Talk:2006 South Australian state election/Archive 2

message: This article is overlong (the software flags it as worthy of a possible split). Part of the problem is that it aims to be a comprehensive political history of South Australia. No amount of excellent research and good writing will make such a broad article encyclopaedic - the casual reader will struggle to find the useful bits. I humbly submit the structure of the New South Wales general election, 2007 articles as an alternative. Joestella 11:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think there is too much background, though I can forgive that. One obvious split is to put the "Electoral Background" into an article of its own because it's relevant to all SA elections. But also I think the "Legacy" is too long, and should have stopped after the two sentences on Evans' election as Liberal leader. If we want a running commentary on state politics we could have articles like South Australian Politics 2006 and South Australian Politics 2007, but it doesn't belong here. It's time to draw a line under the 2006 election and move on. Rocksong 11:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm thinking South Australian general election, 2006 to cover the system, candidates, results; South Australian general election campaign, 2006 for issues and campaign-trail info and South Australian election pendulum, 2002 for the pre-election pendulum. A lot of the other stuff, party histories, what happened next and future reforms to the electoral system can go on the relevant existing pages. Joestella 12:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I can understand that you have an ongoing campaign with relation to article length and the need for campaign articles, your method of tackling this issue is not by any means acceptable. Please seek consensus before completely rewriting or pulling apart an article. Orderinchaos 16:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no emotional attachment to the article. But as a featured article, and having not sought any kind of consensus to change it, you have no mandate to effectively delete hundreds of hours of people's hard work and rewrite as you see fit. That is saying "I am better than all of youse", which is *not* a healthy or productive attitude to bring on board here. Orderinchaos 16:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think I'm better than "all of youse". What a ridiculous response to Wikipedia being edited. The whole point of Wikipedia is that it is constantly edited. In editing this article, I read and digested the work already done, and applied a new structure. I do not need your permission to do this. And I'm not interested in a conversation with contributors that goes "I think we should cut it down and copyedit" "This is a Featured Article, it doesn't need your self-imposed concepts". Joestella 16:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to point out WP:BRD.  You've both burned through B & R, so now it is time to discuss.  I will protect this article from editing (and it will be my own wrong version no doubt) if I see more edit warring here without discussion of the changes being proposed.--Isotope23 16:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You haven't been around Wikipedia long enough if you think this one is that level of bad :) Some of the ones that come up every day are atrocious, believe me, especially the biographical ones. And there's the entire case of a past iteration of Winthrop, Western Australia which had a photograph of a phone box, a cable pillar, a post box and a "typical Winthrop alleyway" (the latter of which has inexplicably survived even to the present), as well as some fascinating commentary which I found worthy of WP:BJAODN inclusion (a great page if you've never been there). I actually agree with you to some extent on your last point - and you might be surprised to find some of the editors who most strongly contributed to this article would agree as well. That's one reason why I suggested you might want to wait for more input - I think the consensus will be to modify the article in a way which improves it but doesn't fundamentally alter its balance. The FA reviewers aren't stalking over every contribution at the moment, our mission should be to improve the article to a standard where we as a community can be happy with it, but it doesn't lose its accreditation at the same time. Orderinchaos 18:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: * Balance in what sense? Joestella 18:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Broadly speaking, respecting what is already there and who put it there and trying to improve on it (while recognising some bits, as you and I seem to agree on, really do need attention in terms of whether they should be there or not), rather than assuming the whole thing is wrong, it stinks and is not likeable without even approaching the relevant editors on their talk pages or on any of the community noticeboards, which is a very hostile way of starting off with an article which, whatever you may think of process as opposed to outcomes, did pass the community's highest bar. Why should the people who worked on it be robbed of that just because one person thinks their work is not worthy? Let's help and assist them to keep it there instead - and some of the ideas you've raised and I've raised (note some, not even most) will work towards that end. I look forward to constructive dialogue which includes as many WP:AUSPOL people as possible and has the aim of enhancing this article's correlation with core policies and with grammatical and logical-construct standards. Orderinchaos 18:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of article 

message: Until the others get here, neither you nor I have any right at this point, esp given the events tonight, to turn the relevant sections of the article inside out. We can agree on some minor and uncontroversial edits, and I think *anyone* would agree the polling section is an eyesore and is taking up way too many kilobytes, but leave the major changes for now. Note that I've also agreed to the same, so nobody is censoring your right to speak up - as Isotope said, we should be discussing this, not just going in there and doing. Orderinchaos 19:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the basis of the above, however, I do propose we completely remove the last two paragraphs of Legacy. One looks like a Labor press release and the other has been adequately covered in the first paragraph - it is sufficient to say the leader changed (whether or not we agree the article should even say that). The section reads fine without them. Thoughts? Orderinchaos 19:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "The events tonight" over-dramatises it. And remove as much of legacy as you like. Joestella 19:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: Anyone else notice that someone has been updating the poll figures well after the election? And has anyone besides the author/s actually read the legacy section? Not only is it a partisan guide to the last 12 months of SA politics, it also makes no attempt to link the events it describes to the actual article subject. Joestella 19:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must admit I'm not terribly observant re the polling. For that I'd say sources should be checked and if what's there now disagrees with what the figures should be, they should be fixed. (If that requires access to Australian newspapers that are no longer online, I can *probably* get it off Factiva as long as it wasn't a graphic.) As for the legacy, it's just lost about 60% of its bulk, I moved the biggest section to the Martin Hamilton Smith talk page so people can decide what is the most appropriate way to incorporate it somewhere other than here (it was well referenced, needed some formatting work, but definitely was not a consequence of the 2006 election.) Orderinchaos 19:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kill it. It is partisan and irrelevant to the election itself. michael talk 01:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polling & legacy 

message: One key concern I had, and I only realised it this morning, relates to changes made last night which have not been subject to revert to the parties and independents section. They actually change the characterisation of the election and its players and remove key facts and valid references from the article. At least three of these removals could be argued to come from a partisan standpoint. While we should present the best article possible, we should also respect readers' ability to discern what they want to read and give a complete but not excessive story of what did happen - if users want to skip, that is the purpose of the section headings. The original was far from perfect, and I have many ideas to improve on it (mainly grammar and wording), but is better than the present version. I think that if we are to work on it, we should return to those paragraphs or at worst have both side by side and decide what to do with it, although I'm happy to accept many of Joe's *other* non-reverted changes as improvements, and I'm sure others would agree. Orderinchaos 10:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to parties/independents section 

message: I unprotected so that this article could move forward, and within two hours I see a major revert, and one that is clearly partisan with respect to the previous debate, with no discussion here. This may well be in line with community consensus; I don't know. But the fact that it hasn't been discussed here first disturbs me. If someone reverts back again, or I see any other sign of this dispute being played out in article space, I'll be reprotecting and I won't be sticking my neck out for this article in future. Please guys, tread very carefully for a while - this is neither the time nor the place to be bold. Hesperian 13:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article in its previous form looked nothing like the article that went through the months of Featured Article reviewing, and was not worthy of the title Featured Article. The featured article process was the biggest concensus one could want. Nobody complained about this article, people simply ignored it once they saw Joestellas hands getting all over it. Timeshift 13:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected, lecture

message: I decided to hold this article for this release, as it is a little too specialised.  I believe there are many more important SA articles we will need to include first. It will be automatically reviewed for the next offline release. Thanks, Walkerma 03:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 0.7

message: That table was not in the WP:LEAD when this article passed review; it's really unsightly and too much detail for the lead, and there are incorrect WP:HYPHENs in the lead where they should be WP:DASHes.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does the 2206-102006-10 in the table in the lead refer to?  Is that supposed to be October 2006?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FA status does not mean the article cannot change. The results table and leaders table are viewable at first click of the page. This is the design for all SA elections, and all federal elections. As for 2006-10, not 2206-10, views of previous elections should give off another clue. Timeshift (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you planning to leave the table in the lead?  It's unsightly and a lot of detail for the lead; several of the other tables in the article are distorted on my browser.  The 2006-10 is unclear; I have no idea what it's referring to.  I fixed several MOS issues, but there is still an inconsistent uses of numbers (see WP:MOSNUM).  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Haven't received any other complaints. Timeshift (talk) 09:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WHat browser is the 2006-10 turning up on? I'm looking in Firefox 2.0 and am not seeing it (unless it's already been rectified). Orderinchaos 10:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, found it. Changed it to "October 2006". Orderinchaos 14:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: In the "Post-election pendulum" section, there are pictures and charts that are running off the screen; can someone fix the layout?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SandyGeorgia is the deputy FA coordinator, I think we probably should go with what she says on this one (especially since it's such a minor point). Orderinchaos 10:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well isn't that fantastic. Fine, rip apart the article, see if I care. Timeshift (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're overreacting just a tad - she's talking about a hyphenation of one word in a few places, and a picture which needs slimming, both are quite achievable with little consequence to the article except improved readability. The table's more difficult an undertaking - I was addressing my comment to this half of the conversation though. Orderinchaos 11:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care about dashes, it's the other stuff. But i'm not in a good mood which doesn't help. Timeshift (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  eek

message: Reversion of vandals appreciated. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 05:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was only move protected, which is done for every article that appears on the main page.  has restored the protection. - auburnpilot talk 22:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 15, 2007]] 

message: Seems awfully biased for a featured article. FenderTeleCriticise 09:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It went through months of reviews during the FA process. Don't dare make such baseless accusations without providing some examples of such. Timeshift (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are allegations, we can hear them and then decide what to do about them. It was something of a landslide election, with the opposition party being reduced to under one quarter of the parliament, so the facts themselves naturally bias towards the victor, but if there's any undue weight issues or whatever we can fix them. Probably best to provide examples and links. Orderinchaos 12:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW his first userbox is the Liberal Party supporter one. Of course this doesn't mean much, but perhaps those not too familiar with this election and who support the Liberals could see this as an article with some natural bias per OiC comments above. Timeshift (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had another read of the article, and yes, I guess it is just my support of the Liberal Party that got in the way of my judgements. It was late at night when I posted that comment, and as Orderinchaos said, the facts would obviously sway towars the ALP, and I mistook that for bias. Sorry FenderTeleCriticise 22:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All good. Thanks for clarifying. Timeshift (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  I don't think the article is biased but I can't see the merit in having it as a featured article of the day. It's pretty second division subject matter - even in an Australian context. Albatross2147 (talk) 04:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mind you, many of the featured articles of the day are on very esoteric and narrow subjects. Orderinchaos 06:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: "Was he sacked?" "No, worse, transferred to Adelaide!" (laughter) -- Frontline (Australian TV series). Peter Ballard (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And John Safran too - "Live in New York once. Live in Northern California once. Never live in Adelaide, it's a hole." :) Orderinchaos 06:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: I seem to recall creating the 2010 state election which had a fixed date which was deleted, yet let's take a gander at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian federal election, 2010. Wikipedia contradiction strikes again. Love it. Timeshift (talk) 08:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lack of any response is damning and an indictment on wikipedia. I will be recreating the page at my next convenient time. Timeshift (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Posting anything on an article talk page hardly anyone watches a week before Christmas is probably the explanation for the trouble in getting a response, let alone within 31 hours. Orderinchaos 19:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, you have a good point there OiC. However, some admins may have trouble explaining why they deleted the election page. FenderTeleCriticise 20:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was, from what I can tell, deleted nearly two years ago after someone placed a proposed deletion tag on it and no-one contested it.  Looking at the content of the page, I'm not surprised it went the way of the dodo. Its entire content read as follows: "State elections for both houses of parliament will occur on the 18th of March 2010 which will also coincide with a referendum to abolish or reform the upper house. " Orderinchaos 20:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly the point and you know it. Pages/stubs don't get deleted for lack of content. I recall raising the issue on the SA 2006 talk page (now in the archives) and didn't bother participating in the PROD process once I realised it would be futile. WP contradictions. Timeshift (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See criteria for speedy deletion A1. Substubs can indeed be deleted under Wikipedia's guidelines without even the need for discussion (stubs are another matter). Orderinchaos 22:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't find 'substub' on the page. This btw is the most superficial excuse for a contradiction on wikipedia that i've seen during my time on wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SUBSTUB for a definition. A1 covers it, though. Orderinchaos 23:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm interested in the claim that you raised it, but am struggling to find it. No user talk page, article talk page or project talk page edited by yourself anywhere in that timeframe even mentions the article or your feelings about it, unless I have missed something that's been posted months after the fact. I even checked deleted contribs. I am quite happy to discuss this in good faith, but I think we can do without the unsubstantiated allegations and epithets about Wikipedia's alleged failings. Orderinchaos 23:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also unable to find the discussion, but I do recall that there was one somewhere. I recall the reason not being because it was too short, but because it was too far away from the (fixed date) election and I even recall WP:CRYSTAL thrown at me. That is beside the point anyway. I am also happy to accept good faith individually, but not as a whole. I think it is extremely poor to delete the fixed-date state election but to keep the variable-date federal election, both years away. Any further clarification is just semantics. Timeshift (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally I see nothing stopping you from recreating, so there should be no problem. The one for the next Victorian election (2010) may be of use as we got that one to survive AfD from a near-certain delete consensus. Orderinchaos 00:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Thus the second comment made on this subject on this talk page. I was simply replying. Timeshift (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia contradicts itself again 

message: I'm in support of state pages for the major parties, but a) created at the same time and b) based on facts, not some random crap spouting that the state and federal Labor Parties formed in 1891, and the so-called "policies" section below it. Timeshift (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Also the name should be the name of the division. Several possibilities exist - South Australian Labor Party, Australian Labor Party (South Australian Branch) or Australian Labor Party (South Australian Division). The second is the most correct, but it may sound to overseas people like it's "just" a branch, so I'm not sure what the best nomenclature would be. Whatever we do here can of course be applied when other states' articles are created. Orderinchaos 09:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[ALP South Australia]]