Template talk:Australian elections

message: The discussion of the naming for the senate-only elections (whether to use "Senate-only elections", "half-Senate elections" or "Senate elections") is happening at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#Senate-only or half-senate?, since it affects several articles. Rocksong 10:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

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 that template, and this template scrapped. - 52 Pickup 12:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the exception of the last couple, the elections should be removed from the Politics of Australia template rather than them merged. This is standard practise throughout the Politics and Elections series in Wikipedia. Number 57 12:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Whatever is standard, so long as it's one way or the other. - 52 Pickup 13:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Still disagree - it doesn't list half Senate elections. Plus this template is used on List of election results by country. Do not blank this again before you have consensus. Why doesn't Australia have a sidebar politics template like everywhere else? Number 57 10:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with {{tl|Politics of Australia}} needed 

message: What are the stylistically reasons for including the Aussie flag in all 5 headers of the list subcategories? We know the list is Australian because it says so. The repeated flags look cluttered. --Brendan [ contribs ] 13:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed two of the lists - they were the main reason for cluttering rather than the flagicon. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The removal of relevant meaningful content cannot be justified on the basis that it makes the flag look cluttered. The flag icon is superfluous and secondary to the informative content. --Brendan [ contribs ] 13:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not removed meaningful content, I have merely used a footnote to highlight it instead of two extra lists. Also, the Senate links are not repeats, as they are not included in the federal elections row. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right you are. I would have been responding to your initial removal while, unbeknownst to me, you were performing the secondary edit to add the footnoting. Good job too. That looks much better yet preserves the relevant information. Cool :) --Brendan [ contribs ] 14:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The original question remains, though, of the stylistic value of repeating a miniature Aussie flag on small-font list like this? --Brendan [ contribs ] 14:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was discussed several months ago, and there was no consensus to remove the flags. To be honest, I think it makes the template look better. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When the template is viewed in situ on an article, the flag repetition doesn't appear to add much stylistic or content value. For example, see List of election results by country#Australia (where a single flagicon can easily be added next to the section title for improved stylistic effect). --Brendan [ contribs ] 14:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That list needs changing, as more than half the templates don't show up (there must be some kind of limit to how many templates a single page can show) - perhaps a return to links to Elections in XX below each heading would be better. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: {ec} So it does, and I agree: that page should be simplified. Maybe just list each country's name, sectioned alphabetically per current, with each name being the hyperlink to their respective individual Elections template? --Brendan [ contribs ] 14:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: As I wrote above, it has been discussed before, and there was no consensus to remove them. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but I do see anyone mentioning this guideline from the manual of style. That seriously discourages having the flags next to the name of the country. Anyway, it is too close to Christmas to argue. Seasonal greetings to all. --Bduke (talk) 11:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Aussie flag on every list header

message: Hi. Anyone else find the superscripts in this template to be miniscule? I'm tempted to amend them and also replace the vertical-lines with the more discreet dot-dividers and place the flag icons on the lefthand side of the headings (since English read from left to right). Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The vertical dividers and flagicons are standard for 200+ elections templates, so I wouldn't advise changing them (the flag one can't be changed without changing the metatemplate anyway). The superscript displays fine for me on two different resolutions. Which one are you using? пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting suggestions 

message: Hi Number 57, I'm not fussed by removing the superscript numbers, but I need so discuss the order of the States and Territories.  I've been reviewing a lot of the Australian navigation templates and articles and noted a convention of the order NSW, Vic, Qld, WA, SA, Tas, ACT, NT.  Where this convention has not been used I have been changing it to this order.  Can you please point me to some sort of authority on how the states should be ordered.  If you look on my user page I have displayed the different Australian navigation templates I have found and made consistent.  If the order I am setting is wrong and the "law" is they must be alphabetical, then I have a lot of articles and templates to change again.  Let me know or else I will put the order back to how I had it. Philiashasspots (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I can point you to the alphabet, which the Australian government seem to use. What is the logic of the above order? Number 57 12:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The logic is sorted by population, largest first.  I started this a couple of days ago here , when I noticed the order.  I found about half the current Wikipedia articles I looked at had this order for Australian states and territories and the other half were random order. I think it makes good sense to Australians.  I think a good example to demonstrate my theory is . The Government weather website uses this order, and Australians are very used to this order every night on the weather forecasts. Philiashasspots (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So it seems the government uses both. In this case, I think we should defer to another denominator, which is alphabetical order. Number 57 12:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look on my user page at the bottom, all the navigation templates have the order I had.  See this one, with graphics as well.  Is their any real problem with Australians listing their states and territories in the order they are used to?  Philiashasspots (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of Australian states and territories 

message: As can be seen in the discussion directly above, I am suggesting that the navbar about the election history of Australia separate referendums and plebiscites into two sections as such. @Aréat is suggesting that the referendum and plebiscites be merged with one another (like the current version). As the discussion keeps going around in circles, I am initiating a RfC.  // GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep it together: no point in doing this, the two topics are similar enough it's all fading awaytalk 20:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC - Including plebiscites under the referendums header 

message: The note included in the template currently states that the 2023 constitutional referendum should not be added until it is "confirmed".
I take a few issues with this:
Firstly, how are we defining "confirmed"? The Bill for the referendum has now been tabled in Parliament. We have multiple sources stating that the referendum will be held this year including statements from relevant Ministers and from the Electoral Commission. What more confirmation do we require?
Secondly, why do we need to wait until it is "confirmed"? It has already met the notability requirements for its own article, why is there a higher threshold for inclusion of a link on this obscure template than for its own article? Does anyone seriously think that the referendum be cancelled? There is no evidence that the idea is being considered. (User:Number 57),  -DilatoryRevolution (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Standard practice is to only link to referendums once they are officially scheduled. Until the bill is passed in parliament, the referendum in question isn't. Cheers, Number 57 15:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is this standard practice stated? It's not what we did last time there was a proposed referendum. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

text: The referendum is 99% going to happen. I think it is safe to add it in. If it ever becomes that case that it's not happening then I won't be the end of the world and we can simply remove the link. In the meantime I think it will be useful to readers to include the link. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 00:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  2023 referendum