Talk:2006 South Australian state election/Archive 1

Untitled

• Talk:South Australian legislative election, 2006/draft candidates

Probably of no consequence to the election, but the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation and for Correctional Services, Terrance Roberts MLC, yesterday passed (due to cancer).--cj | talk 14:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Very sad. Capitalistroadster has written an article (at Terry Roberts), which is nice - we'll have to keep an eye out for who will replace him. Ambi 06:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Marking of sitting members

I'm finding the bolding not distinct enough. Could a star (*) or maybe some graphic be used instead? Softgrow 22:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I tried putting the party colour in the cell background, but the colours are way too rich. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

A space then a star shows up quite well e.g.

* denotes a sitting member

Electorate	Held By	Labor Candidate	Liberal Candidate	Democrat Candidate	Greens Candidate	Other Candidates
Adelaide	Labor	Jane Lomax-Smith *	Diana Carroll	Richard Pascoe	Nicole Mortier	-
Ashford	Labor	Stephanie Key *	Kevin Kaeding	Andy Johnstone	Peter Hastwell	Robyn Munro (Family First)

Should I make the change? Softgrow 11:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd keep the bold as well. No harm in doubling up. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've made the change. Softgrow 22:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Issues

It would be nice to see some coverage of what the issues are in this election. - Randwicked Alex B 12:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Any suggestions how to identify "the issues" in an NPOV manner? I'm a voter, but I don't think my set of critical state issues align with everybody elses. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't think anyone of any political stripe would deny that NSW's main political issues are transport, the health crisis and lack of water, in roughly that order. I gather the incumbents are widely expected to win in SA, so maybe things are all peachy there, but there must be something dominating the campaign, if only in the media. - Randwicked Alex B 12:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The economy, education and transport are, in my opinion, the big issues. That of course doesn't translate into NPOV does it? I'd definetely put the Economy and the South/Victor Road debacle up there. michael ^talk 09:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

For me it's transport and energy. Health seems to be popular in the media, and I think the perties like throwing criticisms about electricity at each other (they all seem to have a complaint). --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Leadership anyone? Given the "presidential style" Labor campaign for Mike Rann, the "does he really want the job" ad against Rob Kerin by Labor and the "Vote for your local Liberal candidate" ads of the Liberal Party. Labor are also pushing the line that the Federal Industrial Relations law changes played a part while the Liberals don't seem to know what they're pushing and Nick Xenophon is laughing all the way to the Upper House, that is until Labor make a move to abolish it (which I think, given Nick's strong vote, they may have some pretty big problems with). There does seem to still be some voter resentment over the sale of ETSA too, most of which appears to be against the Liberals for having sold it as opposed to against Labor for not lowering electricity prices.

Ok Randwicked - issues section has been added! I tried to make it as NPOV as possible (except for the 2nd sentence but thought it was important to add, can be rephrased if one wishes so it is less POV), please feel free to update, expand, add on to, reformat it. Either way the foundation is now there to be built on :) Timeshift 03:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"Unlike many other previous state elections" ? Frankly, out of 7 state elections I've voted in, only one (1993 - State Bank) had a dominating issue, though maybe my memory's fading. If I could nominate an issue, it would be Rann himself: Labor had "Rann gets results", while Liberal tried to paint Rann as a spin merchant: "While Mike Rann was writing speeches, I was building a business". Rocksong 04:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to state elections in general, and i'm saying "unlike many other", which is to say, unlike some elections, this one did not have a big issue. In regards to SA state elections, yes I do agree to an extent but this was one of the least big issue elections in a while. Timeshift 06:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Tables

Would it be possible to move the tables of candidates to sub-pages? They just seem large and (to some extent) out of place. michael ^talk 09:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I would support moving the entire candidates section to another page. The article is in general focussed on which party will get how many votes, form governement, control legislative council etc. (Which is probably of interest to most readers). This seems to me a logical separation. Softgrow 09:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Beneaththelandslide has created a sub-page. Softgrow 23:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Results

Should we table-ise the results section as in Australian federal election, 2004, and also create a table detailing the results from each electorate?--cj | talk 08:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be a good practice, I'm all for it. On another note, would it be possible to either delete one of the opinion poll charts or move them both onto one line? It really distracts from the article's readability. michael ^talk 03:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd kill the opinion poll charts altogether, and summarise them. They're a bit unnecessary now. Ambi 04:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Tables

Tables of election results are very nice, but I am going to have to object to Labor being automatically coloured red. This amounts to a political comment that Labor is (or ought to be) a socialist or even communist party, when this is not the case. Australian political parties do not have official colours, and these tables should not try to colour-code parties by presumed ideology. Random colours should be used. Adam 10:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The colour is in Template:Australian politics/party colours/Labor. The last edit comment there suggests this is the colour used on the Labor party's logo on their own website. Consistent colours make it easier to compare across articles, and are similar to those used by the ABC on election night. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to go for 'party colours' too. Aside, red doesn't just mean socialism or communism - it's also a strong symbol of Social Democracy - which is what the Labor party hails itself as. michael ^talk 14:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• First, it is untrue that Labor uses red as its colour, on its website or anywhere else. Labor's official logo is red white and blue, but those are not official colours.
• Second, red is not the colour of social democracy, it is the colour of socialism and communism. It's true that some social democratic parties use red as their colour, but they are mostly parties with a clear socialist heritage, like the French PS. Labour has never officially been a socialist party. Adam 15:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The ABC uses red for Labor and blue for the Libs, as does just about any other such program or website. Symbolism be damned. Ambi 01:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This is all a bit precious - after all, in the US, red is conservative and blue is liberal. Calm down, its just common usage. - Private Guy 12:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If this conversation needs to be continued, please take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It was continued at Template talk:Australian politics/party colours/Labor.--cj | talk 02:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Envy

Yikes, check out Victorian legislative election, 2006.--cj | talk 05:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm happier on this side of the fence. That said, yes, that article does blow this one of the water. michael ^talk 06:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I notice that in the Australian Politics WikiProject, one of the subjects that needed expansion was this page, the 2006 SA legislative election. I and I am sure others would be willing to contribute to further expand it... but does anyone have any ideas or can anyone start on an expansion? What other info should be included or what current info should be expanded on? The VIC election page simply blows this one out of the water. Timeshift 16:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't when that comment was written, but IMHO the article is more than adequate. I'd rather put my (limited) time into other projects which have almost nothing, e.g. past governments and elections, and even some current MPs still don't pages.

I've expanded it somewhat :-) I do realise some of the changes are quite dramatic so if anyone has any issues please let me know. Timeshift 20:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've done some more expansion. Comments/concerns welcome. Timeshift 18:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a nitpick about the little table with Kerin's and Rann's photos: I don't think Rann has actually remarried; so Sasha is his fiancee not spouse. You could put in the politically-correct "partner", or (my preference) just don't list Kerin's and Rann's partners at all. Rocksong 00:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

On the whole, an excellent improvement. You need to put fair use tags on the images of the leaders' and I'd also swap around the vote-history table to make it wholly chronological. michael ^talk 07:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

As with the spouse bit and others, I was going by the Victorian page :-) I'll change it though. Timeshift 10:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Suprised

First time i've had a real chance to do some real expansion, and I was really suprised at some of the old content as I had a wonder through the various electoral districts... tableised 2002 election results? I've done some updating of tables and added some new ones in some electorates, and also added a wiki page for Dignity for Disabled for the obvious reasons. Am I the only one doing updating now that the election's all said and done? :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeshift9 (talk • contribs)

I've tried to do a bit, too. I haven't done a systematic tour through all the electorates though. Thanks and well done. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

A couple of things

Rocksong makes a reasonable point in 'envy' on this page regarding the leaders spouses. Should the title be renamed to partner, or remove it alltogether? I am partial to both options. Also, I am unsure about the licensing for the two maps I placed. They are electoral boundaries from www.seo.sa.gov.au and they have been edited (changes obvious) by me... what do I select? I am of the understanding that if I leave them as they are, after a week they will have been removed.Timeshift 04:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

As stated above, my opinion is don't mention their partners. Not because of privacy considerations, but because their partners played no part in the campaign. If their partners played a part in the campaign (as happens to a small degree at the Federal level) then maybe. But as it stands, I say don't mention them. Besides, Rann's partner is mentioned on the Mike Rann page, which I think is the appropriate place to mention his marital status. Rocksong 05:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

As for the maps: if the originals are copyrighted, then I believe that you have violated copyright by editing then posting them. Rocksong 05:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Are they copyrighted or free for use? How did the Victorian election page do it? Timeshift 07:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the spouses section. Does it seem peculiar to anyone else that the Libs are in the left column and Labor in the right?--cj | talk 07:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I was just following the Victorian election wiki... but yes now that you mention it, it does seem a bit bizarre :P Timeshift 07:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It Don't Matter If You're Black Or White

Or does it :-) Should an independent be black or white? Tables with as much black as Mitchell just don't seem right. Timeshift 10:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

White is nothing, empty - free of a political party. michael ^talk 14:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, Scott had intended them to be white, but got the colour code wrong. I've corrected it. I've always associated black with fascism.--cj | talk 06:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - I was thinking white for much the same as Michael's thoughts, but really any neutral shade would do, so when I mistyped black, I just left it. Thanks for fixing it. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

A bunch of images may be deleted

Going from I was looking at what licenses previous premiers had, and it seems that they may or may not soon be deleted - http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html - basically that license may or may not be ok previous to may 19, but after may 19 they will be deleted? I missed it by a few days. Why is it so hard to get a simple image on to Wikipedia? Timeshift 16:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That's actually 2005. So a year out of date! I would just try to write a fair-use rationale for the premiers. Getting a copyleft image of them would be extremely difficult. michael ^talk 16:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you know of an example of where one has been done? How do I word it... it's a public issue and the issue is being used for non-commercial purposes? Timeshift 17:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kh_head.jpg it seems that somehow they have an unrestricted license to use the picture for anything including commercial purposes. I would have thought it would come under the same catagory as the rest of the images used? Or is that the suitable template to use? Timeshift 14:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, i've completely re-done the maps. I saved them as JPG (as the bmp's were almost 2mb each) but it gives the colours a bit of a blur... leave as JPG or place the BMP versions there? Timeshift 10:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Use png instead of jpg, I beg you. Gah, the jpg-ness... —Nightstallion (?) 13:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Cheers for the suggestion, done!! Timeshift 19:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What classifies seat safeness?

I notice that Bright has been moved in to marginal on 5.0% while Newland has been left as fairly safe on 5.7%. What classifies a seat's safeness for South Australia? Timeshift 16:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

They usually use 5%. I have no idea if the choice of that number has any basis in history or science. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Why "Nationals SA"

Timeshift9, why did you change the party from National Party of Australia to Nationals SA (Here as well as other election pages)? It seems inconsistent, because other parties are linked to their full Australian name, e.g. Liberal Party of Australia, rather than to their SA branch. It's still the same party, and National Party of Australia is their correct name I think. p.s. if you look at the ballot papers at http://www.seo.sa.gov.au/election2006/candidates/voting-tickets.php you'll see they were just called "The Nationals". Interesting. Rocksong 08:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think articles should be at a name the party itself does not use. That said, I see no reason why we shouldn't have an article on the state division of the party. I'm just not sure what that article should be called. Rebecca 08:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No offence, but if people bothered to read the new wiki page, they would see they are much like the SA Greens. Also have a read of http://www.sa.nationals.org.au/ - they are trying to make a brand name of "The Nationals SA"... which is fair enough considering their and the SA Greens rising popularity. They have a chance in Flinders at the next election and are trying to build up a profile. If Nationals SA is innappropriate, isn't SA Greens? Timeshift 13:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No offence taken. The wiki article (which I did read) doesn't say much about it, but I admit I do see a bit of "brand differentiation" on http://www.sa.nationals.org.au/ . I've no idea how much they used the name "Nationals SA" in the election - I don't remember seeing it, then again being in the city I hardly noticed the Nats at all. However, now you mention it, "SA Greens" definitely should change to "Australian Greens". The ballot paper http://www.seo.sa.gov.au/election2006/candidates/pdfs/G.pdf calls them "Australian Greens". Rocksong 13:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

However they have different facts, such as the year they were founded, parliamentary leaders, their own history etc. And looking at http://www.sa.greens.org.au/ their logo is 'the greens', greens sa', at the top left hand corner. I would prefer to see them stay up as I do believe they provide relevant information pertaining to South Australian politics, as the Australian articles are next to useless for SA politics. And yes I do agree there isn't much info, but it is a start which is hopefully built upon. I really do think that linking to Australian Greens and Australian Nationals really does take away information from the casual user wanting to read about the Nationals and Greens at a state level in SA. Timeshift 13:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. To point to state branches of the Nationals and the Greens means you would also need to use "Liberals SA" or "Democrats SA," which doesn't make sense.

Going by the 2004 electoral pocketbook, published by the Australian Electoral Commission, GSA refers to "The Green Party South Australia", whereas NP refers to "National Party of Australia".

On the other hand, the SEO website says:

• AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY (SOUTH AUSTRALIAN BRANCH) Registered 17/10/85. Abbreviation AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY. Contested in 1997 and 2002
• LIBERAL PARTY OF AUSTRALIA (S.A. DIVISION) Registered 17/10/85. Abbreviation LIBERAL PARTY. Contested in 1997 and 2002.
• AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRATS (SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DIVISION INC.) Registered 17/10/85. Abbreviation AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRATS. Contested in 1997 2002
• NATIONAL PARTY OF AUSTRALIA (S.A.) INC Registered 17/10/85. Abbreviation THE NATIONALS. Contested in 1997 and 2002.
• AUSTRALIAN GREENS S.A. Registered 13/2/96. Abbreviation AUSTRALIAN GREENS. Contested 1997 and 2002.

On balance, it seems best to treat all parties equally in this respect. Zzymurgy 03:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Check this out - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_Greens_by_state - I think a state subdivision for a party should be based on merits. I think Nationals SA deserve their own page, after all they are quite unique in the fact that we currently have a Nationals member that is for once prepared to work with the government of the day, not just the big L Liberals. Timeshift 07:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Getting article up to Featured Article status

Hi everyone - as per my talk page, i'm looking to get this article up to featured status. Suggested improvements by Rebecca are:

• most crucially, it needs inline citations, and lots of them (twenty or thirty seems to about the minimum today)
• the lead is quite short, and this would probably be an issue - I suggest maybe doubling it in size (briefly describing the campaign? number of seats that changed hands? Xenophon factor in LC?)
• you may be able to tighten up the prose a bit - you might want to ask Cyberjunkie and Beneaththelandslide to go over it (they seem to be the best copyeditors we have at the moment) - you might also want to read User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a
• you're going to need solid fair use rationales for all images used. This may be an issue with the party logos and leader images.
• the amount of lists and the large white space next to the maps could be an issue
• I also wonder if a few areas couldn't be expanded a bit - you might want to nominate the article for WP:PR, and enlist some of the other South Australian editors to make a few suggestions

I agree with this and will be looking to do it (and of course more suggestions are welcome), however it is a big task which I would appreciate some help with and I also will not be contributing as much (certainly nothing time consuming) over the next 2-3 weeks. I know it's been a while since the election now but hopefully some might find the enthusiasm to get this article up to FA status. Thanks for suggestions and/or help anybody can provide! Timeshift 18:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have acted upon the suggestions. Please bear in mind that I am still relatively new to Wikipedia so the way I have written some things may be questionable. Please feel free to make changes as people see fit - and PLEASE provide suggestions as to how else the article can be bettered to bring it up to Featured Article status. Timeshift 18:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm just going through it again. The "background" section is pretty short, and could perhaps be expanded to give some more context to non-Australian readers. The election procedure section is also pretty short, but could perhaps be culled - none of the information there is of much historical interest. The campaign section, in particular, needs some more inline citations - they really need to be there every time a statement could be controversial. The issues section is detailed and well-sourced, but probably needs to be reworded to be less of a list. The legacy section probably needs a bit of expansion, too. It's certainly looking improved, however - you're doing a really good job with this. Rebecca 13:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I was having trouble finding sources for the campaign section. I didn't write it up, but it was all true AFAIK. Are you or is anyone able to assist in sourcing for that section? Timeshift 13:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[1] X0186902469 michael ^talk 13:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for that. Unfortanately I am finding little relevant information to cover issues in campaign section. The search box seems a little complex, is there anything I should be wary of in your experience or tips you can give to maximise search results? Timeshift 14:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Make sure that you're only searching newspapers, Australian content and newspapers earlier than 30 days old. michael ^talk 14:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have access to Factiva, Timeshift? That allows you to focus your search between a particular date range, which might help narrow down the search. Rebecca 14:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

No I don't sorry.

I have been able to find references in one place or another for most things, I have only found 3 areas that need citations which I have marked, which hopefully others might be able to find some time to assist in helping me with. Assistance in other mentioned areas of improvement would also be very much appreciated :-) Timeshift 15:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've hammered hard at the article trying to act upon all suggestions. I believe i'm there, bar two things. I'm stuck for what to add to background as it's already been covered in campaign/issues more or less, and in regards to the election procedure culling suggestion, it is supposed to be understandable to a worldwide audience so I am unsure if any of it should be culled in terms of giving perspective to someone not at all familiar with Australian elections, let alone SA. Can anyone else suggest improvements that should be carried out? Timeshift 18:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the content covered in the background section is fine as it is, but I do think a bit more along those lines could be added - as it is, it is a bit short for a standalone section. The first paragraph of the election procedure could probably be merged with it to preserve context and make the background section a little bit less brief - I think the section paragraph of the election procedure section is what is unnecessary. As for the issues section - I wonder if it wouldn't be better to merge it with the campaign at large section to get away from the list issues. Rebecca 01:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Is a list format in a FA (for just a small section) frowned upon, or is it more just personal taste? I happen to think the issues presented as they are look good, but if that's not how it's supposed to be done, then I need to see about rephrasing it in a non-list way without making it sound like a list in paragraph format which I have so far found to be a difficult proposition to carry out... Timeshift 16:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Lists are frowned upon in FAC, and will probably spark an objection - this is the main reason why I'm bringing it up here. Rebecca 04:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

How are things looking now? Timeshift 15:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Amusing article

I was working on the legacy section when I came across this and thought i'd share with everyone :-)

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,20377606-2682,00.html Timeshift 16:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

All that makes me want to do is drive a bomb-laden campaign van into the Advertiser building. michael ^talk 03:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

ditto. It's creative, but it's half-hearted, and certainly not journalism. Zzymurgy 03:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh boo hoo. Try having a laugh for once :P Timeshift 07:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Close to FA?

Any other suggestions? Timeshift 06:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Not bad, not bad. Time to send it to peer review? Rebecca 23:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. I'm not sure what to expect (as it's my first time) but hopefully it's positive! Timeshift 05:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Kerin factionally non-aligned?

The article now says that Kerin belongs to no faction in the Liberal Party. I always thought he was an Olsen man; or at any rate was backed by the conservative faction. Rocksong 04:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I did a lot of googling but all I could find on factional info was the fact he became leader of the party/premier to heal factional rifts. If you can find an article to show otherwise, it would help out. Timeshift 04:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well I can't find any either. And a number of people speculating that the Right faction preferred Iain Evans to Kerin. So I guess it can stay, though I prefer the earlier comment - that he was made leader to heal the factional rifts - to be in there too. Rocksong 05:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article status - getting close?

Is there anything else that anyone believes would hold this article back from getting the page to Featured Article status? All input welcome and appreciated. Timeshift 16:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed images. Any further suggestions? Ready for FA status? Timeshift 10:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer review has been archived. Please say if you believe it's time to go to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, please don't be shy :-) Timeshift 18:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Timeshift 17:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Timeshift - you seem to be organising this article here. I've made a couple of minor grammatical edits - was going to do more but didn't want to interfere too much. Don't normally edit wiki, but hey, there doesn't seem to be many other south aussies around *shrug* I'll go over a bit more if what I've done is alright. Otherwise, just revert it. Cheers.

Your corrections are very much appreciated. You're right, there aren't many other South Aussies around wikipedia interested in SA politics, each and every one who is willing to help is very much needed and appreciated. Feel free to interfere some more - changes can always be discussed or reverted, nothing on wikipedia is permanent. I don't have the time at the moment to undergo the changes that appear to be required in the FA candidate link @ Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South Australian legislative election, 2006 - no matter how small or large you can help me out on this, it will be very much appreciated! Timeshift 13:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not keen on the wording of the Labor party section... does anybody else get the feeling it keeps contradicting itself?

The Australian Labor Party is a social democratic party with close links to the trade union movement. It has been Australia's main centre-left party since 1904 and its ideology has greatly varied over time. The party has moved to the right economically after the economic reforms of the Hawke-Keating era,

Not sure how to re-word it though...or am I the only one getting this impression?GreenGopher 00:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Assembly voting system

I wrote a new paragraph for the lead yesterday, which included the rather clumsy phrase "...each representing a single-member electorate with approximately the same number of voters." Timeshift9 improved the language by changing it to "...each representing a single-member electorate with proportional representation." Unfortunately, I don't think the proportional representation article describes the same thing. I am trying to describe the distribution of voters to electorates.

Proportional representation (...) is an electoral system delivering a close match between the percentage of votes that groups of candidates (...) obtain in elections and the percentage of seats they receive.

This is not true for South Australia - a uniform vote of 52% Labor/48% Liberal would yield 100% of the lower house seats to Labor. I'm not quite sure what term to use or where to link to describe the electoral district rules. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The right method?

After reading what scott just wrote, I went searching for other ways in which we could properly describe the electoral procedure. Notably I went to the Australian federal election, 2004 to see how they went about doing it.

It didn't really contain anything to do with the actual electoral procedures at all.

My question therefore, because I know people are trying to get this to FA status, is whether so much detail in regards to the procedure & parties and such needs to be mentioned. A quick check of the discussion page in the before-mentioned article reveals a failed FAC. The main reason it failed was because it was too recent, and a few minor errors here and there etc etc. It really was an excellent article, surprised it hasn't be re-nominated...

Just throwing ideas around at the moment, let us know what you think. Could be worth trying new angles?GreenGopher 10:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Okey doke, I'll take the hint. I'll shush up now :D GreenGopher 01:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm waiting to hear what others have to say. I was the one that nominated it so you need more views than mine. I know beneaththelandslide aka michael wants to help get the article to FA status but he is busy at the moment with various things, hopefully he will be more active on WP in a few weeks. Timeshift 04:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Supposed 2010 referendum on Legislative Council

Someone posted that this referendum was fact, adding this to the article:

A referendum will coincide with the 2010 election to either abolish the upper house, halve the number of upper house members and reduce terms from eight to four years, or leave the upper house as is.

I have to disagree - no referendum has been agreed upon and is not easily put in place by the Government. Hence, I removed the statement above and added that the 2010 referendum was a Rann-Government proposed issue - no more, no less. War-hammer 04:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ref style

Two things to be decided:

1. The cite templates give inconsistent results (particularly with date formatting), and chunk up the size of the article with a lot of overhead. Because the original authors hadn't used the cite templates, switching to them will require a lot of work, and using them sporadically will result in an inconsistent ref style. I suggest either converting all, or sticking with the manual style already in place. Sticking with the style in place will be much easier: most of the refs only need dates and a few minor tweaks.
2. Someone just removed URLs from web news sources, rather than provide a new source. That creates two problems. First, you can't leave a last access date on a web source that can't be accessed on that date - the reason for a last access date is to show when it was available - we don't know when those were available, as the original authors never gave last access dates. Also, becuase they were only online news sources - not hard print - they are now unverifiable. It is fine to say, for example, Author, "title", New York Times, date (without providing a URL link to the article), because anyone can go to a library and find that article, even if no URL is given. Citing an online (only) news source - when the URL isn't available - gets into trickier territory, since the reader has no means of verifying those sources. I suggest finding hardprint or more reliable sources. If there are no reliable hard-print sources, then I'd question the story(ies). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. What you witnessed was my extremely botched recovery from a double edit conflict. The sources are the hard print versions of the online (now inaccessible) articles previously cited, but with authors and date of publication added. These were found in an online full text database. The style you initiated is fine.--cj | talk 16:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

ah, that's good. On the FAC, Orderinchaos mentioned that you might rather use an Australian date format - do you all need for me to switch all those I did? If so, let me know, so a consistent style can be used - I can help out today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Australian dates (D/M/Y) would be less jarring. If you're happy to change them over, then please do.--cj | talk 16:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm busy for a bit, but will switch mine over as soon as I'm free. (Although I think we all have something in our preference settings that should display them automatically in our preferred format - I've never checked in to that, though.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So we don't get into edit conflicts, I'm going to work from the bottom up - someone else may want to work from the top down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Internet archive

On the govt sites with dead links, we have two choices -

1. Use the govt search engine (or advanced search at Google on the specific website), to see if they moved via a website reorganization, or
2. Use the stable version from the internet archive. For example, I found Peter Lewis, see [2] and [3] for how to search. If those older archived versions are still accurate, you can use them, because they're stable. I'll let you all decide and then switch them out, see the example I did for Peter Lewis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

My proposal would be in each case to use the Internet Archive version closest to and just before 18 March 2006, which would show how the page looked at the time of the election. What do others think? Orderinchaos78 01:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I solve all those - found the correct website. There's only one problem left, and I can't find any information about the text anywhere on the 'net except in Wiki mirrors - see the only verification tag left in the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

ah, ha - I see you found a link to replace that one - but it doesn't verify the text given: "Other negative advertisements run by Labor revolved around the actions of the previous Liberal government - one advertisement and leaflet argued that Rob Kerin "just sat back" while the previous Liberal government closed 65 schools", so that needs to be solved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... Yeah, I focussed on making it link correctly, but you're right. Oddly, the Hansard cite in question is from well after the election - I find 4 references on Hansard's search tool - one in 2005, the others in mid-late 2006, by Jane Lomax-Smith re the 65 schools, and like Sandy I found several mirrors of an earlier version of this page. My suggestion would be to remove the specific quote for now - it is clear from the sources that Labor refer to 65 schools being closed but we can't right now source anyone claiming it was specifically Kerin - esp as he was not Education Minister under Olsen. Orderinchaos78 07:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And, without a good source, that text could be running into WP:BLP issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll remove the claim. It's minor to the article - replacing with "(advertisement) reminded voters that" rather than saying what it did or did not claim - used reminded as each of the three points was true, if arguably→→→→→→→→→→←→ without context. Orderinchaos78 03:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article

I would like to extend my thanks to everyone who helped out - those who simply left a comment, to those who completely re-wrote sections of the article with no reward except for a fuzzy warm feeling and a big thanks from me :D Again, thanks to all who contributed, Wikipedia is one of the true hidden secrets out there on the internet and I am glad to have found it :-) Timeshift 06:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Australian Map in post-election pendulum

The Australian map was included as a result of a request for it to be added as a featured article needs to be designed for a worldwide audience, however it has now been removed. I've left a message on the users talk page, however I have informed them that i'll ask others as to their opinions on whether it should stay or go. I really don't care either way, my only objection is that it was requested early on and went through the FA process and succeeded with it there. Timeshift 06:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• That section of the article is incredibly ugly; surely someone can check the Adelaide article if they don't know where it is. Can't this be section be tidied up using table or gallery syntax?--Peta 07:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Primary and 2PP voting percentages

As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:South_Australian_legislative_election%2C_1965 - does anyone know how it's possible that a party can get a higher primary vote than their two party preferred vote? Timeshift 09:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Election results not reflecting world events

Is it worthy to point out somewhere in the article that swings against the centre-right govt are not for anything like the same reasons that the US elections resulted in a Democrat controlled congress, and only reflect local issues as the commonwealth government retains most of the legislative and executive rights as compared to the state governments? Timeshift 13:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say not. More than enough context is already given.--cj | talk 20:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Proportional representation single member electorates?

Apparently single member electorates cannot be considered proportional representation and has such been removed. The article became a Featured Article with this in it, and as far as I was aware, single member electorates can be malapportioned and therefore not proportional, as far as I was aware the SEO ensuring all the electorates have the same population with a 10 percent tolerance was considered an act of proportional representation within single member electorates? Can anyone else shed more light on this? I have no issues admitting I am wrong if i'm wrong, i'm just pointing out my logic on it and the fact it became a Featured Article with this included. Timeshift 07:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Proportional representation refers to the way in which candidates are chosen and applies to multi-member electorates only. "Malapportionment" refers to electorate boundaries. Ideally, each electorate has the same number of voters. When there is too much variation, the electorates are said to be malapportioned, and a redistribution should take place. Have you put the wrong information into any other elections pages? Joestella 08:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you take a look? Timeshift 10:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought I recall having raised this point early in the FA process for this article, and removed the link to proportional representation then, too. PR can occur with single member electorates - I think they do it in NZ by having a bunch of extra seats allocated to the party lists, to bring the parliament representation up to match the overall national vote. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)