Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics/Archive 1

message: Joe Scalzi and Joan Hall, done :-) Hopefully a few people will expand on them, or do a few others! Timeshift 18:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing articles

message: Is it too late to consider naming this project WikiProject Australian government instead of WikiProject Australian politics? Most of the scope outlined so far is about government rather than politics.  --ScottDavis 00:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We could, but I think it might turn a few people off. I think the focus will end up being on politics - MPs, parties and electorates, but there's a few tangentially-related things which it's still useful to cover as well (i.e. government departments). Ambi 02:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I pondered that last night. I don't think we need a new Aus politics stub, and was hoping to use the Aus gov stub in its place - unless others think it necessary. We could re-title the gov stub "politics", but I don't know if that would gain support. Don't let the word "politics" worry you; at its broadest, it may refer to government in general. -- Cyberjunkie TALK 06:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about renaming it Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian politics and government then (or something similar)? I see your point. Ambi 08:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Not at all. Please, go ahead with any changes you think will improve or attract more participants to the Project.-- Cyberjunkie TALK 07:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely - I think we should take over both stub categories, and feel free to do whatever necessary to attract participants. Ambi 08:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Fine by me. I wrote my first article inspired by this, Kym Richardson, last night - hopefully there'll be many more to come. Ambi 11:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project name 

message: I propose to tidy up :Category:Australian parliaments by creating a new sub category called - :Category:Parliaments of the Australian States and Territories. This category would contain articles on the State Parliaments but not lists of previous parliaments (which have made the current Aust parliaments cat very mesy). This would allow the new category to be listed at :Category:Legislatures of subnational entities in place of :Category:Australian parliaments.  
If you would like to comment, please do so at Category_talk:Australian_parliaments 
Thanks. Adz 08:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I could go with this. Where would the current content go under the new system, though? :Category:Lists of members of the ****? I'm having trouble thinking of a decent alternative - which is why I put them here in the first place. Ambi 00:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was thinking along the lines of 'Previous Australian parliaments' or 'lists of previous ...', BUT, I 'm aware that it would take quite an effort in changing stubs, and I'm not sure its worth it. I think it could just stay where it is. Adz 01:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're exactly right that this needs straightening out; I'm just not sure where to move the current content to. Previous parliaments works, but what happens to the current ones? Alternatively, we could create subcategories for each parliament and put the lists under that; it wouldn't completely get rid of the mess, but it'd be better than it is now. Ambi 03:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about 'Lists of the composition of Australian Parliaments' (as a sub category of Australian Parliaments)? Parliaments of the States and Territories could then live there as well.  Or you could call it 'Historical lists of Australian parliaments'. Adz 04:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganising 'Parliaments' category 

message: In December 2005 there was a brief discussion at WP:AWNB regarding sorting out categories relating to the various Parliaments in Australia. (See  Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 15#MHR Category). It was agreed that these categories are currently messy and need to be sorted out. 
Since then User:Ambi|Ambi, User:Snottygobble|Snottygobble and I have discussed the problem at length and formulated a proposal to overhaul and clean up the current categories. The proposal is located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian politics/Parliaments. If you're interested, could you please take a moment to look at the proposal and either provide comments or support on the talk page. Thanks. -- Adz|talk 01:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to re-organise categories relating to Australian Parliaments 

message: Hey everyone. I've started a federal electorates template. User:Thebainer suggested that the way it is set up needs to be changed, so I brought it here for suggestions. I agree it's looking too big at the moment, so the ideas I have are:
* Have eight different templates (for each state and territory), like "Federal electorates in New South Wales"
* Get rid of state distinctions and list them alphabetically.
What do people think about these? I'm going to continue making it, as it will be easier to fiddle around with it once I've made the links, but I will make those changes. Braue 01:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about having state templates, with a link to a list of all of the Electorates form all the States? -- Adz|talk 01:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking that, but what about places like Tasmania, the ACT and the Northern Territory? Part of the role of it is to link up all electorates. If the template is restructured to get rid of state distinctions, the size is cut to about 1/3 of its size, much more reasonable. Braue 01:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see what you mean, although I think that the names of electorates mean little to most people without knowing what state they're in. Another way of doing it might be to have one template for the two territories, one for all the states, and have a link in each template to each state, and to the complete list, in a similar way to how these Canberra suburb/district templates are linked to other canberra districts and to the complete list. (see Template:Belconnen Suburbs. - Canberra is divided into Districts, and each district contains a number of suburbs).  (btw, how do we left align the this text?) -- Adz|talk 02:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you mean like this?
  Electoral Divisions of the Australian House of Representatives in New South Wales	
Banks | Barton | Bennelong | Berowra | Blaxland | Bradfield | Calare | Charlton | Chifley | Cook | Cowper | Cunningham | Dobell | Eden-Monaro | Farrer | Fowler | Gilmore | Grayndler | Greenway | Gwydir | Hughes | Hume | Hunter | Kingsford Smith | Lindsay | Lowe | Lyne | Macarthur | Mackellar | Macquarie | Mitchell | New England | Newcastle | North Sydney | Page | Parkes | Parramatta | Paterson | Prospect | Reid | Richmond | Riverina | Robertson | Shortland | Sydney | Throsby | Warringah | Watson | Wentworth | Werriwa 
Other States:
Victoria | Queensland | Western Australia | South Australia | Tasmania | Territories	
Banks | Barton | Bennelong | Berowra | Blaxland | Bradfield | Calare | Charlton | Chifley | Cook | Cowper | Cunningham | Dobell | Eden-Monaro | Farrer | Fowler | Gilmore | Grayndler | Greenway | Gwydir | Hughes | Hume | Hunter | Kingsford Smith | Lindsay | Lowe | Lyne | Macarthur | Mackellar | Macquarie | Mitchell | New England | Newcastle | North Sydney | Page | Parkes | Parramatta | Paterson | Prospect | Reid | Richmond | Riverina | Robertson | Shortland | Sydney | Throsby | Warringah | Watson | Wentworth | Werriwa 
Other States:
Victoria | Queensland | Western Australia | South Australia | Tasmania | Territories
Braue 02:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't necessarily think we need the links to the other states, and if so, it might be best (not to mention easiest) just to link them to the templates for that particular state. Ambi 09:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone else wants to change it, go ahead, but I didn't put links to the other states in each one. The link under "electoral divisions" takes you to a list of all electoral divisions. Braue 00:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Federal electorates template

message: The page Cabinet of Australia lists the members of Cabinet and their portfolios (don't worry, I've already updated it for today's Cabinet reshuffle). However, there is no page for junior ministers or parliamentary secretaries. I can't just add them to the same page, as it is specifically about the Cabinet, but where else can it go? I don't want a separate page for Junior Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, so maybe something like Federal Ministers of Australia? Braue 08:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could rename (move) the page to 'Cabinet and outer ministry of Australia' or 'The Australian Federal Ministry'. Just a suggestion. Somebody may have a better idea, so maybe hold off before diving in. -- Adz|talk 09:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are articles on each PM's ministries, eg. Fourth Howard Ministry (the current one), First Whitlam Ministry and so on. Perhaps the article Cabinet of Australia should just discuss the history of the cabinet (such as when certain portfolios were added, etc), and simply link to the current one? --bainer (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'm including the Cabinet reshuffle in Fourth Howard Ministry. However, I think that this format (which lists changes to the ministry at the bottom and simply displays the original line-up following the 2004 election) is not best for showing the current ministry. I'm going to create a page called Current Federal Ministry of Australia, which will only show the current line-up. It won't show what the reshuffle means, the current pages do that fine. Braue 12:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I've deleted it. For future reference, to ask for a speedy deletion, simply use .--cj | talk 04:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cabinet, Ministry and Government

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems (no Chaser editors please!). Can you recommend any suitable articles on the Australian politics? I see that poor Mark Latham got delisted as an FA (will his troubles ever end?) but would this article still count as A-Class?. How about John Howard?  Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Walkerma 04:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Gough Whitlam remains an FA, although I'm not sure it should (it looks in worse shape than Mark Latham). From the top of my head, some B-class articles might include Australian federal election, 2004, Australian electoral system, Copernican federalism, Women and government in Australia, the Parliament of Australia, and the Australian Greens. All are lacking in some way, but are "usable". There are several other quality politician articles as well, but none I can cite right now.--cj | talk 05:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added them here under Australian politics. Feel free to rank them or add new entries which you feel are at least B-Class level. Thank you! Gflores Talk 17:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project 

message: Looking for a challenge? This article has been on my own personal (unwritten) "need to fix this someday" list, but I'm not getting to it.  Partly it's that I'm not Australian or Timorese, know little about Australian or East Timor politics, and thus have trouble judging a lot of what it says. But it reads like a whole pile of POV-pushing, even if it's been moved to have "alleged" in the title. Its edit history shows that it used to be even less neutral, and has made progress through the good efforts of several editors, but I'm concerned that it just can't be really fixed as is.  Should it be completely rewritten as something like Relations between East Timor and Australia, perhaps? CDC (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Foreign relations of Australia with East Timor perhaps, to tie in with Foreign relations of Australia. It could also be expanded to cover the whole history between the two places, I might be able to help with that. --bainer (talk) 05:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Australia's alleged East Timor cover up]] 

message: Please see the templates:
Template:Electoral districts of South Australia
Template:Electoral districts of New South Wales
Template:Electoral Districts of New South Wales
The second two are copies of each other and one of these needs to go. Is the South Australia one right naming convention or wrong? It was the one I copied to create the NSW one. I "assumed" it should be Electoral Districts of...
I didn't really follow the naming convetion discussion really all that well.
Garrie 00:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names of templates 

message: I'd like to include something like the following, as a template, on each Tasmanian election page. I think it will make it easier to navigate through past elections. Anyone agree/disagree? Thanks -- Barrylb 04:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. I hope it'll go all the way back to the first election though. Ambi 04:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, here is a version with the full list as given on the parliament official site . -- Barrylb 04:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tasmanian elections nav box 

message: I had a discussion about what constitutes a safe/fairly safe/ marginal seat, so I thought I might copy this from Talk:Electoral district of Morialta.
:I was referring to the wiki page for Morialta where it says "created in the 1998 electoral distribution as a moderately safe seat for the Liberal Party of Australia" should this be changed in peoples opinion? Timeshift 04:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, in 1998 at creation it was a 6.5% buffer to the Liberal party. I took this from the ABC classification for 0-5% being marginal, 5-10% fairly safe, and 10+% being safe. I also sometimes use 20%+ to be very safe. I haven't been cautioned about whether this is appropriate, but I'll send it to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics to see what anybody thinks.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_district_of_Morialta states that Morialta is a moderately safe liberal seat. With the electorate losing most of liberal-voting Magill and gaining the rest of labor-voting Paradise from Hartley at the last redistribution, and considering the 12% swing (2% higher than state average), I find a wanting for it to be rephrased but not sure how... and whether it would become a marginal seat or a moderately safe labor seat. I think classing a seat as marginal/a level of safeness is a good thing to have within the text of a wiki article. Timeshift 12:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization of safe/marginal electorates 

message: This is probably not an Australian issue, but I know not where else to turn. I am shocked, shocked!, that preselection is a red link. I would have thought there'd be heaps to write about it. Is there another term it should be redirected to? Snottygobble 02:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have Primary election for the US equivalent, but nothing concerning our version. An Australia-specific article (as with the Italian primaries article) might make sense here, so as to avoid having to try and generalise across a whole variety of systems. Rebecca 04:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I noticed primary election, but I didn't think a redirect would work because the US primaries are decided by a jurisdiction rather than a party. Snottygobble 04:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its definately an article worth writing - you might want to call it electoral preselection in Australia -or something - so it's bias is obvious from the title - unlike the primary election article which should have a limited scope tag stuck on it.--Peta 04:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not me; I lack the knowledge of internal party politics to do this one justice. Perhaps we should ask DarrenRay. ;) Snottygobble 05:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Preselection

message: I just added the 2004 results to the Division of Lalorpage, but I had problems trying to get party colours on the graph. So, should I keep doing this to the other division pages or not?144.137.44.115 00:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The particular template you have used does not support party colours. You will need to use a different template to achieve what you want. -- Barrylb 13:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2004 Division Results

message: There's now a lot of groundwork there for the 1993 and onward elections. It just needs padding out with additional text now... anyone up to the task? :-) Timeshift 18:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[South Australian legislative elections]]

message: Contributors here may be familiar with an anti-fascist group called Fight Dem Back. An article on that topic hase been nominated for AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight Dem Back. -Will Beback 20:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fight Dem Back 

message: Anyone here willing to be a liason with WP Biography? We've reorganized and are re-energized and we'd like to collaborate more with related Projects. Thought it might be good to have some one from here a member with us too so that we can collaborate on political biographies... Also wanted to invite you guys over to where we are currently voting on implementation of task forces, one of which is Politicians. If you'd like to see it get its own task force, vote now :-) plange 02:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liaison? 

message: Part of a series of Anarchists by nationality :Category:Australian anarchists & found a number fairly quickly in a search Paul foord 13:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Created Australian anarchists category 

message: I think we need to upgrade the Queensland election article as a matter of some urgency because of the fact that the election might only be a month away. Aussie King Pin 01:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006-7 Queensland Election 

message: There is a discussion at Template talk:Politics of Australia on whether or not state/territory elections should be included on Template:Politics of Australia and more broadly its general formatting.  Does anyone have an opinion they'd like to express? --ThirdEdition 04:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics of Australia template 

message: Help would be appreciated in reviewing South Australian legislative election, 2006 and Talk:South Australian legislative election, 2006 - in trying to get the article to FA status, please make changes or suggestions as appropriate. Any help is appreciated. Timeshift 18:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Getting 2006 SA election up to Featured Article status

message: Hello, I'm American so wouldn't know how to write such an article. I'm doing Disambiguation link repair - You can help!, and keep running into the term "conservative." There doesn't seem to be a Conservative party per se, and I can seldom (given the context) link to "The Coalition." I just link to the default -- Conservatism. Perhaps y'all should write something along the lines of American Conservatism and Canadian Conservatism, to give it the Australian context. Just a thought. --Ling.Nut 16:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My oh my. I can't imagine the amount of opinion that would be put in to that. It would be good if done properly... Timeshift 16:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dangerous, given the different nature of major parties in Australia - ie. whilst the Liberals/Nationals are nominally 'the conservatives' - the distinctions between the ALP and those parties ideologically are very blurred (save, I suppose, for issues of workers' rights.)
If done as a historical article, maybe. But as a political one - not so sure. Blackjack4124 11:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for article [[Australian Conservatism]] 

message: G'day, added the election results for the last federal election 2004 for the Division of Ryan LW77 08:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election Results for Ryan Federal Electorate

message: This is to advise wikipedians with an interest WA politics that I tried to change the Carmen Lawrence biog. article from a unverified Easton afffair rant.  For example List of Australian political scandals contained Penny Easton affair with more libel at Richard Court etc.  But I am new here so criticism of my approach would be welcome.--Fred.e 00:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember when this material was first added a year or two ago. I remember thinking it was POV and there was way too much of it, but I didn't know anything about the subject, and back then we didn't have a WP:LIVING policy, so I left it alone. If I recall correctly, it read more like the work of a grieving relative of Easton than a smear by one of Lawrence's opponents, but either way it was inappropriate. Thanks Fred.e. Snottygobble 02:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easton affair, et al 

message: Just added the election results for the last federal election 2004 for Division of Blair and Division of Dickson LW77 15:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Division of Bonner, Division of Brisbane, Division of Bowman and Division of Capricornia also completed LW77 22:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election Results for Blair and Dickson Federal Electorate

message: I have a proposal to change the style of election boxes we use from the current one being used above to one that is very similar to the boxes one the British consituecncy pages. The boxes we are currently using are very cluncy to make and edit and they also look unprofessional on the actual pages. By contrast the British election boxes look professional and they are much easier to edit. I know the british style election boxes need to have 2pp results build into them but I am confindent that one of the editiors in the project could make such an edit to them. 
PS I am currently aparting the british boxes to the Victorian electorates pages in roughly alaphbetical order. Aussie King Pin 11:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An election box including the 2 party preferred results,etc, and using the colours templates from this WikiProject can be seen at Marrickville by-election, 2005. JPD (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest I don't think that including only a two party preferred result is a good idea. The other template I've used isn't to bad to edit. I would actually like to put a sub-page on each Division page with previous results. This will take some time, and whenever i get bored with writing my thesis I'll get around to doing more historical results. I think regardless of what template you used, putting more than the most recent election result would make the page look crappy. LW77 13:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides the election box I have been using is consistant with the federal election boxes used on Results of the Australian legislative election, 2004. LW77 01:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LW77 I know the election box you are using for the electorates at the moment is consistent with the election summary boxes but I am not aruging that the summary boxes should changed, only the electorate boxes; and yes I do find your election box find not hard to edit diffiently hard to make.--Aussie King Pin 07:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OIC, umm well i actually think they look better. How about I get all the Qld ones done and then go onto the historical elections as a sub-page. I want to expand each electorate with alot more info. I think historical elections could be liked as sub-page/s LW77 08:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LW77's boxes are actually too consistent with the summaries at the 2004 results page for my liking. The summary boxes have been (well) designed for that purpose, and at the very least need a bit more adapting for use with individual electorates. I do actually think the  style looks better, as well as being consistent with British and Canadian (and others?) election boxes, but it would be good to have some more opinions. As for ease of editing, creating, if we do decide to go ahead with the style LW77 is using, they could could made into actual Wikimedia templates. JPD (talk) 10:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if we can get a better box going I'll change the other ones I've put up. Making a new template would be good. Its just that some of the summary ones I have seen don't use party colours. I also don't like summary boxes which don't list all the people seeking election. Including only the parties which are contesting an election would reduce the completness of the election. Especially if a sitting member has been unseated. I won't add anymore electorates results until we can get a consesus. I will just have to find another way to procrastinate while writing up my thesis. LW77 11:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok deleted last column in Division of Blair results so it looks better. LW77 12:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Electoral district of Bragg while listing party affiliation it doesn't list the names of candidates. Sorry that what I mean't by not listing candidates LW77 12:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. I think the candidates should definitely be listed in an article about the election, but there might be a case for using smaller boxes on electorate articles, intended simply as a summary of the most recent election result. JPD (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about a summary box on the divison page then on a sub-page give a complete result with historical elections as well. I'd like to get all the elections as far back as possible fro each divison somewhere on wiki LW77 18:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to change Election boxes 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 16:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: I notice that a fair few of the photos from the Federal politicians' pages have been deleted by Quadell, possibly as copyright violations? I know these are fair use, but I was of the understanding that we had permission from the Government to put these on Wikipedia. Is this correct, and if so, can we reupload them? JROBBO 05:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Permission is irrelevant these days, as we can no longer use photos if we only have permission to use them on Wikipedia. We may, however, be able to make legit fair use claims on them, which may let us keep them around. Rebecca 09:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Peter_Beattie.jpg - what a load of crap. Can I please get some assistance with replying to this unreasonable user? Timeshift 14:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks Rebecca. I actually meant that with fair use AND permission that should be alright - is that so? It's actually very hard to get politicians' photos in Australia - as unlike in the US, photos taken for Government websites are not freely accessible. I have read somewhere that Adam Carr got permission from the Government and uploaded them as fair use as well - surely that would have been ok? As for Timeshift's problem I think this is why all our photos are being deleted - I think someone needs to explain the difficulties of getting politicians' photos. JROBBO 21:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the fundamental problem here is that by going on about having gotten permission, we're muddying the waters. We need to focus on making sure we have justifiable fair use claims for each and every politician image we did not take, and ignore anything about having gotten permission, since it's irrelevant. I think we also need to stress just how hard it is to get a free alternative in the rationales, to avoid stupid situations like that at Peter Beattie. Rebecca 02:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the rationale used on  was pretty good... Timeshift 04:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...if someone isn't being an unreasonable git. Rebecca 04:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me or him? Timeshift 10:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that the fair use image police aren't budging...  Timeshift 01:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a pic of big pete I took in person a few months ago if you would like me to up load it LW77 11:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome! Upload it and let's have a looksee! Timeshift 11:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you go.. Have a Butchers LW77 14:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to ask you to crop the image, but I just came across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Springborg.jpg - fan bloody tastic. The image police are out in force. Thanks very much for your efforts but one picture without the other is back to square one :-( Timeshift 16:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well i cropped alot of the image out. Didn't want to have a pic of me running around on wikki.. although big pete is a nice guy LW77 18:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I mean is, it's more horizontal than vertical. Have a look at Queensland legislative election, 2006 and you'll see what I mean. Timeshift 19:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yeah.. doesn't conform to the golden ratio. I'll see what other pics I have from that night LW77 08:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hows this version? LW77 08:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers heaps, I believe everything should be a'ok from now on :-) Timeshift 08:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. I kinda think its a bit bizarre that State and Federal Govt pics don't have the same copyright as US federal govt pics LW77 11:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I blame the overzealous wikipedia image police. Timeshift 12:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politician photos deleted 

message: Is there a userbox for being a contributer to WikiProject Australian politics? Timeshift 12:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userboxes 

message: The US Australia relations article needs to be greatly expanded. I have done some work on it already, but as I don't know much about US-Australia relations to begin with....  Sharkface217 05:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian Politics article that needs great expansion. 

message: Beginning cross-post.
:See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stablepedia 

message: Have you seen the recent Kevin Rudd labour party leadership challenge?  I was angry to see little to none written on the kevin Rudd page and nothing on the Julia Gillard page.  Isnt this serious enough to consider doing something about?  Culverin?  Talk  08:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is everybody? 

message: The listing of the longest-serving members of the Australian House of Representatives is pretty comprehensive and most MPs to have filled that role have a page. To better manage the succession boxes for many of these people, it would be good to use the subheading templates developed for these boxes.
My question is what sort of office is the title of Father of the House. A cursory look around other pages seems to indicate a lack of consensus. Is it an honorary title, a government office or a parliamentary office?
Any thoughts? - Kiwifruitboi 07:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a title, not an office. It is honorary in the sense that it has no obligations and is unpaid. And it is parliamentary, not governmental or party political. Hesperian 10:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Father of the House 

message: Is there any chance that any members of this WikiProject could take a look at this nomation and offer comments or votes? It is the first article on an election to be nominated for FA status and an Australian one at that. Thank you in advance. michael talk 14:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South Australian legislative election, 2006|SA election FA]] 

message: Hi Wikipedians, a discussion has been started at Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board#LGAs about Local Government Areas/Authorities, your contribution would be appreciated.  Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 08:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LGAs

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 20:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards