Template talk:Politics of Australia

message: since this template has become more general, i suggest it be moved to template:Politics australia. clarkk 11:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancient move request

message: please don't make this into a sidebar, it just doesn't work at the bottom of the page and conflicts with the various sideboxes if it's used at the side, it works much better as a footer, i'm going to revert it back. clarkk 05:03, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: you'll also notice that this template is included at the bottom of most pages it's linked on, since it was designed as a footer and looks very strange as a floating sidebar at the end of every article. clarkk 05:14, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: please don't change it to a sidebar!  it makes it impossible if an article already has an sidebar infobox already.  at least at the bottom they stack, plus it gets it out of the way of more relevant material.  also the sidebar in the template:politics of the United Kingdom is not included on all the pages it is linked to such as Scottish Parliament for just the reason i described, because it clashes with the scottish parliament template. clarkk 09:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: My idea is to reduce the number of pages where the template actually appears, so as to diminish that problem, at least. Slac speak up! 10:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  please make this a footer! 

message: Should the Progressive Alliance be mentioned in this template? It hasn't won a seat under its banner, and isn't expected to, which would put it on the same level as Australia First Party or Franca Arena Child Safety Alliance (NSW, not federal though). Andjam 05:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it along with PHON. They had already been removed from . I'm pretty sure APA's defunct anyways.--cj | talk 06:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progressive Alliance 

message: Shouldn't all federal elections be included in this footer (or a special election footer be made if it would be messy otherwise)? I know there are no pages on any of the elections between 1901 and 1993, but surely adding them to this footer would draw peoples' attentions to empty articles and they might start writing them? 129.67.53.94 18:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The template "Elections and referendums in Australia" amd "Politics of Australia" both exist on the same page and mention the same electoral date info, so i've removed it from the "Politics..." template as its redundant (also removed the "see also" link on the template" already on one template.(Lihaas (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been discussed before. Politics of Australia is on many pages, one of the most important aspects I think is that there is always a reference to recent federal elections on the pages of recent state elections. It's an easy navigation guide. Without it, going from election to election is harder. I'm reverting it, sorry. Timeshift (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elections 

message: This template was changed to give it the same layout as all the other politics of boxes and moved to the upper right of the articles. Compare User:Electionworld/country_templates.
If the template doesn't fit well in an article, one could use :template:Politics of Australia (bottom) Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 23:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite frankly, when Australian politics articles have by and large been formatted with the footer in mind, with their right-hand sides occupied by images and tables and so on, it is upon you to make sure that it does fit properly - which in almost every instance, it does not. What's more is that many Australian politics articles are considerably shorter than the side-box itself. I don't see any need for this template to be consistent with the others, although I have no problem with the format when it works - hence Template:Politics of Australia sidebar. The point is, however, it is terribly large and causes severe format distortion when placed where it doesn't fit. --cj | talk 00:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout 

message: Regarding the revert by the anonymous user, I prefer the old version of the template as opposed to the new one. The old one is easier to read/understand IMHO. And btw, the coalition is not a party. Timeshift 00:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous version contained inaccuracies, such as the suggestion that the Queen isn't part of the parliament.  The new version contains more useful links (such as to the courts and the PM). Although the coalition is not a party, it belongs in a list of parties, since in many contexts it acts as a party. Finally, the table is not about politics so much as government. Now there are links to both. Joestella 01:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your concerns have been addressed which could have easily been done, there was no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Finally, it does NOT belong in the list of the parties, as it is not a party. Should one wish to click on the Lib or Nat link, they will read about the coalition and can read the link. But they are NOT a party. Timeshift 02:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In all locations except New South Wales, Queensland and the federal level (which is really just NSW+QLD+VIC anyway), the Liberals and Nationals are not in a coalition and saying or implying they are in articles which are not limited to the above contexts is highly misleading. DanielT5 15:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Old version vs New version

message: I've moved the template more toward the subject of politics of australia, all fed/state/territory elections are now listed, and Local government has been removed as I don't believe they are worthy of inclusion as politics and political parties etc arent really involved in local govt like they are in state/fed. Comments welcome. Timeshift 06:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think individual election templates would be far more navigable then this.--cj | talk 08:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's getting out of hand regards the number of elections added. Have (at the most) the five latest federal elections listed and none of the state ones. Make separate templates for all the elections of the fed and state parliaments. michael talk 10:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it was quite messy. I've more or less reverted, but left the fed elections there. I don't think it's messy including them all. Timeshift 14:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: The template  severely overlaps with this template, and having both together - as is currently the case with Australian federal election, 2004 - is redundant. The senate elections and referendums should be placed into this template, and the other template scrapped. - 52 Pickup 12:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merged. Better? Timeshift 05:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. See discussion at Template talk:Australian elections. Number 57 18:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with {{tl|Australian elections}} needed 

message: Removed Democrats, as unlike the rest of the parties in the list, they do not hold federal representation as of mid-2008 when the new senate sits. Timeshift (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Timeshift - i don't think this is an NPOV issue. They are members of federal parliament until July 2008. Separate to that, it may be worth considering their significance in terms of Australian political history, potentially justifying leaving them in there for a little while yet. But this second argument aside, surely they should not be removed until July. Cheers hamiltonstone (talk) 01:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Hamiltonstone on first point, but I think they should be removed after July. Defining the section of the template as one for parties with Federal representation is a good barometer.Australian Matt (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point for leaving them until the end of their term. Timeshift (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV/neutrality 

message: Can I get a consensus for this? Both parties are statistically insignificant now. Michael talk 08:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FF has federal representation, Democrats will lose their four senators at July 2008 which at that point I support the Dems removal. Considering the FF member also shares the balance of power in the Senate, there is nothing insignificant about FF during this term of parliament and should stay. Timeshift (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the democrats and family first from the template 

message: I think we shouldn't remove the democrats. They had a huge power for a long time, and while they may not have any federal representation I still do think we should keep them because of their past. Guy0307 (talk) 10:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So we should keep the Democratic Labor Party? As of July 1 they will have no federal representatives. Timeshift (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democrats 

message: The CLP has a single federal member. FF have a single federal member. FF is in the list. CLP is not.118.208.165.210 (talk) 09:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The CLP is in caucus with the Nationals. Timeshift (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

text: FFP remains and DLP stays out until the changeover of parliamentary representation occurs in the Senate from 1 July 2011. Timeshift (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not the CLP? 

message: I was hoping to list the most recent and next elections for each state. In addition to being helpful to the user, this makes things simpler for editors as we would not need to worry about switching between the most recent and next election as the one listed. Here's what I've come up with:
The relevant parameter is |group4, but it might be better below local government. Are there any objections to the change? -Rrius (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Timeshift (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, this looks good to me.  I made some minor changes to convert the bullets to WP:HLIST, but otherwise it looks fine.  Nice work. 174.56.57.138 (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  State/Territory elections (again) 

message: Hi, this template displays very bad on a mobile device - especially in portrait. The left most column seems to not collapse. The right columns collapse to extremes like 1 character per line.  I can't see that this been discussed before.  Can someone else try fixing it or else I will have a go at making it display better on a mobile device. Philiashasspots (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: are you sure that this problem only exists with this template?  there is really nothing non-standard about the formatting, so you should probably bring this up at Template talk:navbox and MediaWiki talk:common.css.  otherwise, you are not really addressing the source of the problem.  also, make sure this is not a transient problem, since there were some recent updates to the backend software. Frietjes (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Display on a mobile device