Talk:Western Australian general election, 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Western Australian general election, 2005 is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

1 POV issues
2 Merge proposal
3 Requested move
- 3.1 Survey
- 3.2 Discussion
4 Infoboxes
5 Consensus

[edit] POV issues

This article essentially comes from a strong POV that the Liberals were in any way placed to win the last election at any time during or before the election campaign started. This was most definitely not the case and needs to be addressed if the article is to factually represent the state of affairs DanielT5 13:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed this I believe with recent edits. It's not even close to getting up there but at least it's on the right track now :) DanielT5 16:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It needs to focus a bit more on Perth and less on rural, although everything there now is good in my opinion (I can see you were doing what you could and leaving others to do the rest, which IMO is a good approach as we work with the best of everyone's stored knowledge). When I get to it in about a month's time I'll see how I can improve it and bring in some references as well (I'm ultimately hoping to go back as far as the 1959 election - I have sources at Battye on nearly all of them). Orderinchaos78 03:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The idea that the Liberals were well-placed ahead of the 2005 election didn't come from me - it came from news articles from that time. From my reading, the basic story of the election is that Barnett squandered an early lead on his canal proposal. Joestella 06:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think what an eastern states newspaper thinks of our political scene is pretty well irrelevant. It'd be like reading Queensland publications to determine WA population trends (the work I'm doing elsewhere atm). Orderinchaos78 10:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, not a single reliable commentator was predicting a Liberal victory. The Australian doesnt report reliably on WA politics (if it ever does...) and the West Australian is all but owned by Brian Burke who their current editor is an old mate of, and the Liberal Party. They published blatantly biased surveys they had conducted in some electorates for example and were directly criticised for barracking by many independnet observers. DanielT5 11:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, looks like I was wrong because the Fairfax-News-West Australian-Brian Burke-Liberal Party conspiracy had me fooled. Apologies. Joestella 19:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand it is hard to believe from over there but yes, our media sucks. Read this and this and this and then any of these and you'll get the general idea which is what anyone who is everyone in western australia has known pretty much ever since the West lost Paul Murray as editor. He was pretty conservative too but he was NOTHING on this guy. By biased surveys I mean doing surveys in marginal seats and then your polling company reveals it cant trust its own results because it was told by the paper to only survey Liberal suburbs and... you get the idea. And they ignored the bush, which is where some of the real contests took place. DanielT5 20:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

I removed the merge tags, since no-one seems to be making the case for a merge. For the record, recent (and future) elections in other states get separate campaign articles, with the election article focussing more on the electoral process. Joestella 06:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The WA articles have taken a different path to the NSW ones, and I'm seeing all 3 of the people who have edited the articles broadly agreeing on the construction of the articles. They are still in their infancy and breaking them up at this stage appears pointless. Orderinchaos78 10:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved.--Stemonitis 11:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was

Western Australian general election, 2005 → Western Australian state election, 2005
Western Australian general election, 2001 → Western Australian state election, 2001
Western Australian general election, 1996 → Western Australian state election, 1996
Western Australian general election, 1993 → Western Australian state election, 1993

The moves above would if accepted reverse non-consensus moves made by User:Joestella on 10 March 2007. While efforts to bring in a national system are to be commended, I'd much rather see a national system brought in by discussion and consensus, such as was undertaken at Infobox Australian Place and related forums during its development, than a unilateral imposition of a "one size fits all" format which seems to have met some opposition in its place of origin and is bulky and awkward in its present state. All of these articles are very small at the present time but are being worked on in the background, and the WA politics editors had come to an agreement in terms of how to lay these out for now (things are always open to review though if we can hear solid arguments for proposed alternatives) — Orderinchaos78 10:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add # '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

[edit] Survey - in support of the original move to "Western Australian election, (year)"

~~Support~~ Orderinchaos78 10:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC) (more agreeable option raised)
~~Support~~ I agree with all of the reasons above. The naming system was in place before we even got here and I actually fixed any other articles so they agreed with the new naming. DanielT5 11:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC) (go with second option)
~~Support~~ Satu Suro 11:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)(more agreeable option raised)

[edit] Survey - in support of the move to "Western Australian state election, (year)"

Support I believe elections should either be Australian federal election, 2000; or Western Australian state election, 2000 as examples. I don't like general, nor nothing. State and federal should be used IMHO. Timeshift 11:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Support My previous grounds apply, but Timeshift's reasoning meets the logic test - i.e. if I knew nothing about WA politics or Australian politics would the title tell me what it is? Orderinchaos78 11:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per Orderinchaos and Timeshift. I slightly prefer the original request but would not at all object to this one DanielT5 11:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per above - it is that no-one in Western Australia would even recognisel it as a general election - the state election seems appropriate to accomodate Satu Suro 11:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey - in opposition to the move

Oppose Creating a national standard is important. So is using the correct terminology. WA's Electoral Act 1907 uses the term "general election" and not legislative, state or WA election. General elections are distinct from elections to one seat or one house. Sorry to be pedantic, but this is an encyclopaedia. Joestella 19:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course the Electoral Act doesn't call it a state election! It's a state piece of legislation. No state legislation ever calls anything "state". I know that legislation well as I do some organising for one of the other parties and we have to know what we can and can't do. And the official printup of the results says "2005 STATE ELECTION" in bold letters on its front cover. The pdf for Merredin I got emailed back whenever for scrutiny is entitled "Western Australia - State Election (2005) - Statistical Returns - Legislative Assembly - Merredin". Creating a national standard is important but that doesnt mean one person creates it, its supposed to be created by a consensus of anyone reasonably expected to edit election articles, and on looking at the talk page on the politics project it seems that is not what has happened. DanielT5 20:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hence the words "Western Australian" before "general" in the article title. Despite your status as a person who does "some organising for one of the other parties and we have to know what we can and can't do", the reality is that legislation defines and describes the electoral process more authoritatively than this PDF you're talking about. And, as I recall, the move to "general" was discussed at the Australian politics talk page. Joestella 01:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- There was no consensus to move, you undertook it as a WP:BOLD and the only two users who commented on that page disagreed with the proposal. Also I think what the WAEC calls it is totally relevant. DanielT5 05:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

oppose per User:Joestella ... also, discuss this stuff at the Aust politics Wikiproject. ChampagneComedy 01:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per Joestella. The former terminology was "legislative election", from the United States terminology (in comparison to, say, "gubernatorial elections" or "presidential election") that does not and should not apply in Australia. Joe is right to use the correct wording for Australian elections; if we become a republic and have a directly-elected president, I might change my mind, but until then this terminology should stay. JRG 03:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. "State election" is ambiguous in years that see both by-elections and general elections. "General election" is the correct terminology for the topic. Conversely, saying "state" is redundant when you've already said "Western Australian". And I would like to see a national standard put in place, at least to the extent that our various state parliaments and electoral procedures will submit to one. Hesperian 10:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Wouldn't such be denoted "state byelection"? Orderinchaos78 10:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in which case other such should be denoted "state general election". Except that "state" is redundant yada yada yada. Hesperian 11:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:

I don't think this poll is at all useful if it is only been used to determine whether a handful of Western Australian election articles should be moved. The issue is bigger than that. Consistency is required across all Australian election articles. Therefore, either this poll should be refactored, or a new one commenced at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics.--cj | talk 01:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Infoboxes

The infoboxes have been up for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics for some time. Better to make your objections known there, so that all election articles can enjoy the benefit of any changes. Joestella 01:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My biggest objection to them (as a self-confessed infobox fan) is that these infoboxes are bulky and look awful at a code level, and so are hard for users (I'm especially thinking of non-IT literate users) to update. I've done a *lot* of work on Wikipedia getting rid of these sorts of things, which are often the brainchild of one user or small group of users and tend to take different forms wherever one looks, and replacing them with standard forms that can be updated or repaired easily. On the geographical sections of Australian wikipedia, we are about 110 articles from eliminating them entirely. In this case, I would rather have no standard at all than a chronically flawed one. Orderinchaos78 03:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Restoring these infoboxes and other contested sections without discussion does not assume good faith. I am happy to discuss them, and I am happy to at some point see (well-written) infoboxes on this page. I can't speak for other users who have objected to them. However, simply repeatedly reverting to restore them is not the solution to this problem. Orderinchaos78 04:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"up for discussion" means nothing when replies are ignored for a month! If your arguments hold merit then you should be able to deal with and accommodate any opposition to try and reach consensus, simply ignoring it shows disrespect as it implies you dont think they are worthy of consideration. DanielT5 06:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My first priority will be clarity for readers. If you want to improve the code for the infoboxes, do so. The infoboxes I advocate make clear who won, vote shares, and seat distribution - what I would consider to be the three key facts for any election contest. Joestella 07:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What I'd like to see is a few of us working together across a range of lines and ideas and getting an actual template together which can then be easily updated/copied by anyone who needs to regardless of technological literacy - taking on board Wikipedia's credo "the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit". The Infobox Australian Place template which has become standard in geography articles took nearly 2 months to get right and had a *lot* of input from a very wide range of people who often disagreed with each other on a range of minor issues - by the end it was utterly and completely uncontroversial and we managed to get former opponents of the entire project on side by taking many of their arguments into consideration in the development phase. We also had access to two highly competent Wiki coders who did much of the hard work getting it going and working in the best and most flexible way, and a few checkers to make sure what was implemented and what was agreed were the same. I agree with the fundamental aims of developing an Australian elections infobox that clearly gives information that people would want to know on visiting such a page - I think it's more a ways and means dispute than an ends dispute, really. Orderinchaos78 07:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

The infoboxes, the move and the campaign section were all done to Australian politics articles without consensus, in fact often in the face of unanimous opposition. I didn't realise this until reading the talk page directed to by cj, and I encourage other editors to contribute there. DanielT5 05:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/e/s/Talk%7EWestern_Australian_general_election%2C_2005_b600.html"