as closely as possible match the seats as they will be at that election, based on Green/Mackerras's estimates for the states which have had redistributions. Orderinchaos 10:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but you can't just add Wright if you're going to ignore the rest of the redistrib. Timeshift (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree entirely. Obviously you can't just plonk Wright in there without changing the others. But if it's a pendulum for 2010, then Wright and Durack and McMahon and all the other changes have to be in there somewhere. Frickeg (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the thing. You could go ahead now and include all the new seats in the pendulum for 2010. But if a sitting member for an electorate that covers any part of what will be Wright (or Durack or ...) dies or resigns before then, and a by-election is called, it will be held in respect of the existing division name with its existing boundaries. So yes, Wright et al exist in a legal sense, and their boundaries are precisely defined, but they will not come into effect till the 2010 general election. There will not under any circumstances whatsoever be a "Member for Wright" till general election day. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously. But this is a pendulum for the next federal election. In fact Wright does not technically exist, but it will by the time this election comes around. Frickeg (talk) 06:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There's the distinction. I don't agree that it's a pendulum for the next election. It's the current standing pendulum irrespective of any election. It is even titled current pendulum. It just happens to be most useful as information to the latest election page, amongst other information as such as the redistribution spelt out in words! Either way, i'm still annoyed that the pendulum as it stands is completely ski-whiff with a seat given to the Libs without including anything else in the redistrubution. Timeshift (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Source needed for Candidates of the South Australian state election, 2010

I've created the page but find it hard to believe that despite the Greens and Liberals preselecting upper house candidates, that the governing Labor Party has not yet done so. Assuming they have been done but not updated on the website, does anyone know where this information can be found? And does anyone know any candidates i've missed out on? Thanks! Timeshift (talk) 06:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Precedents and roundabouts

Based on the precedent set at Kelly O'Dwyer, I assume there are no objections to me creating Tammy Jennings, lead Green candidate at the 2010 South Australian state election, as her election is virtually guaranteed? Timeshift (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No. We need to stop being idiotic about candidate articles; it's totally logical that we should have one. Another such case is Brant Webb - which redirects to the Beaconsfield article despite the fact he's far more well known (especially nationally) than the MPs he's contesting the Tasmanian seat of Bass against. Rebecca (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If we're going to have candidate articles, can we please, please have some very clear guidelines on who is notable and who is not. Going by other countries candidate articles in some cases are undoubtedly fair enough, but without guidelines it's technically just as reasonable to create articles on every single candidate. My personal suggestion would be (a) they are in some way moderately notable and the candidacy gives them the second notability to avoid WP:ONEEVENT, or (b) they are considered by most election analysts to be certain of election (top two Senate candidates for major parties, etc.). Webb is a classic case of the first, Jennings of the second. Frickeg (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that would be a start, but I'd much rather go down the line of the United States. Their election articles are a hell of a lot more informative in that, for basically every seriously contested race, they have articles on the losing candidate - so even reading back on past elections, you can get a much better understanding of the contest. Rebecca (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that. In America political races are much more focused on personality than they are here. While some close race candidates are notable (Mia Handshin, etc.), many are undoubtedly not. Fiona McNamara? Ed Husic? (Not yet, anyway.) Nick Bleasdale? Don't think so. Frickeg (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

So based on the fact the Greens are virtually guaranteed at least one Legislative Council spot, I assume there are no objections to me creating Tammy Jennings based on the Kelly O'Dwyer precedent? Timeshift (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No. Please go ahead. Rebecca (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

None here either. Frickeg (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Timeshift (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The page has been prodded. I've added a hangon and linked to this discussion. This shall be wickedly interesting indeed :) Timeshift (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Timeshift9, thanks for clueing me in to the discussion. I was the one that CSD'd Tammy Jennings, it was done as a result of it failing WP:POLITICIAN. I also did not see any substantial coverage either in the article or as GHits or GNEWS. ttonyb (talk) 06:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, you feeling that the article fails WP:POLITICIAN is not a valid reason for speedy deleting an article on Wikipedia. As I posted on your talk page, you badly need to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies on speedy deletion. Rebecca (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If there is insufficient material to create a basic stub, then it should be deleted. If sufficient reliably sourced material is available, it can be created so long as it's a pretty high chance that the person could be elected and it's understood it will probably get deleted if they fail to do so. Orderinchaos 06:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This is still a particularly peculiar Australian twist on politician notability; not only does the United States routinely write and keep articles on candidates who are even unlikely to win, it doesn't delete them if they do lose either. And their coverage of politics is a heck of a lot better for that. Rebecca (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

OIC, you fail to state your opinion of Tammy Jenkins. Timeshift (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you meant Tammy Jennings :p Rebecca (talk) 06:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops! :D Timeshift (talk) 06:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not notable based on what's there - I'd support its deletion on A7-BIO grounds. Orderinchaos 06:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

But the reason we kept O'Dwyer was because her election was virtually guaranteed. Jennings' is too. The page WILL be about a member of the Legislative Council come March 20, therefore I see no reason it should be deleted. That is what establishes noteability in Jennings' case. Timeshift (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record, until 30 seconds ago, Orderinchaos thought she was the lead Senate candidate, which is a different kettle of fish entirely... Rebecca (talk) 06:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool. But an MP is an MP. Timeshift (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is that the SA Senate seat is far from being a certain win for the Greens. Either way, if Kelly O'Dwyer was kept there can be no reason to delete this page. Frickeg (talk) 06:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah indeed. Timeshift (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Frickeg and Timeshift9, how about something as simple as WP:WAX? ttonyb (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This goes far beyond WAX, a) the direct theory behind keeping O'Dwyer applies here, and b) her election is virtually guaranteed. Timeshift (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(OUTDENT) - Sorry but I disagree a) WP:WAX still applies regardless of O'Dwyer - simply put each article needs to stand on its own merits; b) Per Benjamin Franklin, "In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." ttonyb (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

While I don't think WAX is necessarily the problem, I agree each article needs to stand on its own merits and I'm not sure this one does. We're practically violating OR, especially in a state where the Greens have no established history of winning seats (one apiece in Federal and State). If it were WA or TAS where it *is* virtually guaranteed, I might have held a different view. Orderinchaos 07:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

She's just as much a shoo-in as O'Dwyer. The quota is much less, and Parnell was elected on 4.3 percent of the vote, with 6.5 percent in the lower house (Xen probably, and I mention lower as that's technically what's polled), having polled 4 percent both before and after the election, so Newspoll if anything undercooked the vote. The last 4 polls are 12-11-10-13. The Greens only had to repeat 2006, not shit all over it. Shoo-in. Timeshift (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The article sucks and can't be improved at this point (in fact it would be improved by removing several bits of it). There is a Wikipedia guideline explicitly related to possible future events; especially when the person isn't notable per WP:BIO at this point, I don't see why blanket exceptions should be made. Individual exceptions can be made but there needs to be a good case for each. Orderinchaos 10:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I seem to remember Kelly O'Dwyer begin kept because "she's virtually certain to get elected" and various other rather dubious claims including "first female candidate in safe Melbourne Liberal seat" and, well, "virtually certain to get elected". Jennings is at least as certain to be elected as O'Dwyer, and far more certain than Adele Carles, who was cited in the deletion debate. I'm quite happy to have a policy where we have no articles on non-elected candidates even if they are virtually certain to be elected, but if so it MUST be a consistent one. If the O'Dwyer result was correct, then Jennings too must be kept. I argued for deletion with O'Dwyer but my impression was that shoo-in candidates were to be considered notable in future. Let's just have a consistent approach, please, whatever we do. Frickeg (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, wikipedia's hypocrisy and contradiction is on show for all to see, and it's bloody ugly. Timeshift (talk) 10:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Here seems as good a place as anywhere to mention that I got very drunk with Tammy (who then had the surname Franks) on the night of the Republic Referendum. I staggered home at 5.00am, leaving her to abuse some nihilists. I'd add it to the article but I fear it would be deleted under Original Research. --Roisterer (talk) 12:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Altona by-election 13 Feb

Heads up. Timeshift (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've already created a brief stub. Feel free to make it not suck :p Rebecca (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone proposed deletion of -insert MP here-...

Please keep an eye on Doug Anthony. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

A former DPM prodded by an administrator! Could be pre-empting this proposal to prod all unsourced BLPs. But Doug Anthony isn't unsourced, it's just thinly sourced and doesn't have inline citations. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What a stupid proposal. Timeshift (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And now at Carmel Maher... sigh... Timeshift (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmel Maher. Everyone, let common sense prevail. Timeshift (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone's also hit Heather McTaggart. Can someone fix? Cas already grabbed Tony Whitlam back. Bonus points if you'd like to hit User:Scott MacDonald with a ban. If this idiocy keeps up, I might have to get my bit back. Rebecca (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest Heather McTaggart be DRV'd - a unilateral speedy deletion without any reference to (or any support from) the CSDs. Thoughts? --Mkativerata (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • On second thought, it's not worth DRV'ing. I'm sure someone will unilaterally undelete it. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
    • It can be speedy undeleted. Blatantly against policy. I'd do it myself, but still waiting to get the bit back. Sad that it's become a requirement. Rebecca (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Baden Teague, long serving Liberal Senator, has just been deleted. Anything we can do about this? --Roisterer (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's just been moved to the Article Incubator: Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Australia/Baden Teague, the history and text is still there. It's a redlink because someone then speedy deleted the redirect as a cross-namespace redirect. --Canley (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Another questionable image

What do people think of this? It's from a new user, there's no metadata, the photo seems a bit small for someone's own work, the date they put in the template is 2008-00-00, and the car's rego says 2009 on it. Thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Seems like a possibly unfree file to me. I can't find the source on the web (and trawling through google images of Bronnie hurts my head) but it looks like it was done by a news photographer or is self-promotional. --Mkativerata (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with Mkativerata. While the photo is so awful it's hard to believe it's professional, the lack of metadata and small image size suggest that it's unfree. Nick-D (talk) 09:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Gamers 4 Croydon

Does this article need a cleanup and is it noteable enough? Timeshift (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. It's a registered party, which is the boundary we've normally drawn on notability of parties, and it's a prominent enough issue - hell, though it's notable anyway, it might well help to deflect some of the bollocks from Michael Atkinson. Rebecca (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Looks OK, and certainly notable enough. Frickeg (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The O'Dwyer-Jennings precedent (or lack thereof) - Round 2

Ross Daniels (politician), unsuccessful ALP candidate for Ryan in 2007. Some dubious claims of notability regarding his work with Amnesty International. The article has been around since 2006, and survived an AfD in early November 2007 (before the election). Surely not notable now. Any thoughts before I take it to AfD? Frickeg (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Orderinchaos 01:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Also Samantha Dunn. Frickeg (talk) 05:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This is another case where I think we should be following the US precedent. Dunn's very much a long shot (if even that), but she's still got the potential for a decent, informative and well-sourced article, and as a lead candidate, it's of relevance and interest to any readers on the subject. Rebecca (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As long as we're consistent, which considering what happened to Jennings we can't be if we keep Dunn. I think the problem with following the US precedent is that each race gets huge publicity there, and most of the candidates get a huge amount of media coverage that just doesn't happen here. I think the problem is that Dunn doesn't come close to meeting WP:POLITICIAN, whereas most of the US candidates you're talking about go whizzing past WP:BIO some time during the primaries. Frickeg (talk) 05:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The difference here is that, ironically, I think Dunn would have an easier time meeting WP:BIO. There's actually a reasonable amount of newspaper material out there on local councillors, especially with her fairly notable achievements there (a Green polling 50%+ of the vote is pretty amazing, especially outside of the inner city); I think between that and her state candidacy she'd get over the line quite okay. We just got screwed with Jennings because the SA media's being so slow to turn on with the SA state election. Rebecca (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Results tables

We've briefly had a go at this before, but I think it's time for another stab at standardising election results tables and infoboxes across all states. Our current ones are:

• Federal: Two varieties - one for early elections here, the other for contemporary ones here. Infoboxes also different.
• NSW: here, infobox only. By far the least informative of the options available.
• Qld: here. Most of these lack the top right infobox.
• WA: Uses NSW infobox, but Qld results tables.
• SA: Uses early federal infobox, but late federal table.
• Vic: as in WA, except 2006.
• Tas: as in WA.
• ACT: NSW infobox, no results tables.
• NT: NSW infobox, later federal results table.

This is eight different combinations we have at the moment. I think it would be great to pick one of them, and then have a quick push to standardise them all as it's really messy at the moment. I would personally support the later federal infobox over the early federal one and the NSW-style one (although lack of pictures could be a problem) because it's much more informative and in line with what the rest of the world does. For the results table I like either the later federal version or the Qld version. Frickeg (talk) 05:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the later federal version. Timeshift (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think federal and state should be different to each other, due to the complications of different parties running in different places, but state should be internally consistent. I don't think the infobox is necessary personally, especially for earlier elections, although I've implemented or standardised instances of it here and there. The "Qld results table" was actually designed off the early Vic ones - I looked around for a suitable template to do WA with, and ended up adapting that one (Vic 1988, but used on others) to do ours, and making it into a proper template with a bit of logic. That's now in use in Qld and Tas (pre-2002) primarily because I had the time and energy to follow it up. I've now got a heap of Victorian election data too which I plan on doing up before the upcoming election.

Main advantage of the condensed results table, apart from being both visually more appealing, is that it's easy to use and implement, which is what I was trying for with it. The other ones get messy quite quickly, although are arguably more adaptable as they're not confined to a template. For state elections, adaptability is not necessary as there's very few inconsistencies at any one election which need to be accommodated. Orderinchaos 06:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I think really that they should all use the same system. Having different ones is just confusing, and also not at all inline with international practice. I do think the infoboxes can be quite useful, too, since as the articles expand the results tables will most likely move further down the page. At the very least the states should all use the same system. Frickeg (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Frickeg, for what it's worth. Rebecca (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Should Category:Scandals with -gate suffix stay deleted?

There's a discussion going on here [19] (until February 13) about whether it was proper to delete the "Scandals with -gate suffix" category (Watergate, Troopergate, Travelgate) a subject that may be of interest to members of this project. According to List of scandals with "-gate" suffix there are a few scandals having to do with Australian politics: Utegate (the only full article), Wheatgate (part of an article), "Shreddergate" (no article, no citation), and "Iguanagate" (several sports scandals in Australia are also said to be called "[something]-gate", but there are no articles with that kind of name). Please look at the discussion, look at the policy and insert your two cents with all the wisdom you have available to you. JohnWBarber (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation; I contributed. Orderinchaos 00:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Questionable images of Tony Abbott again...

I don't believe these to be genuine, again. Inspections welcome.... Timeshift (talk) 11:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The images have been removed and the user was indef blocked for uploading them. NSW Liberal + copyvio makes me think a particular way on this with regard to who we're dealing with, but I'm wondering if it's even worth checkusering as it's kind of obvious and I'm busy offline from tomorrow. (If someone else wants to, they're welcome to.) Orderinchaos 11:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Intervention please at Rudd government

IP thinking they can ignore policies again... Timeshift (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just blocked another one. The government seems to have lost the IP vandal demographic due to its censorship policies ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Altona state by-election, 2010 occurring today (13/2)

Just a heads up. Timeshift (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Old Victorian by-elections

Anyone want to write articles on some historic Victorian by-elections (1961 to 1985 era)? I have the figures for almost every by-election over that period from my last Melbourne trip and should be able to find writeups from the Political Chronicle which I can paste to a subpage, much as I did for the Southport state by-election, 1987 and others like it. I don't actually have the time to write the articles myself, however. Orderinchaos 05:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be very interested in doing these, so if you can put the data and some links/coverage up I'll get started. --Canley (talk) 12:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I'll create a subpage at User:Orderinchaos/Vic BEs tomorrow (Wednesday) with the statistical information and any relevant Political Chronicle pastes. Thanks - will be good to get this stuff up there :) Orderinchaos 17:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've started work on these this morning. I've been meaning to complete all the Victorian state elections and by-election articles, but as the VEC only has the 1999 results onwards online I wasn't sure where to get the results data from before then (I presume the VEC or State Library of Victoria would have them). I notice you said you got the figures on a trip to Melbourne, can I ask where and how? As I'm in Melbourne I can check offline Victorian information easily. --Canley (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries :) I'll get more up onto the subpage at the weekend - the problem is that I have the information in three separate files, plus of course looking up the relevant stuff from the gazettes, bio reg (done now) and Political Chronicles, so it's a matter of reconciling them all. As for where I got them - Monash University's library at Clayton, and they were sitting there on shelf. They have Assembly 64, 67, 73->, and Council 64, 70->. VEC doesn't have anything pre-1992. The SLV have the series but only on stack request and I failed to register properly for their system before I had to leave (I was only there for three full days and was looking up a whole bunch of stuff at UniMelb as well.) Orderinchaos 20:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Help with an IP at Governor-General of Australia please

Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've semi protected the article for a week - hopefully they'll take the hint. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Could wikipedians seriously be committing a crime for their contributions to political pages...?

Seriously. Now obviously we as wikipedians present the facts as they are, however we also know wikipedia is not perfect and free of POV. By contributing to wikipedia on SA political issues and not disclosing my name and postcode, could it be argued I have the potential to commit an offence...? Timeshift (talk) 07:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, no - as we are sourcing our contributions to others whose (presumably) name and postcode is supplied, such as the AdelaideNow website, the ABC or other sources. i.e. We're not commenting, we're simply repeating (and linking to) the comments of others. It will make life hell for Poll Bludger commenters though. I am not a lawyer but I don't know how it would apply to Wikipedia talk pages, and I'd imagine it could not extend to commentators who are posting on a server based in San Francisco, especially those outside the state. Is there a short session before the election or has parliament already concluded for this term of office? Orderinchaos 07:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It's unforceable as hell, and unless it was a leaker being prosecuted, I can't imagine that the SA government would want it enforced - the resulting trial would be political drama gold in an election year. Rebecca (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What about my userpage? I'm stuffed there once the writs are called... Timeshift (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

looks for "Timeshift" in electoral roll somewhere between "Timberlake" and "Timms"... seeing as everyone after all uses giveaway monikers on Wikipedia making real life identification easy... then gives up realising I have no idea which of the 47 state electorates you're in or even whether you're merely pretending to be a South Australian... Orderinchaos 09:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Do overseas websites like Wikipedia fall into the jurisdiction of this law? AFAIK, Wikipedia and Wikimedia don't have any servers in Australia. It is tempting though to take advantage of this nonsense by referring POV-pushers to the SA police ;) Nick-D (talk) 09:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Theoretically, if I post something on my userpage that violates the legislation, then the government could demand wikipedia hand over my IP address and then track me down to charge me with an offense. A valid hypothetical, no? Timeshift (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco doesn't have a history of handing over people's IPs to state governments. US privacy laws apply to the servers. Orderinchaos 10:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent :) Timeshift (talk) 10:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we have anything to worry about. The amended law is in section 116 of the Electoral Act 1985. It prohibits the anonymous publication of commentary in "a journal published in electronic form on the Internet". "Journal" is defined by section 116 to mean "a newspaper, magazine or other periodical". I highly doubt that wikipedia (articles or talk pages) would be any of those. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Atkinson has backed away from the laws anyway. A win for democracy and raging against bullshit legislation. Timeshift (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting snippet from a June 2009 hansard... "The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes. We aim to catch web pages and, therefore, it would cover blog sites, Wikipedia and internet newspapers such as Adelaidenow, but we do not want to go into twittering because that is too much like individual communication over a mobile phone. So, that is where we are putting the boundary." Timeshift (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that Tasmania seems to have enacted a similar provision anyway: [20] Thanks to Crikey for alerting me to this. Orderinchaos 09:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I particularly like the advice on Facebook use there which explicitly violates just about every internet security message the government has ever put out about social networking websites... Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Tasmaniantimes.com believes the law is "unenforceable and outdated" and is not requiring individual comments to have name and address [21] but they do publish the name and address of the website's owner on the front page. I have contributed, and will contribute further, to Tasmanian state election, 2010 but I doubt the government will enforce the law with respect to the article, but in theory there is a risk here. Barrylb (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Watchlist

Ken Henry (Australian public servant) is desperately short of eyes. I just reverted 3 months of edits to that article. Orderinchaos 01:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hume Cook

Can anyone find a reference that refers to this MP as simply "Hume Cook"? Everything I've been able to find refers to him as "James Hume Cook" or "James Cook". If no one can help with this, does anyone object to an admin moving the page to "James Hume Cook"? Frickeg (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If anyone lives in or around Brunswick, Melbourne, there is a plaque on a building on Sydney Road that mentions him (from his time as Mayor of Brunswick). I have a vague memory that refers to him simply as "Hume Cook" but I could be wrong. --Roisterer (talk) 07:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at his Australian Dictionary of Biography bio, I got the impression that he was called "Hume Cook" as a double-barrelled surname (with no hyphen): firstly, the ADB says "Alternative names: Hume Cook, James Newton Haxton"; secondly it refers to him as "Hume Cook" throughout the article, and generally seems to refer to subjects by their surname; and thirdly it contains the statement "James Hume Cook, as he was known...". I suppose he could have insisted on the inclusion of the Hume to distinguish himself from a certain sailor of some renown. --Canley (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That's what I gathered too. Could an admin move him to "James Hume Cook" then? Frickeg (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've moved it, but you don't need to be an admin to do a page move (unless there is a redirect in the way). --Canley (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There was, wasn't there? Frickeg (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, there was. --Canley (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Rudd now at Prime Minister's Avenue

It would be much appreciated if anyone passing through the area could take a photo of it to add to the page. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone fix the broken code on Tony Abbott?

The reflist|2 (refs over two columns) being used isn't working because ref coding has been added within it, and I can't figure out/which part of the article it's from/how to fix it... Timeshift (talk) 08:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I simply removed the extra code inside the reflist tag. Barrylb (talk) 09:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

...thanks. Where was the ref from? I thought it was part of the article? Could it have removed refs? Timeshift (talk) 10:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It was added here, amongst a group of edits by Mikstev.[22] --AussieLegend (talk) 10:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tas member lists

I've made a draft member list for the state seat of Bass here. It comes out as a pretty massive table, but I still think it's helpful somewhere in the mainspace. In anticipation of objection to putting it straight into the Bass article, are there any other ideas about where this should go? I personally think it's fine in the Bass article but I recognise others might disagree. Also, what do people think about having Braddon/Darwin and Lyons/Wilmot on the same page? (Rather than splitting into Braddon, Darwin, Lyons and Wilmot.) It vastly simplifies these lists, but it's also against practice for the rest of the states. Tasmania is, though, a special case. Frickeg (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

As Braddon<-Darwin and Lyons<-Wilmot were simply renames I have no problem with that - it makes things clearer for readers. Orderinchaos 21:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Year ranges

Copied from Talk:Electoral district of Maitland

WP:YEAR states, "Year ranges, like all ranges, are separated by an en dash, not a hyphen or slash: 2005–06 is a two-year range, whereas 2005/06 is a period of twelve months or less such as a sports season or a financial year. A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year (1881–1986)." While it does go on to say the full closing year is acceptable, there's obviously a preference for two digit closing years. This edit that partially reverted this one, the edit summary for which explained the change to year ranges, was unnecessary. Wherever possible we should comply with the preferred method specified by the MOS and there's no reason that we can't here. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you're misreading the guideline. It explicitly says that the full closing year is fine by the guidelines. Since this standard is used in literally thousands of politics articles, changing it on one page is hardly helpful. Furthermore closing with two digits works fine within text, but in tables it begins to look messy and asymmetrical. However, I think the discussion is probably one that needs to be had, so I'm moving this to WT:AUP to get a broader range of opinions. Frickeg (talk) 06:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"Acceptable" does not mean "fine". It means it's OK but there is a better way. If a four digit year was "fine" then the wording would be something along the lines of "A closing CE or AD year is normally written either with two digits or as a full year." It isn't and clearly states a preference for a 2 digit closing year. Saying that it is "acceptable" is not giving a four digit year equal preference with a two digit year. It's saying that it's adequate, that it's OK to do so, but there is a preferred option. Arguing that other articles use four digit years is really in the realm of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We should follow the preference stated by the MOS. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we have some input from others here? At the moment there's just the two of us with diametrically opposed opinions. AussieLegend has just changed it back which, if endorsed, means we need to change the lot across the project. So we need some more opinions before we can say that this is resolved. Frickeg (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the presenting the full years looks better. Also, the m-dashes ought to be replaced with the shorter n-dashes. Digestible (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the m-dashes. I thought we had a bot doing that ... Frickeg (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The MOS states a preference for two digit closing years as already noted. You are correct about using en dashes though. Use of the preferred format doesn't mean every article has to be changed. The current format is acceptable, although since the em dashes have to be changed anyway, it's not too much of a jump to fix the ranges as well. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a bot could be commandeered to fix the ranges if the decision is made in that direction. I was just making a point that consistency across the board is a good thing, and that there was no real consensus here. Still isn't - it would be great to get some more discussion going. Frickeg (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

En-dashes and full years here. Especially in the list articles the two-digit closing years look ugly and can be somewhat confusing, especially when they're not all n-n (i.e. some are n-n, n-n; some are n, n-n, etc) Orderinchaos 11:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

QLP politicians at Democratic Labor Party (historical)

I've spent the best part of the last 4 months doing stuff related to Queensland politics and, in hitting the 1961-1962 newspapers, it's rather obvious that the QLP were, until around that time, quite distinct from the DLP and only then did they form an agreement to join. It was not a decision without controversy within the QLP and, when it was finalised, two members (one a former Deputy Premier) quit the QLP in protest at the arrangements as they were not sympathetic to the DLP, and actually went on to retain their seats at the next election and in 1966. It's complicated by the fact that several that were defeated long before then (including Gair who went on to be a DLP Senator) followed the party into the agreement. The 1957 newspapers make it clear that the QLP split was over a range of issues and they undertook to the electorate that they would not form an agreement with the DLP (I hope to write an article based on my findings, it's all quite interesting stuff!)

I guess what I'm proposing is:

• The QLP list be moved to the QLP article
• A link be placed from the DLP list to the QLP list
• All except Hilton and Diplock be removed from the DLP article.

Does this seem reasonable? Orderinchaos 21:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Absolutely. (Note that Condon Byrne was also initially a QLP senator, so he should make a trip over to the QLP page as well while remaining on the DLP page since was later elected for them.) Frickeg (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Brisbane City Council - what to do

As part of my work into Queensland politicians, I ended up taking a sideways deviation into the wonderful world of Brisbane City Council politics. Getting the lists right has been a challenge given no single reliable source documents them all, but with the help of gazettes, contemporaneous newspapers and a lot of help from the Brisbane City Archives (esp considering I live in Perth!), I am a significant part of the way through getting member lists done for BCC aldermen. I personally feel given BCC's excessive size (twice as many people vote in its elections as do in Tasmanian elections) that we should cover it, but how exactly is a question I'm going to throw open to those here. My work to date is at User:Orderinchaos/BCC - please note due to a consistent flow of changes I haven't yet documented all the sources but will do so once I get up to about 1965 complete, but there's a stack of Courier-Mail articles and gazettals to document once I get the time. Orderinchaos 07:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

South Aust. and Tas. elections

Hi all. I am not sure if these results for these elections have been called as yet, but if is is possible, can one of the participating editors here please update 2010 in Australia with the results? There is an entry noting the election date, but nothing announcing the results. Thanks in advance. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The results are not absolutely final in terms of votes, but are in terms of seats, if that helps. Orderinchaos 05:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Playford V at AfD

Heads up. I'm a bit ambivolent about it... on a good day i'd consider it borderline keep. Timeshift (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Mike Foley

Could an admin please move Michael Foley (Australian politician) to Mike Foley (Australian politician)? Clearly the latter is the name used, going by the sources. Frickeg (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Out of curiosity, any reason why you aren't an admin? Strikes me as an obvious nomination if you want it. Rebecca (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd support a nom. Timeshift (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Er ... never really thought about it. Pretty much the only thing I'd use it for is these kinds of moves. I never really thought I got involved enough in non-article-type things for it ... Frickeg (talk) 04:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to support too. The project could use some more admins in our timezone. RfA's a bearpit at the moment though. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if it would be a help, and people think it's appropriate, of course. Frickeg (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Federal results and federal MP list(s) not matching up?

I noticed on Australian federal election, 1919 that according to the standard ref used, it shows that the 1919 election saw Nat 18-1 ALP in the Senate, to a total of Nat 35-1 ALP. But Members of the Australian Senate, 1920–1923 has several ALP Senators...? Timeshift (talk) 07:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've done a bit of digging. One of them (Vardon) was a typo. Gardiner is definitely the "one" referred to in the reference. As for the others (Hoare, MacDonald, McDougall): MacDonald was appointed to a Nationalist Senator's vacancy in 1922. As for McDougall and Hoare, the Parliamentary Handbook has both their terms beginning in 1922, and this is where it gets complicated. For McDougall: Henry Garling had been appointed to replace Herbert Pratten, but when the election came around and Garling was defeated, McDougall immediately assumed his seat. Similarly, for Hoare: Edward Vardon had been appointed to replace Robert Guthrie, but when Vardon was defeated, Hoare immediately assumed the seat. So the list is correct, but these could certainly do with footnotes. Oh, the joys of the early system for electing Senators. Frickeg (talk) 08:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - thanks. Timeshift (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for help

I've been making a federal MPs' age spreadsheet to keep track of the ages of MPs, and it's turned up a few things to keep an eye out for. None of this information is in the obvious places (Psephos, Parliamentary Handbook, etc.). There are four living members of federal parliament for whom we do not know their birth date: Irina Dunn, for whom we don't even know the year, and three for whom we do: Peter Sim (1917), Martin Cameron (1936), and Dana Wortley (1959). And while there are a huge number of deceased MPs for whom we do not know the birth date, there are only three for whom the death date is uncertain. One, Frederick McDonald, disappeared and so that cannot be determined. The other two are John Croft (1913) and Thomas Williams (1992). Anyone know where to look to find this kind of thing? Frickeg (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Has Rydon (1972) been consulted? Orderinchaos 12:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No, good idea. I shall do that today when I go to the library. Frickeg (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool. If it doesn't have it then I have no idea :P The birth dates *may* be in historic Who's Who in Australia publications but they don't always have a date. Martin Cameron's not in luck as there is a SA biographical register but it only goes up to 1957. Orderinchaos 00:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No luck, although we can put Croft with McDonald in the "impossible" category - he died at sea c. 1913, according to Rydon. There was nothing for the four births beyond what we already have, and no help for Williams (if he did die in 1992 [and he's certainly deceased, otherwise he'd be about 110], Parliament seems to have ignored it completely). Sim is one of only five living ex-MPs over 90, so it'd be especially great to get his birth dates. Wortley's hopefully will pop up somewhere. No idea what the case is with Dunn - I've checked Who's Who when she was active, and even that doesn't give her birth date. Some random interesting trivia I've found from the spreadsheet that people might be interested in: the last time an MP of uncertain birthdate died was in 1980 (William Morrow); Gordon Davidson is the oldest living former MP; no former MP or Senator has ever reached 99 years of age; and, as far as I can tell, no ex-MP or Senator has died since September 2009. Frickeg (talk) 04:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Just as an aside - Davidson actually died in 2002, as an editor recently picked up, which leaves Gough Whitlam as the oldest MP currently. Frickeg (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)