Talk:Premiers and chief ministers of the Australian states and territories

message: Why has a different shade of red been used for the ALP in the maps showing the party of government in each state?
I think it'd be more consistent & look better if just one colour were used.  2001:8003:680C:BD01:6CCE:9ED:EC5B:4FF9 (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Maps

message: Why is there a line all along Australian coast in the map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.117.55.134 (talk • contribs) 
:It shows the political party of the Prime Minister of Australia --Astrokey44 09:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture purportedly shows the political parties of the Premiers. Unfortunately, the "animated GIF" does not work at less than full size. Accordingly, I have removed it. The owner or others interested may care to offer a smaller version for use here. - Peter Ellis - Talk 18:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Peter, it worked fine on my screen, and those discussing the image at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#Genius image seem to be able to view it fine at the smaller size, were you giving it a bit of time to load? Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 00:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Works well for me too.  I think we may be able to re-include it in the page.  --Roisterer 01:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I also noticed that, any ideas?123.243.36.192 (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  Back in 1969-70, the NT and ACT had not achieved self-government.  The coalition was in power in all 7 jurisdictions that were self-governing (federally and the 6 states).  Since then the NT (1978) and ACT (1989) have come on line, and 2007 was the first time that a single party or coalition has held power in all 9 jurisdictions (federally, the 6 states and the 2 territories).  That's how I read it.  With today's result in WA, it's history now.  --  JackofOz (talk) 05:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

text: More importantly there is now a liberal government in WA123.243.36.192 (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Coast

message: I've removed Template:Australian premiers from the various state Premier pages. It seems pointless considering Template:AustralianPremiers covers each link that the first template does. Timeshift (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed template 

message: "Liberal government in coalition with the Nationals and independents. Coincidentally, this is the only state not to be running a budget deficit, demonstrating Labor's in-built financial mismanagement tendancy." Isn't this a little biased?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.134.131.75 (talk) 08:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the mining boom keeping their budget in the black is thanks to the former Labor government. Tax revenue downturns in a weakened economy puts budgets in to the red, not "Labor financial mismanagement" as if somehow all the state governments magically became inept at the same time when the GFC came along - what a coincidence. I've removed it from the article. Timeshift (talk) 09:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Financial mismanagement (Labor)

message: I've removed this paragraph - the heads of the colonial ministries (or governments) were never known as Prime Ministers - New Zealand changed the title from Premier to Prime Minister, but no Australian colony did the same.    
In the 19th century the heads of the colonial ministries were commonly called Prime Ministers, since this was the term used in Britain (see Prime Minister of the United Kingdom), although the term Premier was also used. When the six colonies federated in 1901, it was realised that it would be confusing to have seven Prime Ministers in one country, and the term Premier became standardised. This practice may have been influenced by the example of Canada, which became a federation in 1867 and used the title of Premier for the heads of its provincial governments.
Quiensabe (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd strongly suggest you reverse that edit, as this tells us that, at least in NSW, the head of the colonial government was often known as the Prime Minister.   --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  22:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prime Ministers 

message: I'd just like to know why the Norfolk Island Chief Minister is not counted as a Chief Minister of a self governing Territory? Welshboyau11 (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps because it is not an internal territory and not a member of COAG. WWGB (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the one. Timeshift (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What's 'internal' got to do with it? Hawaii is external of the mainland United States, but still counted as the 50th state. Norfolk Island is also a COAG observer. Welshboyau11 (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The fundamentals here: 1. It's a self-governing territory of Australia, with the same legal provisions as the NT and ACT under the Norfolk Island Act. The section says nothing about 'internal'. That is an absurd excuse. Welshboyau11 (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we can reconsider this when Norfolk Island has Senators and MPs in Canberra? WWGB (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It does. http://www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling_to_vote/special_category/Norfolk_Island_electors.htm I can't believe this is such an issue. I would have thought this would be fairly uncontroversial. Welshboyau11 (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Per other article disputes, please understand that not everyone agrees with your view. These distinctions have been around for years on wikipedia, vetted by many Australian editors. Why do you seem to be willing to unilaterally declare what is and isn't correct? Timeshift (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry timeshift, what is it I said you dispute? The comments I made are factual based upon sourcesand reliable info, not views per se.  I haven't had any other disputes you with except meat sock puppet Welshboyau11 (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly don't see what internal vs external has to do with it? Welshboyau11 (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Fortunately, the right/wrong and true/false paradigms have less to do with our deliberations here than with consensus, on the one hand, or verifiability, on the other.  --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norfolk Island 

message: I've just protected this article for 72 hours to stop the edit warring, and encourage dispute resolution. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected for 72 hours 

message: See here. Most people would agree precedents for females is noteworthy, why not LGBTI? a) It's controversial when it happens and some question if it's a good or bad thing. b) A significant number of parliamentarians try/tried to stop female heads of government and LGBTI heads of governments, I doubt there were any that were trying to stop the first Catholic or left-handed or ranga, those uncontroversial boats have long sailed - they not in the same category. First female/LGBTI is relatively new and controversial with a significant anti-following, unlike first Catholic/left-handed/ranga. If first female should be included, why not LGBTI? I'm not sure there are any other noteables apart from those two but please feel free to suggest those that meet the points I raised. Being Catholic/left-handed/ranga never got in the way historically, unlike female/LGBTI. However, something like first aboriginal if/when it happens would be as notable as first female/first LGBTI and also worthy of inclusion. If LGBTI or aboriginal isn't worthy of inclusion, why single female out? Perhaps your aversion is to the distinctly seperate headings and sections? Could we somehow merge first female and first LGBTI in to the same section/heading? There's only been one female PM (speaks for itself) and no LGBTI or aboriginal PMs yet but I dare say if there were several examples of any and/or all, like in this article, it would no doubt be included at Prime Minister of Australia. Timeshift (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Don Dunstan exemplifies some of the issues here. He was certainly not "out" at the time of his election, so it cannot be argued that the electorate made a decision for or against him on the basis of his sexual identity. He did not achieve a landmark election as a member of the gay community. His coincidental homosexuality was only confirmed after leaving politics, so is therefore unrelated to his political career. So why mention it in an article about state premiers? WWGB (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to think Barr, at least, deserves mentioning, and that Dunstan would therefore have to be mentioned parenthetically (to explain the "openly" part with Barr). Given the sectarianism there probably was quite a bit of rancour around the first Catholic premier, although I don't know off the top of my head who that was. Frickeg (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the first Catholic premier was probably John O'Shanassy in Victoria in 1857. --Canley (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Timeshift (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

text: I think that having this is WP:Undue in this article.,  It is fair enough to talk about on the page about the person, but not important enough for the whole concept of Premiers.  There would be no limit to the "firsts" or categories, eg those that ride bicycles or horses, those that did not come from the capital city, short, or sacked from the job mid term. There are too many possibilities. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought we already covered this? The first PM to be left handed or ranga or ride a bike or horse or not from a capital city or short is not something notable and controversial that hasn't already happened after timeless suppression by those against the demographic. We get coverage on first female (Gillard) or first LGBT (Brown) or first indigenous (Bonner)... not first to ride a bike. People have been known to be sexist, homophobic, racist... but not ride-a-horseist. People don't hold up placards in the US saying GOD SAYS NO TO RIDING BIKES. It's not a valid argument and many sources enforce that. Timeshift (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on new section and subsequent revert 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* Andrew Barr 2016.JPG
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: As the Labor party is now in power in SA, the "Map showing the states and territories of Australia by governing political party, as of October 2020" is outdated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ææqwerty (talk • contribs) 06:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: While Labor won the election, they have not yet formed government, meaning the map is not oudated. AlternateHistoryGuy (talk) 09:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update image 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion