Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics/Archive1 (prior to 2007)

1 Palm Island ACOTF
2 Major party leader boxes
3 Legislative..?
4 Back to the infoboxes...
5 Compromise for the 2007 NSW election
6 Elections infobox
7 Hare Clark elections
8 Election campaign articles
9 Joh Bjelke-Petersen
10 Redistributions
11 Question re AUSPIC photos
12 Renaming of [/general election/] to [/federal/] and [/state election/]
13 Senate-only or half-senate?
14 1901-2004 elections
15 IRV - when?
16 Leader picture copyright issues
17 Two party preferred figures

[edit] Palm Island ACOTF

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

[edit] Major party leader boxes

Party	Hold	Gain	Lose	Result

New South Wales Legislative Assembly 2007 election
■ Labor	55	–	–	–
■ Liberal	19	–	–	–
■ National	12	–	–	–
■ Independents	7	–	–	–

I note that some elections pages feature a red and blue infobox with photos and personal details for the MPs vying to become premier. This template has a couple of problems, so I've replaced it on the NSW election pages. The reasons:

voters don't vote for premier candidates, they vote for local MPs
the personal particulars of premiers and opposition leaders do not speak to the elections process
the key elections process is the changing seats total between parties in the state's lower house
black text on a blue background (on the Liberal side) is poor design
there are more than two parties

I'd say that the table is too "American" in that it assumes a presidential-style contest, but even American election articles lack this sort of thing. Examples, some not filled in yet, can be found here:

Suggestions for improvements appreciated. Joestella 16:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read Talk:New South Wales legislative election, 2007 - Joestella is insisting on deviating from the standard Major Party Leader table which is the standard for all federal and state wikipedia pages. I do not want to have to get in to an edit war with this user, it is not worth anyone's time. My response was

I think people are being too politically correct here. It is widely known that it's either going to be one leader or the other that will be representing the state after the elections, and it is also widely known that people vote for the party's ideology or their leader, seldom the candidate; it's simply how Australian politics works. Technically people vote for their local MP, which is why more detail should be put in to the body of the article (see 06 SA election which is a Featured Article for a good basis on a state election page), but overwhelmingly swinging voters decide on the party's leader. You do get some exceptions for some sitting members who build up a base of personal support over time, but certainly most seats do not have this or very little of it. In Tasmania, the Greens hold major party status with 4 lower house seats, and as such have a place in the MPL table on their page. In regards to the colour issue, fixed. Unless there is mass support for changing the MPL tables as the standard throughout the WikiProject Australian politics community for all state and federal elections, please do not change the table. Thankyou. Timeshift 15:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

But this user insists on making his changes which are already represented in the article, he is simply placing redundant information there. Timeshift 16:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

(I was invited to join in by Timeshift9)

I encourage you both to sit back and look from a distance.

The table is smaller and neater, but rather boring for the top of an article. It is easier to read than the text or pendulum in the "prospects" section, and should be included somewhere (I haven't read the whole article yet).
The leader box is bright and garish. I don't know about New South Wales elections, but both national and my state, the party leaders do most of the talking and get quoted on television, radio and print media. They do their best not to let individual candidates comment on anything more serious than the weather in their local electorate.

For example, the article says that "The government is campaigning on the basis of its plan to secure Sydney's dwindling water supply..." but doesn't say if this is the leader's voice, or the minister for water resources. If it's the leaders "debating" in public, that would be an argument for the leader box. If it's the Minister vs the Liberal spokesman for Water, or each candidate speaking about water in their own electorate, being responded to by their own local opponent, that's an argument that NSW is different and doesn't need the leader box. --Scott Davis ^Talk 21:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

(Disclosure: (1) Timeshift9 invited me to offer an opinion; (2) I am a Family First member). I'm not a big fan of the red/blue infoboxes. They imply a presidential-style election. While it is true that the people are in effect choosing between the Labor and Liberal leaders as PM or premier, they are also choosing an upper house (in most states), and in some cases choosing independents also. The "two infoboxes" summary neglects this. OTOH, I think it's important to have some picture at the top of the article, so in the absence of a better idea they might as well stay. Kind of a "least worst" option. BTW I think having 3 infoboxes for the Tasmanian election is the worst of both worlds: not only does it neglect the Tasmanian minor parties, but it gives the impression that the Greens leader has some chance of becoming Premier, which she does not. Rocksong 02:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It was decided to leave the Greens there due to a) their unique electoral system allowing more Green representation and b) holding four seats which qualifies their status as a major party in the Tasmanian electoral system. If they lost a seat, they would have lost their status as a major party and would lose financial resources, offices and support staff. It is the fact that they are a major party that it was decided they would be left in the major party table. In regards to the MPL table looking garish, I did provide an alternative if you want to take a squiz at this revision. Timeshift 05:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The point about making it look nice is well taken - photos, at least, would be more visually engaging. However, a still from a particularly noteworthy election ad or even just a photo of the incumbent could work just as well. A picture of the chamber would work. Or even (as above) the state parliament's logo. Joestella 06:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Then put it in the page - but for as long as there is no majority support to remove the MPL table from state and federal election pages, I will ensure the status quo is maintained for as long as it takes. Timeshift 07:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd encourage both of you to refrain from editing any election article whilst this dispute is ongoing; edit warring is never constructive. On the dispute itself, I'm inclined to agree with Joestella that the appropriateness of the 'MPL boxes' is not certain, both in terms of design and accurateness. I'm glad to see that some of the design issues have already been addressed, but the box remains fairly obtrusive. One significant issue that needs to be addressed is the use of copyright photographs; this use, by my understanding, does not meet fair use criteria as it is currently enforced. Ultimately, however, æsthetic issues are irrelevant if the purpose of the box is incorrect; no matter how much mass media may like to portray elections solely as leadership battles, they are not such, and it is inappropriate for an encyclopædia to perpetuate this inaccuracy. I consequently would support a new infobox along the lines of the one proposed above, perhaps one utilising graphic renditions of house compositions (such as this) to satisfy requests for depiction. The argument made against that box is that it is redundant; however, this criticism is misguided, when one considers that infoboxes are intended to summarise essential facts from the article prose, and in election articles, there is no more essential data then the results. --cj | talk 13:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It is true that Australian elections are in practice treated more like leadership elections than they actually are in theory, and so (free) pictures of the leaders are not an inappropriate illustration for the top of an election article. However, the additional information about the individuals, such as time in parliament and electoral district, is minimally relevant to the election as a whole, and makes the table look like an infobox about a two-person battle, which does not give an accurate picture. While I don't object to using the leader's pictures (where available) in some way, I do feel it would be better to move to an infobox giving key facts about the election, which as Cyberjunkie says definitely include the results. JPD (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Another user has suggested using the state flag above the table. I prefer the parliament's crest, but I have no strong feelings. Joestella 14:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legislative..?

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

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

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

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

Done. Joestella 19:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate your efforts, this was a big change and I wished you'd waited for more discussion. I don't like "general" either. The SA electoral comission calls it a "State election". For the federal case, surely the most usual nomenclature is "Federal Election". Let's discuss this and get it right. Rocksong 02:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, that happened way too quickly. That's a lot of links that need to be fixed now. Please don't conduct mass moves without allowing for discussion (less than 7 hours does not).--cj | talk 03:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There are only four kinds of elections: general, by, local government and constitutional convention elections. The terminology we use should differentiate between the four. "State" could refer to any of them.
Although we refer to "state" and "federal" elections in conversation, this is because any given citizen has only one state. Wikipedia deals with all six. According to the research I did before moving the pages, the formal terminology for an election for all seats in the lower house is "general election" - that includes South Australia.
There are no broken links as a result of the moves, but since every page needs to be revised as part of standardisation, that would be the time to check for links to the old "legislative" pages.

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

Don't worry, I realise it was all well intentioned. But now let's spend a few days discussing this and reaching a consensus, since it affects a lot if articles.

While "general election" is technically correct, it is hardly ever used in discussion. Do news items ever refer to the "2007 Federal general election"? Not to my knowledge. "General election" is only needed to disinguish from "by-election". But "by-election" is always used for by-elections anyway, plus there is no such thing as a "Victorian by-election" or a "Federal by-election", so I would contend that "general" is not necessary.

So my preferred format would be of the form "Victorian state election, 2006" for the state elections, and "Australian federal election, 2007" for the federal elections. Because that is what people, amd the media, usually call them. (Actually even better IMHO would be to put the year first, as in "2007 Australian federal election", but that doesn't seem to be the WP way of doing things). Rocksong 11:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The usual terms for these others are "federal by-election", "state by-election" and "federal half senate election". I still would contend that the term "general election" is rarely used so we shouldn't use it either. As for UK and NZ: I think (a) UK and NZ are not federations (so do not have "state" elections), and (b) "general election" is the popular term in UK and NZ (unlike here), so is appropriate there but not here.

Anyway, there's Joestella on one side and me on the other. This affects the naming of a lot of articles and I'd like to hear some other opinions. Rocksong 03:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Back to the infoboxes...

I don't mind if the page names are changed. As for the 3RR rule, it takes two to tango (or in this case revert) to which I feel I am on the stronger footing. The Major Party Leader table is used for state and federal elections and has been for quite some time now. By placing a table of lower house stats, you're simply reproducing redundant data further down the page. I notice that you uploaded the picture of Debnam "something smells rotten" yet you feel you must take Iemma off the page. The MPL table is the standard used in WikiProject Australian Politics to clearly show the leaders of the major parties, whom are often crucial to deciding which party obtains government. I notice your Debnam picture has, at best, a pretty light fair use rationale, as opposed to the Iemma and Debnam rationales. There have been no direct wishes for them to be removed, aside from a few aesthetic comments, which I had also provided to you as a means of consensus a solution but this also does not rest with you. Aesthetics is no longer the issue, you simply do not believe that either realistic premier after the election or his contender should be featured. I am simply maintaining the status quo, rather than allowing a redundant table to be placed there instead which is simply pointless. Timeshift 15:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Timeshift, if you wish to discuss the leaders table, instead of claiming that it is some sort of standard for this WikiProject, why don't you join the discussion about it in the section above, where you will see quite a few different views on the issue. Please also try to stick to constructive discussion, rather than personal comments about Joestella. He hasn't actually broken the 3RR, and you have, so you have no "stronger footing" - let's jsut leave the edit warring and discuss it properly. To get back to the issue in this section, I don't object to the proposed renaming. 16:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC) (sorry for the extra tilde - JPD (talk))

Firstly you might wish to sign your name correctly with four tilde symbols. Secondly I have participated in the above discussion, the NSW 2006 election discussion, and his and my talk pages in length. He is pushing for a change from the status quo for the MPL tables used on all Australian elections so the onus is on him to show there is support for his changes which there is not. I've provided solutions (such as a solution) for the only issues raised, being aesthetics, which has been addressed through the solution, but he insists on showing redundant information. I do not see anyone agreeing that the MPL tables should be removed, so until there is support he should maintain the status quo. Timeshift 16:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"Timeshift9" says they do not "see anyone agreeing that the MPL tables should be removed". A number of users have made supportive comments.

Rocksong: I'm not a big fan of the red/blue infoboxes. They imply a presidential-style election.
JPD: I do feel it would be better to move to an infobox giving key facts about the election, which as Cyberjunkie says definitely include the results
CJ: I'm inclined to agree with Joestella that the appropriateness of the 'MPL boxes' is not certain ... I consequently would support a new infobox
ChampagneComedy: it isn't a presedential election at all
Flakeloaf: The four-party infobox is compact and clearly shows what's going on, whereas the two-party one does make things look like a strictly bipartisan contest
Athænara: the Legislative Assembly table gives a clearer focus on the process itself

Of course, some of these had caveats, newcomers to the debate should read the comments themselves in full. Crucially, no user has yet backed the MPL tables in their current form. Joestella 16:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise for the 2007 NSW election

New South Wales legislative election, 2007 in it's current revision holds a far more aesthetically pleasing table of the leaders of the parties who more often than not are responsible for the polling the party receives on election day, as well as the redundant lower house table. This is a compromise where both hold a place and does not look heavy on colour nor are there any other disadvantages I can see.Timeshift 17:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for you attempt at a compromise, but I think it fails to meet some of the concerns raised in sections above. My primary concern is not with the aesthetics of the 'MPL boxes', but with their appropriateness. I feel they present an inaccurate view of the election and do not fulfil the fundamental aim of an infobox, which is to summarise essential facts from the article prose. Now these facts will obviously differ between articles on past and upcoming elections, but I see summarising results or house compositions as being the best basis for an election infobox (should one be necessary at all).--cj | talk 17:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A compromise has been reached. Timeshift 17:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The leaders are now displayed prominently under the first subheading. The seats table is in an infobox. Joestella 17:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Very good. Perhaps, however, we could use this opportunity to refine the new infobox and even templatise it for use on all Australian election articles?--cj | talk 18:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally want the SA election page to stay as it is, after all it was approved as FA with the MPL table. Timeshift 18:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought you wanted a standard? It might be worthwhile if we actually developed one.--cj | talk 18:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So it is that actual table that you like, not just having a standard? FAs are not set in stone. I do think it would be a good opportunity to work on a standard infobox. I do find both the state flag and the parliamentary logo not particularly good illustrations, both to look at and since they don't reflect the particular election, and am surprising myself by leaning towards using pictures of leaders. It would be good to think of what information other than lower house seat numbers would be worth including - the date, for example. JPD (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer it to stay as it has for the past year or so, yes, i'm happy for NSW to be a one off. The WA, NT and ACT don't have them, NSW was added to that list. But now the whole standard is being scrapped which I'm not very happy about as I think it worked well. Timeshift 18:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone else has advocated NSW being a one off. We are trying to talk about what it would be good to have as a standard. The objections Joestella has to the table in the NSW article apply equally to other states and the federal elections. It is actually a good thing to stop and reach an active consensus on what would work best, rather than just copying that model without talking about it. JPD (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that after a year of having the table, and articles successfully going through the FA process with it, why it's suddenly become an issue in the first place. I fail to see what's changed. Timeshift 19:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter. Valid arguments have been put, so now let's just work together to address them. In reply to JPD's comment about illustrations, I suggest again a graphic like that present at the beginning of Canadian federal election, 2006.--cj | talk 19:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer Cyberjunkie's suggestion over the flag/logo. I'm not quite sure how it would work, though. JPD (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm really hesitant to enter this discussion because I haven't done any work at election sites other than my local electorates, so feel free to tell me to pull my head in, however I would like to make this point, I recently had a edit of mine reverted because my edit did not leave the page in a state where the article read as though it was finished. That's fine, but it made me think about this proposed info box.

To me the info box makes the article look unfinished, as if the info box has been put there in anticipation of the results being added, but at this moment in time the article should read about the future event and current campaign, not be designed in anticipation of it becoming a past event.

How the election will operate, who is competing in the election, how the campaign is playing out, and so on, are the subject matter of this article. The way the infobox is structured it's like an unfinished article about the results of an event rather than an info box about a future event, in fact that infobox really belongs in New South Wales Legislative Assembly.

I'm not sure what you would put instead, an illustration of the previous structure of the parliament, as suggested, using the Canadian model doesn't seem right to me either, because while the previous electoral makeup is extremely relevant to the article, it is not a summery or representation of the subject topic. The only thing I can think of which summarises the subject matter of the article is to return it to how it was before except with the following changes:

Get rid of the details about the leaders other than their names (the article isn't about the party leaders) add some info about the parties, for example:

photo of leader
Party logo(s) (same width as leader's picture)
Coalition-Liberal Party & National Party (title line)
Leader: Peter Debnam
Current Assembly: 19 Liberal 12 National
Current Council: -- Liberal -- National
financial warchest: Est $------
seats contesting: -- Liberal -- National

do the same thing for Labor to the left of it (as the current Gov)

Then I think do the same thing for each of the minor parties all in a row below the major two except without the leader pics and with reduced sized logos (unless there is more than four or five, in which case go to two rows).

Then below that; a row listing the wiki-linked names of the independent members of parliament.

I think this brings the focus back to the fact that this is an article about a political campaign where the two major parties are the focal point, however it recognises in the info box, the important part that the minor parties and independents play in the process and also how the numbers stacked up in the previous parliament. It also avoids the main visual focus of the article looking like a technical legislative process as apposed to the lively political campaign that is the subject matter. Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 11:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this style of infobox is being put forward as an infobox for election articles in general, which will usually be past elections. We do need to consider how the box will be different for forthcoming elections, but not only that. Both the technical process and the campaigning are the subject matter of the article, so it is a matter of getting the balance right, but keep in mind that the campaigning is all about gaining actual election results. I personally don't think party logos really illustrate the election. The Canadian-style graphic is good for past elections, but not so good for upcoming ones, as Alec says, although being "unfinished" when it is clearly because the event hasn't happened yet isn't really a problem.

For future elections, I'm not too sure about the suggestion below. I don't think it's right to select one set of polling figures to put in an infobox, let alone declare it "too close to call"/etc. JPD (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Tasmanian general election, 2020

To be held 1 March

You're probably right about declaring it "too close to call" or anything else, even if that is a quote from a reputable source. Joestella 13:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Point taken about my suggestion for future elections, I'll move my comment to the 2007 NSW and Federal Election talk pages. I'm against putting opinion polls in the info box, I think an info box should reflect the article's content and polling info is just a small part of the article, although they would be great in the section about polling info so the most recent results are highlighted. Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 13:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to say that your suggestion wasn't relevant - this is still the best place to discuss future election pages! I was just pointing out that proposals are being made with both future and present elections in mind. JPD (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Alec's suggestion above is actually very acceptable! I like it a lot, with the only exception being the finances as every party fudges the figures (even mine :| ). Also enables the Nationals to have a separate box in VIC, SA and WA where they are significant but not in coalition. DanielT5 08:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elections infobox

Party	Vote %		Seats

Legislative Assembly election, 1992
Labor	39.9	↑17.1	8	↑3
Liberal	29.0	↑14.1	6	↑2
Moore Ind.	5.6		2	↑2
Abolish Self-Govt	7.1	↓0.4	1	0
Others			0	↓7
Hung parliament

I have implemented a new infobox (example at right) on some election articles that summarises the two key pieces of information in an election (share of Assembly first-preference votes and number of Assembly seats won), plus the change since the last election, for independents and parties winning Assembly seats.

The table starts with the jurisdiction's flag. The table header makes clear that the scope of the data is limited to the Assembly (ie, not the upper house, if any). Parties are shown in order of assembly seats won, except for a winning junior coalition partner, which follows its senior partner. Odd-numbered rows have a light blue background to improve readability.

Party groups are colour coded. Dark colours are used to improve contrast. No effort has been made to match the corporate colours of any party. Although some Wikipedia editors allocate more colours (Democrats yellow, ONP orange, Greens green, etc) this produces garish pages. The purpose of highlighting the three main parties as a courtesy to readers is defeated if the tables are multicoloured throughout.

The Australian Labor Party is shown in red #600
The National Party of Australia is shown in green #060
- The National Country Party is shown in green #060
- The Country Party is shown in green #060
The Liberal Party of Australia is shown in blue #006
- The Country Liberal Party is shown in blue #006
All other parties, and independents, are shown in grey #333

Where parties or independents lose representation in the assembly, the last line of table data has the party name "Others" and notes how many seats all others have lost since the last election. This is to prevent the "win/loss" figures from summing to a nonzero amount.

Note that no percentage figure is given for independent candidates. Although the total independent vote for the election is sometimes available, to speak of statewide support for "independents", let alone statewide swings to or from the "independents", is to misrepresent the nature of an independent candidacy. An elected independent, after all, does not speak for all voters who voted "independent".

Parties with no representation in parliament are not shown in the list to keep it clear and relevant. Full results, including all parties, should be placed in a larger table in the body of the article.

The result figure is shown (to one decimal place for percentages) at text size 150%. The change figure (to one decimal place for percentages) is shown at text size 90%. Upward and downward movements are shown using the ↑ and ↓ symbols. No change is shown with a zero. If the party is newly registered, the percentage change figure is blank. If the assembly is newly established, the seats change figure is blank. The % symbol is not used next to the figures themselves.

The last table row contains the name of the election winner, if any. If the Coalition secures a majority in its own right, the text is "Liberal/National win" or similar, depending on the names, and relative size of the coalition partners. The background is blue #006, except in Queensland, where it is green #060. If Labor secures a majority in its own right, the text is Labor win and the background is red #600. If neither the Coalition nor Labor secures a majority in their own right, or if the Coalition was not in force prior to the election, the result is a "Hung parliament" and the background is grey #333.

(Yes, this means that the party that forms government is not always shown in the table. However, the election and the process of forming a government are technically separate processes. In any case, the article text will explain who formed government and with whose support.)

If no results data is available, a modified form of the table, showing only the result, could be used. Most election results are, however, available from electoral authority websites or elections.uwa.edu.au.

u didn't give us much time to object, Joestella! however this all seems good... very detailed though! who will police? ChampagneComedy 03:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason why such dark colours have been chosen? Surely making them as differentiable as possible no matter what one's eyesight or monitor type should be a goal here. By mucking around I found that C00 / 0C0 / 00C was the darkest clearly differentiable on a 19" LCD monitor. Orderinchaos78 18:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The above issue has not been addressed. Furthermore, and I didn't realise this at the time I raised my objection above, but this infobox is completely manual and almost impossible to operate for a non-IT literate user. In my opinion (and others may disagree) infoboxes should account for WP:CSB and WP:ACCESS, be easily updatable and in standard form. As someone who isn't even sight impaired, I have trouble with the appearance of this infobox, so I'd hate to think what someone with mild colour blindness would make of it. Furthermore, wholesale implementation of such an infobox does not work in all circumstances (although does in most Australian contexts) as it is not flexible enough to account for minority parties which are majority parties in regional areas or even, in some hypothetical future instance, in a particular region. Orderinchaos78 04:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The infobox should be replaced with a more immediately comprehensible form that can be edited by non-Wiki-literate people without breaking the thing. It's actually very easy to break. DanielT5 05:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Colour choices - more important than making the colours distinct from one another is the need to make them distinct from the background. Since the colours do not communicate information on their own, keeping the contrast level high is the most important thing, from an accessibility standpoint. The decision to use colours at all is primarily aesthetic, but does help to communicate some of the table's data more quickly to readers who are not sight-impaired.

Breakability - I invite DanielT5 to recreate the table with the same appearance in a less "breakable" form. I haven't done so because this would necessitate quite a complex template, given the large number of parties contesting some elections.

Comprehension - The idea that the infobox is not immediately comprehensible is a bit difficult to sustain. In the above example, the table reads "Party Labor, vote percentage: 39.9 (up 17.1), seats: 8 (up 3) ... result hung parliament." That's all the key facts, using not very much space. Joestella 07:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the colours - take a look at these two images taken with my digital camera of the above box:

Orderinchaos78 09:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

By comprehensible I was not referring to the data but to the template, it would be almost impossible for a newbie to use and hence it limits updating to a select few users and in the event of an error limits people's ability to fix it. Everything on Wikipedia should be done in a way that anyone can edit it. I know next to nothing about template design and I'm sure millions of other Wikipedians are in the same boat. DanielT5 11:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Orderinchaos, your colouring makes it easier to differentiate the colours on certain monitors and for the vision-impaired, but that isn't the point, since the colours do not, of themselves, communicate information and very bright colours pose their own usability (not to mention aesthetic) problems. Joestella 18:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If they don't communicate information, and given the above accessibility/subjectivity issues, and the amount of loading and complexity associated with them in coding terms, which impacts on speed of delivery and server operations, then why have them at all? It seems to make more sense to abandon them completely and just use black on white which is clear and unambiguous. Orderinchaos 18:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The subtle colours (006, 060, 600 and 333) do not require an unreasonable "amount of loading" nor is there a serious "speed of delivery and server operations" concern. (Images and tables present far more speed issues than any font attribute.) The colours simply underscore and embellish information presented in the text in a manner which is aesthetically consistent and presents no accessibility issues. Joestella 20:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hare Clark elections

How do the proposed boxes cope with the Hare-Clark system employed for Tasmanian and ACT elections? Orderinchaos78 19:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Election campaign articles

	Government	Opposition

Election campaign, 2007
Party	Labor	Coalition

Leader	Morris Iemma	Peter Debnam
Leader since	2005	2005
Leader rating^[1]	20%	80%
2PP rating^[2]	55%	45%
Majority	17	—
Seats needed	0	19
Marginals held	5	13
Marginals avail.	11	4

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

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

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

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

Above, I've come up with an idea for a campaign article infobox. At the end of the campaign, we could tack on a "Labor win" or similar result row. Joestella 22:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[Jurisdiction] general election campaign, [yyyy] would only be created for future and recent elections, or past elections for which there is a great deal of available information. That's what I said. A great deal of detail will be available to us for all future national, state and territory elections: such as month-by-month polls and party-issued campaign documents. Joestella 09:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I first became aware of it when a considerable portion of South Australian general election, 2006, a featured article which was deemed to meet all criteria in January 2007, was switched out of the main part of the article. DanielT5 alerted me to the creation of the WA 2005 article. My main issue with it is that firstly it is unnecessary, and secondly it can encourage over-dependence on trivial or faulty media reporting which may or may not have had any impact on the election. In Western Australia, where our media is at best biased and at worst completely compromised, this is a major issue. The West Australian was so chronically out on the 2005 election that the voters appear to have either completely ignored it, or voted in defiance of it. I'm not seeing a consensus to establish such a section in the above, and I'd have hoped to see more justification before making major structural changes to an article just after being featured by independent editors on Wikipedia - it actually puts its status at risk, which is unfair to the editors who worked hard to get it there.

Note that I am not discouraging ideas from being tried out - rather the wholesale implementation of ideas that have not been discussed or approved by a broad consensus of politics editors. Orderinchaos78 04:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This infobox contains a fair bit of original research and should be discouraged. DanielT5 05:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

How so? Everything I can see on there is either obvious or sourced. JRG 05:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Leader rating - unencyclopaedic

2PP rating - what on earth is this and who is it determined by

Marginals held - POV / OR

Marginals avail - POV / OR DanielT5 06:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "leader rating" could be better phrased, but it is based on sourceable poll data from opinion polls on who supports what leader; 2PP is "2 party-preferred basis", which is sourceable poll data also; marginal seats are defined by the respective electoral commissions (well they are in NSW, where I come from anyway) by the percentage of swing required to unseat the sitting member. This is all sourceable data, and is definitely not original research. If you can show me something that is in the infobox, I might support you, but I can't see anything that would lead me to that conclusion. JRG 07:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Marginal seats are not defined by electoral authorities in WA, and the ABC ones are hotly disputed as "marginal" in a state context - some say 5%, some say 2%, some say 1%, some say 10%, and everyone has a case to "prove" it. Until a reliable source can be determined and an appropriate definition set, which I doubt, we should avoid contentious terminology. Also at state and federal levels, they mean quite different things due to the relative size of the electorate - more size = more diversity, and then one has to get into whether a seat is functionally marginal or institutionally marginal (yes, I have done first year Pol Sci :)). Also in the last WA election, one marginal switched, all others stayed with their respective party while one safe and two very safe seats unexpectedly switched. The case of retiring independents is also confusing as for the safe party to re-win the seat, a "swing" is not required. I tend to believe in "let the facts speak for themselves" and avoid interpreting as far as possible. Orderinchaos78 07:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Where's that from? (I'm not disputing it, just wanting to see it I guess) - My interpretation of marginal is "on the margins", meaning that it would be within say 3 or 4%. The definition is meant to mean "a uniform swing will switch this seat to the opposite party" but I think like most political terms it's been butchered to death through misuse over time. (I'd agree that 10% should be the safe seat boundary, but that's OR on my part) Orderinchaos78 07:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Page 13 of http://www.seo.sa.gov.au/election2006/pdf/Results_and_Outcomes_Booklet3.pdf "~ Marginal 0-5.99%, Fairly Safe 6-10%, Safe >10% swing needed for seat to change hands" and http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/How/newsfiles/124/index.htm "By convention, when a party receives less than 56% of the vote the seat is classified as ‘marginal’, 56-60% is classified as ‘fairly safe’ and more than 60% is considered ‘safe’." Timeshift 08:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Joh Bjelke-Petersen

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

[edit] Redistributions

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

Probably the State Library. I would try the Government Gazette for 1992 - often they have a file or a separate "Maps" section either at the back of the relevant volume, or as a separate volume entitled "Maps". Failing that, librarians should be able to get it for you off the serials or map stack. I usually keep my digital camera (with flash off, of course) handy for such occasions. Orderinchaos78 18:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question re AUSPIC photos

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

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

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

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

Why not continue the similar discussion above, since the same arguments apply across the country? Joestella 01:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

OK lets get on with it here then - as the consensus among a very small number of us at the WA project was that we objected to Joestella's mass moving of WA election articles from Western Australian election - to Western Australian General election - and we felt that Western Australia State Election was far more appropriate - but it was pointed out that is was a national issue - so we need to nut our what all the other state elections are named as - so we have something to evaluate ! Satu Suro 03:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

They all got renamed indiscriminately to "general election" per WP:BOLD a month ago so that is still totally up in the air. Orderinchaos78 06:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per Joestella's reasons on the WA page. The former terminology was "legislative election", from the United States terminology (in comparison to, say, "gubernatorial elections" or "presidential election") that does not and should not apply for Australia. Joe is right to use the correct wording for Australian elections; if we become a republic and have a directly-elected president, I might change my mind, but until then Joe's terminology, which is the correct terminology, should stay. JRG 03:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Firstly, I feel that articles should reflect their subject to a neutral observer. Just because the Electoral Act refers to a "general election" doesn't mean we should - in fact, even the WAEC, as DanielT5 has pointed out at the WA page, use a random mixture of both. It is a state election or a federal election. As Satu raised, almost nobody in the general public knows what a "general election" is, but everyone knows what a "state election" or "federal election" is, and they are no less technical, specific or correct. One of the issues brought up when the SA 2006 election went to FA is that people outside Australia wouldn't understand that SA was a state rather than simply a region - this would go some way to resolving it. Most non-English speaking countries, furthermore, have a federal-state structure of some form, so it addresses CSB issues. Furthermore, if maintained in this form, the word "general" is completely redundant - the form we'd settled on, although have agreed to change, was simply "Western Australian election". After hearing Timeshift's reasoning, I could see the superiority of that suggestion over ours, as did others who voted on the WA page. Orderinchaos78 04:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Support State and federal (and lets not forget territory although they already have Territory in the title so probably can just be "election") is the correct wording for Australia as we have a federal government and six state governments and two territory ones. We should reflect common usage as far as possible. Factiva records 6,000 matches for "general election" in Australian papers, nearly all of which are in one publication, the Australian Financial Review and many of which actually refer to board elections (another reason why we should avoid confusion). Meanwhile State election has over 15,000 and federal election 18,000. Even WAEC and ECQ use "State General Election", and in internal publications within WAEC the term "State Election" is freely used, they have three divisions with hierarchical structure in their department, "State Elections", "Local Government Elections" and "Union and Non-Government Elections". As OIC78 said above not everybody outside Australia knows a full list of Australian states and some like Victoria or South/Western Australia are ambiguous or unclear. DanielT5 05:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- We're never going to have union elections as separate articles, and only the very notable Local elections (maybe like the Michael Lee vs Clover Moore City of Sydney election a couple of years back) that caused massive publicity would ever be notable at local level, so there's no point in making comparisons like this. JRG 05:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  - I wasnt suggesting we should, was more just putting it in perspective how the WAEC see it. in fact I'd oppose local elections because most of them are non events DanielT5 06:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Support as per original link above. Timeshift 06:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, as I've argued above at #Legislative..?. While "general election" is technically correct, "state election" and "federal election" are also correct, and are far more widely used. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rocksong (talk • contribs).
Oppose. "State election" is ambiguous in years that see both by-elections and general elections. "General election" is the correct terminology for the topic. Conversely, saying "state" is redundant when you've already said "Western Australian". Hesperian 10:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
My preferences, in order, are: 1) "<state>n state election, <year>", 2) "<state>n election, year", 3) "<state>n general election, <year>". I think all three are correct and unambiguous, so a selection between these is based on what we think conveys the most helpful information to a reader before they have read the opening paragraph which should explain whatever they didn't understand from the title or context. A byelection article is likely to have the name of the electorate in its title, not just the state name, and are extremely unusual in the same year as a general election for the same jurisdiction. I don't feel really strongly between these, they are all better than the somewhat odd-sounding "legislative election" form. I had to think about what that meant, but all three of these are instantly understandable. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Support "State" and "Federal" as both mean something to average readers. "General" is a default which only serves to differentiate from rare by-elections - which I think should be clearly referred to as such for clarity. Peter Campbell 23:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. "General" is probably more technically correct but not widely used or understood. Wikipedia should be about making it easy for our readers, so I think we need say "State" or "Federal" somewhere in the article name. The precise wording I don't have a view on. —Moondyne 02:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose general is technically correct. {jurisdiction} + {general/by-/half senate} + election, + {year} ChampagneComedy 02:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

State or federal election is hardly a "slang term", nor original research, as it is a precise description of the event. A quick survey of the state EC websites:

SEO (SA) - State General Elections
WAEC (WA) - State General Election (singular, despite referring to the same plurality as SA)
ECQ (Qld) - State Election/State General Election (also refers openly to Federal elections)
NSWEC (NSW) - State Election 24 March 2007
VEC (Vic) - State Election
TEC (Tas) - House of Assembly Election (note: Tasmania does not have general elections)
ACTEC - Legislative Assembly Election
NT - Legislative Assembly Election
AEC (fed) - Federal Election

Bit hard to disagree with all but one of them - and that one exception rules out using general for that state entirely. Orderinchaos78 08:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what I said... the official body responsible for elections puts these things on official reports to parliament so they are official names regardless of what some 100-year-old piece of legislation happens to say. As I said the scrutiny sheets for Merredin (WA) didnt even include the word "general" DanielT5 11:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

They're not consistently called that across all states, but we've agreed that it's a reasonable term to use ("electorate" is actually the correct name in most jurisdictions, but electorate has two or three possible meanings - "the electorate" for example can simply mean all voters) Orderinchaos78 06:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Order in Chaos hasn't done his research... tassie does have general elections if you read the electoral act. there are four kinds of tas election: "Assembly general election", "Assembly by-election", "Council periodic election", "Council by-election" See Electoral Act 2004, Part 5: Conduct of Elections ChampagneComedy 02:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your point raises exactly the point I was making - Tasmania does not have general elections as per your list above. Orderinchaos78 06:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Senate-only or half-senate?

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

As per Template:Australian elections, the only reason I named them senate-only elections is because those four had no lower house election. All senates are elected in halves, except double diss.. but either way I don't mind, just explaining my rationale :) Timeshift 01:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware of that. Again it's a question of what is the most common/official usage. ("Common" being a relative term because we haven't had one for 37 years). If there's no precedent for calling them "Senate-only elections", then we should probably call them "Half Senate elections", because that term at least has some prior use. Rocksong 02:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

To some extent it is an issue of common/official usage, but the google numbers are a bit misleading, as most of the "half-senate election" references are taling about talking about normal senate elections in general, whether they occur on thei own or as part of a general election for the Senate and HoR. Whether it is best to use the non-specific term "half-senate election", only suggesting that it was not accomapnied by election of MHRs by the lack of the term "general election", or to spell it out with an uncommon/unofficial term is a more subtle question. JPD (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've renamed them so they start with Half-senate elections were held in Australia etc, if you wish to rename the page it's up to you, i'm happy to leave as is, but I do suggest to leave the template as senate-only elections to distinguish the four from the rest of the elections that decide govt and the PM. Timeshift 14:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone has renamed them all now to "Senate elections", which is definitely wrong. Sigh. Rocksong 00:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not any more wrong than the other two options. It's jsut not very specific. JPD (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems I;m still learning. The referendum questions Australian referendum, 1977 (Simultaneous Elections) and Australian referendum, 1984 (Terms of Senators) both use the wording "Senate elections" when they refer to elections of half the senate. So "Senate elections" could actually be the most correct term. Though I still prefer the term "half senate election", and it gets used a fair bit. Rocksong 10:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think "Senate elections" is the correct title - see United States Senate elections, 2006 as an example (and they only elected 1/3 of the seats then!). Aren't all elections "half-senate" anyway? Plus it just sounds silly! Number 57 10:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Who cares about the US? The question is what are they called here. And we elect all senators in a double dissolution. I still prefer "half senate election" because it is more descriptive, and I think it is more widely used, but perhaps I am the only one. Googling "senate elections" at abc.net.au and .gov.au it seems that, in the context of a half senate election (i.e. excluding sentences which are phrased to encompass all types of senate elections), it's roughly a 50-50 split. Rocksong 10:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

half-senate is correct, its different from double-dissolution and general senate elections. ChampagneComedy 02:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1901-2004 elections

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

First, kudos for all the work you've put in, particularly the information directly relevant, such as dates, tables, percentages, leaders and links.

However... as a general comment, I don't like the idea of cut-and-pasting material from one article to another. As examples, large slabs from Australian Democrats at Australian general election, 1977 or Australia Party and Liberal Movement at Australian general election, 1974. I really don't see the point; if the reader wants to find out about those subjects, that's what the links are for. The articles should restrict themselves to the election and the election issues. If we don't know the issues, then leave the article short. So my first reaction when I see some of the articles is to take stuff out, though I don't know how popular that would make me. We seem to take opposite approaches: your approach is (or seems to be) full-blown (put in lots of background), while mine is minimalist (put in election stuff only, if you want the background click the links). I don't want to get into an edit war, especially since you've put in all this effort. So... can we reach a consensus on what should and shouldn't go in election articles in general? (And is the answer different for current/recent and distant-past elections?) Rocksong 10:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made some alterations and a lot of reduction has occured in the two mentioned. You can always make edits, it takes two to start an edit war but only one of us to back away from it :P I rarely get in to edit wars, if you exclude one certain user :-) Timeshift 11:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IRV - when?

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

[edit] Leader picture copyright issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes there is - the fact that it is very hard to get near some of them to take photos. JRG 01:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Peta: that is, quite simply, nonsense. Have you ever tried getting a photo of a sitting politician? Adam was able to get some because he was a staffer to a federal MP - and even then, he managed to cover all of about five people. I'm fed up with people who never actually try to get images for articles preaching about how easy it must be to actually do so. Rebecca 03:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have uploaded free images of hight visible politicians by way of US PD images; there are pics of these people available online - they don't normally add significantly to a wikipedia article. The fact is that people aren't even trying to get free media and are using fair use images for cosmetic reasons where free ones exist. Using an image in a box across a series of articles like the election ones, which seems to be the principle reason for wanting to use these old fair use images - simply isn't a fair use. --Peta 04:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In any case, the Foundation's new licensing policy resolution puts an end to any suggestion that this matter is amenable to further debate. Hesperian 04:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

And what would the foundation know about Australian politicians? JRG 07:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

conversely, what would non australians know about access (or lack of) to former politicians? Timeshift 01:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

JRG, even if you can prove that the Foundation are utterly and irreconcilably stupid ignorant and wrong, they are still the Foundation, and what they say still goes. They have ruled that Wikimedia projects will not be hosting non-free images of living people under fair use provisions. End of story. It is pointless to continue this discussion. Hesperian 01:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two party preferred figures

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

I know in WA, such figures weren't even calculated prior to about 1986, the electoral laws were different in that if a candidate got above 50%, the 2PP wasn't calculated for that electorate. There were also anomalies such as unopposed candidates in some seats (although this got increasingly rarer after the 1960s). As changes in state (WA) and federal electoral legislation broadly speaking kept up, I wouldn't be surprised if this is one of the problems in calculating a 2PP figure in other states as well, as few races were two-player and for some reason there was an awful lot more safe seats in either direction back then. Orderinchaos78 22:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Australian_politics_7762.html"