Talk:2010 Victorian state election

message: We could at least put who wins the by elections here, and then see what else happens. -Malkinann 02:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - this will be an important indication of support for the Government, and the event that will be looked back upon the most when the 2010 election is closer.  I think the consensus here is to leave it for a couple of months - I'd suggest until after the Federal Election, when interest in state politics might be a bit higher.  George1966 02:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree  - by elections 3 years away are not a predictor for the election in 2010 and should not be included in the article - they increase the speculation over the result when it is not justified.--Golden Wattle  talk 03:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mate, you are not contributing here.  I accept that you are in favour of deleting the page, but haggling over events like by-elections does not contribute to the debate.  Without a doubt the by-elections will be looked back upon as an indicator of Government support.  I think that the consensus is to wait a few months and see if the article expands; if you disagree with this point only, say so.  George1966 04:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think Government support in 3 years time can be judged by by-elections held in September 2007 and the fact that the opposition do not field candidates in those seats. To include mention of the by elections draws an inappropriate connection and becomes speculation on the results in 2010 and thus against the policy at WP:Crystal - while the AfD will continue on its way, in the mean time speculation needs to be out of the article.  The Herald Sun article covers the by election but makes no mention (unsurprisingly) of the 2010 election.  I have thus again removed this relatively unrelated fact.  --Golden Wattle  talk 06:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  By elections 

message: User:Phillipphi has just flagged this as a current event. It's over four months away. Right now most politically interested Australians are concentrating on the federal election, which is only 5 weeks aways. I don't regard the state election as current. HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Resolved. I thank User:Rebecca for her WP:Bold action. HiLo48 (talk) 05:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current event? 

message: How solid is The Coalition in Victoria? If I recall correctly, the last time the Libs were in power, under Kennett, the Libs held power on their own and abandoned the Coalition. Have the two parties formally re-established "The Coalition" in opposition? HiLo48 (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found the answer. I got my timing wrong for the separation, but yes, they have re-established the Coalition in Vic, in Feb 2008 - Here HiLo48 (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How solid is The Coalition in Victoria? 

message: Here and there, it varies from zero to one to two places. Can it be rectified easily? WP:MOSNUM Tony (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query decimal points inconsistency 

message: The Australian is not a WP:RS when it comes to the Australian Greens. Timeshift (talk) 06:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last edit 

message: Can someone with the right software possibly use this template to create a map result for this election? Timeshift (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's one I was working on the other day, but was waiting for the final results. I can change it if there are any errors or seat changes. --Canley (talk) 10:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! But I notice that Prahran and Mount Waverley are incorrect. I've done a quick fix until you can adjust and reupload the image (mspaint colour fill isn't perfect...) Timeshift (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, thanks for that, I've corrected the source file and uploaded it again. --Canley (talk) 10:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps anyone? 

message: One of my beefs with the pedia is that no-one posts what the opposing parties are putting forward as campaign promises Purrum (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome to try adding something, but I can foresee immediate difficulties. Do you list all policies for all parties? Where from? Party manifestos? If you list less than all, which ones? That last question will immediately introduce some sort of bias. You will have an interest in policies in certain areas. My interest will probably lie elsewhere. And as for all those other readers.... I used to think policies were the most important thing, but we know that they can change. My view today, with most big parties trending to the middle ground, is that personalities of strong leaders are more important. But that's definitely POV. HiLo48 (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: People tend to pick and choose to their own POV liking which is why they are so often deleted when added. Timeshift (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election Promises 

message: Regarding this edit by a fellow editor, I would like to seek a majority consensus as to the difference between having an election outcome map in the space provided in the election box, or under it. My reasons for preferring the map in the election box include that: 
* The change allows for a neat and uncluttered article.
* It does not change the width of the election box.  
* It does not increase the length of the artile. 
* Provides a neat unboardered image unlike that of a single image in the article. 
* Internationally used for this use throughout Wikipedia's election articles: AUS, USA, UK, Germany, various US States, Dutch etc.
Any comments would be appreciated. Романов (talk) 09:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your version makes the infobox unneccessarily bigger, adds wasted white, and pushes the premier bits below the image which unnecessarily seperates them. This is much better. There may be a section for it, but we are not required to use it. Infact, in almost every election article, we don't! Timeshift (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unneccessarily bigger? The map takes up no more space than is required for an election infobox of this type. There are no measurement requirements or guidelines on Wikipedia for election boxes to my knowledge. Adds wasted white, Timeshift9 you will have to go into more detail there. In almost every election article we dont use election maps due to most being ill suited for that purpose, such as the maps found at South Australian state election, 2010 and Victorian state election, 2006. Романов (talk) 11:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Timeshift, I think it looks better without the map in the infobox. Reason being is that infoboxes are for imparting information "at-a-glance", and you can't really get meaningful information from electoral maps at a glance without clicking several times to get it to a decent zoom. That said, I can try and lay it out horizontally or something to see if the space can be optimised a bit—less whitespace and so it doesn't push the important Premier information down too far... I'll upload it if I can lay it out better. --Canley (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  This as a consensus issue still needs further discussion. If there are no further comments I will move the discussion to WikiProject Australian politics soon. Романов (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Canley and Timeshift. --Bduke  (Discussion) 04:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. Infoboxes are for basic stuff; the maps are better below. Frickeg (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree , the maps are better below. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 05:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears we have consensus. Timeshift (talk) 07:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image in election box? 

message: Do we have one? I can't seem to find one anywhere on VEC or google. Timeshift (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding up the 2pp's for each electorate as published on VEC, per WP:CALC. All non-standard seats have had 2pp's published (see e.g. Melbourne), which made it fairly easy to do with an Excel spreadsheet. I didn't bother putting in numbers of votes until it's finalised as there's still very minor discrepancies in some counts (although the extreme bounds both work out to 51.58%). Since the figures are publicly available and anyone can add them, I thought there was no point in waiting further to indicate the "overall swing" of the election. Orderinchaos 10:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2PP result - citation?