Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics/Archive 2

message: 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! WikiTownsvillian 10:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Palm Island, Queensland|Palm Island]] [[WP:ACOTF|ACOTF]]

message: * Moved discussion to Template talk:Infobox Election Campaign. Joestella 10:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major party leader boxes 

message: * Moved discussion to Template talk:Infobox Election Campaign. Joestella 10:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to the infoboxes... 

message: * Moved discussion to Template talk:Infobox Election Campaign. Joestella 10:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise for the 2007 NSW election

message: * Moved to Template talk:Infobox Election Result, a template created on the basis of the discussion. Joestella 08:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elections infobox 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Joh Bjelke-Petersen 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. Orderinchaos 18:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redistributions

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Question re AUSPIC photos 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title: IRV - when?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: And what would the foundation know about Australian politicians? JRG 07:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: conversely, what would non australians know about access (or lack of) to former politicians? Timeshift 01:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Leader picture copyright issues

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. Orderinchaos 22:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two party preferred figures

message: How crazy is it that the articles on the minor parties are better referenced than the articles on the major parties?!?!  There must be a hundred books and a thousand articles (and a lot more newspaper stories) written about the major parties and their internal workings.  WikiTownsvillian 13:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: referencing

message: * New South Wales general election campaign, 2007
* South Australian general election campaign, 2006 (deleted - original article is at Talk:South Australian general election, 2006/temp/campaign)
* Victorian general election campaign, 2006 (survived AfD)
* Western Australian general election campaign, 2005 (AfD ongoing)
With the federal election coming up, it's worth working out whether and when separate campaign articles are generally justified. Otherwise, we'll just end up tripping over WP:OWN issues. That there is enough information for substantial campaign articles on elections held in 2001 and later is not in dispute, especially with sources such as Pollbludger and the Green Guide to draw on.
I propose the following division between the articles, where sufficient information exists to do do:
Election
* 
* Full results
* List of marginal seats
* Detailed summaries of results in high-profile seats
* Explanation of electoral system
Campaign
* 
* Leader bios
* Outline of party campaigns, slogans and advertising
* Discussion of campaign issues and party policies
* Opinion polling
My reasoning is that the campaign article is a work of political and social science; whereas the election article is more strictly a psephological exercise. Put simply, the election article is the what, the campaign article is the why. Joestella 08:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A previous discussion on the subject was inconclusive, being sidetracked by infobox design issues. You can read the whole thing above, but the key opposing points were raised by Rebecca: 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. And by Orderinchaos: 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. Without getting into the latter's problem with the West Australian, we did debate the issue of 'flash-in-the-pan' campaign gaffes and controversies on the New South Wales page. While this was a constant problem, the page remained up-to-date through the campaign month and was edited for POV and relevance a week after election day. The editors involved were broadly happy with the result. Joestella 08:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate campaign articles 

message: discussion moved from User talk:SatuSuro, User talk:WikiTownsvillian and User_talk:VirtualSteve
go have a look at your politics ratings - they are not composed right!   - try asking someone - there are not that many politicians who have ever deserved that rating! SatuSuro 10:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hey, sorry if I did the wrong thing, I figured all Government Leaders (premiers and Prime Ministers) would be either high or top rating to the politics wikiproject, remember we're talking about less then 10% of the articles currently with the political tag (which is obviously going to be no where near all of them.  Anyway I will of course stop until I hear further, although as you've probably seen, I've almost finished the Premiers. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 11:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: looking at the lists now it's surprising how disproportionately many government leaders in Australia have first names beginning with J :) WikiTownsvillian 11:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi SatuSuro, "|importance=high" is for Wikiproject Australia, I was rating for Wikiproject Aust politics... I don't think we're on the same page here.  I was rating for THIS wikiproject rating system, not Wiki Aust... does this address your issue?  Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 12:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Nah - cannot do - you have it for the project - and it relates to the standing in the australia and politics project at the same time.  SatuSuro 12:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Always best to find a third party with this stuff - never rely on one other editor - check, try someone else who is on - but I am sure it is for both. SatuSuro 12:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS I'll just run the Bot through the table at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian politics to see what the tallies are.--VS talk 13:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi VS, fair enough, in point number one are you referring to wiki Aust politics or wiki Aust? I disagree with you on what is important to wikiproject Aust politics, but understand these things are done by consensus, should I reverse what I've done or wait for a consensus at wikiproject aust politics on how to rate leaders before changing it? Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 13:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (after double edit conflict) Discussion about how the importance scale applies to WP:AUSPOL is better held at that project's talk page. Otherwise, Alec is correct with regards to the importance ratings being separate for WP:AUS and WP:AUSPOL, and has been doing a marvellous job assessing articles. I must disagree with Steve on including the hidden comment in the code; this is simply superfluous text, and insofar as I'm aware, has no affect on any bots or scripts.--cj | talk 13:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again as I said before I am just in on the periphery of this (politics is not my interest in terms of assesment) but it is obviously important for me to confirm again that the part that CJ indicates above as superflous is most definitely not (I have learned via errors that are caused particularly with the script that he and I are both using from Outriggr) The break created by the comment  allows the script to separate its taks and if not included the Outriggr script adjusts the importance for both the parent and the child project.--VS talk 13:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To demonstrate good faith and so no one else has to tidy up after me, I am happy to put in the work to fix what I've done, whether that is removing my ratings or inserting script text, or whatever.  I've achieved my initial goal of getting the ball rolling on sub-project rating anyway :) WikiTownsvillian 13:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I haven't encountered such errors yet (is there a report somewhere?), but I'll take your word for it considering you have a far more extensive experience with it.--cj | talk 13:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, scrap that. I just looked through some recent assessments of mine and found this example of what Steve is talking about. Is this something Outrigger can fix in the script?--cj | talk 13:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment in reply to CJ... Thanks for confirming my comments.  Don't want to clag up too much of this page with the outriggr stuff but as you know he is getting indundated with requests (not even including the big (read - good) one you asked for).  I found that putting the code line in fixed the problem immediately.--VS talk 14:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Which is why we're now here – to work out what's important to this project. I also don't disagree with Alec's assessments thus far, but I'd like to hear why others do (if indeed they do).--cj | talk 14:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Somehow I completely managed to miss that I was in fact here. Long day. :P) Orderinchaos 14:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment following on from CJ & OIC - Alec is doing the best job he can and that's what counts.  Assessments are always subjective and as I said just now to him - I suggest that we do them (I am doing the same for Riverina, Australia & Townsville projects) and if someone wants to debate or change the gradings later then so be it.  Waiting for an absolute consensus is only leaving 1000's and 1000's of pages with no assessment at all. --VS talk 14:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: politics ratings