Talk:Climate Change Coalition

message: According to Arthur Chesterfield-Evans the "Gang of 21" didn't allocate preferences in the NSW election - not to the Greens, not to the Australian Democrats, not to anyone. if this is true, it's extremely damaging to the cause they claim to support. --Chriswaterguy talk 04:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not if the tactic successfully got them a quota. It didn't of course. matturn 12:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No preferences?!

message: Which way are the CCC preferencs really going? The Age suggests the CCC preferences will go to The Greens. The Daily Telegraph today suggests CCC preferences will benefit Pauline Hanson. A different Age article gives the impression that CCC first preferences will go to The Democrats. Is there any reliable information about CCC preferences?--Lester 22:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Senate Preferences are online at the AEC Website. It seems to vary a lot by state, with the Democrats getting the bulk of the preferences, and the Greens never being too far out. I think the impression in the article of an anti-Greens bias is a little overstated; it would be nice to know which denialist groups are being preferenced ahead of Greens. (I haven't looked at every state, and I don't know all the candidates in any case, so there many be some, but a citation would be good.) 24.59.98.91 15:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The Fishing Party in NSW. Chrismaltby 12:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The ABC's Anthony Green has thoughtfully provided an easy to understand Senate Group Voting Ticket Guide for each party's above the line votes. Albatross2147 08:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  November 2007 preferences 

message: Can any one explain what these sentences are meant to be conveying:
This is thought to relate to the fact that there was no party name on the head of the ballot. Of the 21,832 votes held by Newell, 79% had no further usable preferences and exhausted when she was excluded from the count. For comparison, the vote difference between the last candidate elected (Khan, Liberal) and the last candidate excluded (Chesterfield-Evans, Democrats) was a slightly larger 28,123 votes.
I would rewrite the first sentence as The party's vote was probably reduced to an extent by the fact that no party name was at the head of the ballot paper. The rest of the section is gibberish so far as I can tell. Albatross2147 08:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NSW State Election 

message: Wardens,
I've removed this section:
The Climate Change Coalition is a coalition of people from different walks of life, whose skills best represent what the Party feels is needed to work with big business so that major changes can be fast-tracked. The Party believes much can be done with business on side, and next to nothing without it.
because I think it's non-neutral. That said the rest of this article is beginning to look OK. If you agree with my edit here, I think we could remove the NPOV tag. Xdenizen (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Xdenizen.  I have taken on board your advice on this part of the articles neutrality and will bow to your better judgement.  Thank you for your guidance.Wardens (talk) 12:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well why did you add it back again? Chrismaltby (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops, my mistake - you didn't add that bit back, but you have added errors ("all states", not "all states except tasmania"), too much irrelevant detail (the preference lists which can be referenced on the AEC website), and the misleading fluff about the election of Scott Ludlum (basically, CCC preferred the CDP candidate to the Green, even though the CDP have no policy on Climate Change). Fortunatly the CCC vote was so trivial (especially in WA) that it was irrelevent to the result. Chrismaltby (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is improving. 

message: In line with WP:Bold I'm gonna nix the  I placed on this article last year. Xdenizen (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boldness 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jack Frost (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 4Change →  – Spent over three years and several elections as the Climate Change Coalition, changed its name barely three months before its deregistration and never contested an election as "4Change". Frickeg (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 20 March 2021