Jump to content

Talk:2007 Australian federal election/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Infobox

Australian federal election, 2007
← 2004 24 November 2007 Next →
All 150 seats to the Australian House of Representatives
  First party Second party
 
Leader Kevin Rudd John Howard
Party Labor Liberal/National coalition
Leader since 4 December 2006 30 January 1995
Leader's seat Griffith Bennelong
Last election 60 seats 87 seats
Seats won 83 65
Seat change +23 -22
Popular vote 6,545,759 5,874,104
Percentage 52.70% 47.30%
Swing +5.44 -5.44
PM before election

John Howard
Liberal/National coalition

Elected PM

Kevin Rudd
Labor

I got this from United Kingdom general election, 2001. Is it a good idea, and can the remains be fixed up? Timeshift (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think John Howard should look quite so happy, and you know my views on that earwax-chewing photo of Rudd. I also note that this was not an election for Prime Minister. We've had previous elections where no party gained a majority and who became PM was up to the MPs. --Pete (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm requesting comments for the infobox itself. It wasn't an official but a defacto election for the Prime Minister, and is exactly what the UK election pages have, with a similiar electoral system. What about previous elections where no party gained a majority? I'd say it would look more or less like it is now with a Liberal/National tally. Timeshift (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Clearly needs to be adapted, but is the best I've seen so far of any of the proposals. Orderinchaos 04:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The UK system is very different to ours. We're federal with an elected upper house, for starters. Not to mention cumpulsory preferential voting, which the Poms don't have.
My own preference is that this particular template sucks. It's too big, for one thing. I'm not against a template per se, but I think we can do better. How about we make a really good one and then force it on the Poms? --Pete (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The lower house decides govt, not the upper. As OIC said, it can be adapted anyway. What about compulsory voting? It's indicated in the results tables... Timeshift (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It was an election for the HoR and half-Senate. We can't ignore the Senate results. For one thing, this election saw the demise of the Democrats, a fairly significant event in federal politics. --Pete (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't that the 2004 election? (Unless you mean their final removal from Parliament) Orderinchaos 18:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The 2004 election returned no Democrats, but there were still Dems sitting and they stood for re-election, as well as having a swag of ever-hopeful candidates. None were elected this time. In a couple of months, when the Senate term ends and the newly-elected class take their seats, for the first time in decades there will be no Democrats. This is a direct result of the 2007 election. --Pete (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure i'm happy with having Labor as the government and the coalition as the opposition. Howard was not leader of the opposition directly before or after and Rudd/Labor only became the government a week after the election. It should be the Government/Opposition as they were when the election was held. 58.110.149.65 (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a good point actually - hadn't noticed that one. It should be the state on the day of the election - i.e. before votes from the election itself are counted. Orderinchaos 16:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Fixed on main page. Orderinchaos 16:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - the point of adding incumbent and PM-elect was to stop the confusion, as per what they did on the UK pages. Now you have John Howard and 65 seats bolded! Timeshift (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Basically what the thing wasn't saying was "The Government went to an election. It lost." The bolding is neither here nor there - it seems to me like a design flaw in the template. If we choose to adapt it this would be one thing I'd look at (another one is that "popular vote" and "2PP" are quite different animals). Orderinchaos 02:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What's this "PM-elect" nonsense? This election wasn't for a Prime Minister. It was for 150 members of the House of Representatives and 40 Senators. Not one of whom selects or appoints the Prime Minister. The only person capable of choosing or appointing a Prime Minister is the Governor-General, and I can think of at least five times when he has selected a Prime Minister who did not command majority support in the Lower House. In four of these cases the Prime Minister went on to be appointed. The Prime Minister does not have to be a member of the House of Representatives, and this has occurred at least twice, nor does he have to be elected at all, which has occurred once, and could happen again (although unlikely, the provision remains in the Constitution, and one can imagine a situation in which a senior political party figure, appointed to the Senate through a casual vacancy, becomes Prime Minister).

The media called Kevin Rudd the Prime Minister-elect. It's in the Aussie lingo now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.185.215 (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The ignorant may think, through the increasingly presidential style of election campaigns, that this is an election for Prime Minister, but as an encyclopaedia we should not be reinforcing ignorance. We should present the facts, even if some editors appear to be unaware of what is fact and what is popular myth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyring (talk • contribs)

I have some sympathy for that view. However, even if they are not mentioned anywhere in the constitution, the prime minister has since at least the 1920s has been undisputably the leading Government minister and the public face of their government. This is an ideological issue that has very little to do with the infobox - it's the role of the article (and especially the lead) to explain and elaborate these sorts of things. Orderinchaos 02:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The Prime Minister is, of course, the head of government. That's undisputed. My point is that a federal election is not an election for Prime Minister. It's not even an election for the people who will elect the Prime Minister. --Pete (talk) 04:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree on the fact that you can apply the same argument to the templates for United States Presidential elections or the Congressional elections. Notice that the 2008 US House of Reps election page has a picture of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker-elect and a picture of the Republican leader. If you apply that argument to US Presidential elections, it means you shouldn't put Presidents down as President-elect because it's not the people who elect the President, the people elect delegates to an Electoral College who subsequently elect a President. I think the template is great, it should have the Deputy Leaders listed though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.185.215 (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Looking at similar countries which use this template (UK, India and Canada) they're all in the same position as us, and like us have Westminster systems where the prime minister is chosen by an obtuse method particular to their party, so it's really an academic argument. What we've got with this template is way better than any of the manual or partially-templated predecessors and allows for easy maintenance and rapid generation. Orderinchaos 05:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not an academic argument at all. The people don't choose or elect the Prime Minister. Neither do party members or MPs. They might vote for the person they want to be PM, but nobody elects the PM because he is chosen and appointed by the Governor-General. It's not even particularly rare - about 20% of Australian Prime Ministers were appointed without having won an election and without commanding majorities in the Lower House. "PM-elect" is just plain wrong. --Pete (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Should I revert the infobox to the old one alltogether? Because the infobox was designed to get around the issue of who was who at the election. It has a section for incumbent and PM-elect (PM-elect term valid per all the WP:RS at the election), but as a result we now have John Howard and 65 seats bolded as the winner? Timeshift (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say Howard won, it says he was leader of the government going into the election, which is entirely correct. Orderinchaos 09:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is Howard and 65 seats bolded? It is designed for the winner, see the template being used. You are too used to old thinking with the old template, the new template is designed to show which party took government in the election, and indicates what they were via incumbent and PM-elect. Timeshift (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
In which case the hardcoding in the template needs to be parameterised. Orderinchaos 09:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't like this at all. It seems to imply that John Howard was/is Leader of the Opposition. Agree with ip above, should be the Government/Opposition at the time of the election Jmount (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Is United Kingdom general election, 1997 wrong then? This is how the election infobox is designed, it has the majority of seats bolded (not the minority, it doesnt work like that), the swings, and who the incumbent and pm-elect were. Can anyone advise of any other countries on wikipedia where their election infoboxes have an opposition going to incoming government as being in the opposition part of the infobox? It is rather amusing of the view I advocate now considering I defended keeping Labor in the opposition box with the previous infobox version, rather ironic. Timeshift (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"Everybody else is doing it so why can't we?" is a very good Cranberries album, but sadly not a sound modus operandi, especially when the result defies common sense. My philosophy is always that one should do whatever makes the most sense, and if something is broken, we fix it. At the end of the day the infobox is not worth this much fuss - if it really is so problematic that the numbers are bolded on the wrong side, then we can use ParserFunctions to create a variable which switches them. The contents of the article (and especially its currently rather bland lead paragraph) deserve more of our attention. Orderinchaos 14:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I won't patronise with the sofixit tag, suffice to say that people seem to be inclined to have a talkfest about it but not actually give examples like the one above, and are prepared to leave the page incorrect. It would be great if we can discuss a proposal with an example at hand, ensuring that whatever is on the page is right. But again, how does it defy common sense? If everyone else is doing it, there must be a reason for doing so. I believe that's why the incumbent and PM-elect were added to this infobox design, to accommodate the situation for which you are concerned of. Timeshift (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've found in a lot of cases in Wikipedia that the reason everyone else is doing it is everyone *else* is doing it, and noone can ever figure out what the original reason was, assuming there even was one. However, the sensible reason is that the top left says "Government", the top right says "Opposition", and the only government on election day is the one whose term expires that day, even though it is in caretaker mode at that point. To tell visitors otherwise is to confuse the heck out of them, and it doesn't bother me that I'm challenging a completely faulty British precedent on that one. Orderinchaos 14:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
So the coalition was the caretaker government on election day? Timeshift (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Correct, and even after it for about a week if I recall. Orderinchaos 15:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I note the word government. Timeshift (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see your point - you appear to be making mine. Orderinchaos 15:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

We could, of course, think outside the square... Timeshift (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox should be a) talk page version - show government as winner with incumbent and PM-elect listed per United Kingdom general election, 1997 or b) article version - show government prior to election as government, with incumbent and PM-elected listed?
User: A B
Timeshift Green tickY Red XN
Orderinchaos Red XN Green tickY
Jmount Red XN Green tickY
Mrodowicz Red XN Green tickY
Total people supporting: 1 3

I don't think it's a big deal whether the incumbent or the "winner" is shown first - the point is that sensible labels are used. If they are labelled "Government" and "Opposition", then the government should be the incumbent (especially since we are showing the leaders at the time of the election). If we wish to put the winners first, tehn they should be labelled as "Majority" or something like that. JPD (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps another label could be used, i'm not against that. You could also take the view that whilst Howard was voted out of his seat and didn't return in any form, Rudd/Labor was voted in to govt while Howard/Liberal was voted in to opposition. Nelson/Liberal and the rest is irrelevant. Timeshift (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Timeshift's format is confusing. Were it not for the fact that I'm familiar with Australian politics, I would draw the wrong conclusions as to who was in govt and opposition, from looking at the new template. I support all the arguments made against this format by other contributors, and believe that it should be changed appropriately. Mrodowicz (talk) 06:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not my format, it's their format. And the template has winning number of seats bolded, and incumbent and pm-elect at the bottom. Sure you're looking at the right template? Timeshift (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it's natural to assume that "Government" at an election is the government going *into* an election, likewise as English-literate people we tend to read from left to right. For two natural principles to be conflicted in a single infobox, in my opinion, causes a particular readability problem, as people may still be mentally trying to figure out what it means when they hit the third line of the article - and the UK argument doesn't sway me either, as I believe they should change theirs, but that's not a call for me to make as I don't edit their election articles. Orderinchaos 06:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I've just seen this discussion, and I agree with Orderinchaos on all points. The current box (and for that matter the UK 1997 box), is confusing, and in fact downright wrong because Howard (and John Major for that matter IIRC) didn't become Leader of the Opposition. Howard/Coalition should be called "incumbent", that bit's easy. Calling Rudd/Labor "opposition" may at first glance be confusing, but in reality it's correct, because Rudd/Labor were the opposition during the election. Besides, even the lead says, "The opposition centre-left Australian Labor Party, led by Kevin Rudd and deputy leader Julia Gillard, defeated the incumbent centre-right coalition government..." Peter Ballard (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, the new government were sworn in more than a week after the election, and Howard was still the prime minister (although strangely not a member of the House of Representatives) until that occurred. Orderinchaos 07:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes - I've been looking at the correct template, which has Rudd as Govt, and Howard as Opposition. I could have perhaps articulated my position better. Peter Ballard makes a good point (re-enforced by Orderinchaos) with regard to defeated PM's, not necessarily becoming Leaders of the Opposition. Mrodowicz (talk) 09:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say he became leader of the opposition? Timeshift (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Pretty much by implication. "Opposition" then a great big mug of the guy usually suggests as much. Orderinchaos 09:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
So change the titles. Timeshift (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Fixing the problem is a far superior idea to bandaiding it. Orderinchaos 11:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
So instead bold the Howard Liberal 65 seats over Rudd Labors 83? Timeshift (talk) 07:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
One downside of using the standard election box is that we're tied to choices made elsewhere. I propose we create an Infobox Australian Election tailored to local circumstances, which I believe was the initial proposal months ago anyway, which will sort out other things such as 2pp vs "popular vote" (whatever that means) along the way. Orderinchaos 07:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
That's the issue. People here are expected to agree to arbitrary changes without giving an example of the layout, like the example I gave above. When I compare the old to the new design, of the new infobox, I favour the current. But if we are to move forward with a consensus infobox then I strongly suggest proposals be given as examples here. Timeshift (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe the current infobox is basically fine, but contains many fields we do not need, does not contain a couple we do, and has some logical inconsistencies such as those I and others have highlighted above. Therefore one which is basically the current (i.e. copying its code), with the irrelevant fields stripped out, the needed ones added and the logical inconsistencies fixed is what I am proposing. I'd be happy to do the technical work required to get that moving, although it will have to wait a few days or up to a week due to offline considerations. Orderinchaos 08:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm repeating something that's already been said but can we replace "Government" and "Opposition" above Kevin Rudd and John Howard's photos with "Elected Administration" and "Defeated Administration" or something else that is a little less harsh. I've got big problems with the way it is at the moment, there is no Government and Opposition on/during the election (which is what this article is about), the government is in caretaker mode, elections are the one time that the legislative branch and not the executive branch are the main focus, that's what the election is!
I read above Pete say that it is actually the Governor-General who chooses and appoints the PM, that's so silly it's laughable, in an election context the Governor General does whatever he/she is told to do, they do not have any choice, it is only in extreme circumstances (and unique so far) that the GG has any choice and that is not in an electoral context.
If we were to retain "Government" and "Opposition", then the photos should be removed and replaced with the logos of the two parties, John Howard was never in opposition and that is what this clearly insinuates. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 12:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Result tables and infobox

Australian federal election, 2007
← 2004 24 November 2007 Next →
All 150 seats of the Australian House of Representatives
and 40 (of the 76) seats of the Australian Senate
  First party Second party
 
Leader Kevin Rudd John Howard
Party Labor Liberal/National coalition
Leader since 4 December 2006 30 January 1995
Leader's seat Griffith Bennelong
Last election 60 seats 87 seats
Seats won 83 65
Seat change +23 -22
Popular vote 6,545,759 5,874,104
Percentage 52.70% 47.30%
Swing +5.44 -5.44
PM before election

John Howard
Liberal/National coalition

Elected PM

Kevin Rudd
Labor

(Discussion moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics)
In the end I went more for the Template:Election box style, but I've created Template:Election result AU begin, Template:Election result 2pp and Template:Election result AU as a trial for this. They are used in conjunction with Template:Election box end. For example: 

{{Election result AU begin|title='''House of Reps ([[Instant-runoff voting|IRV]]) — Turnout 94.76% ([[Compulsory voting|CV]]) — [[Spoiled vote|Informal]] 3.95%'''<ref name="UWA">[http://elections.uwa.edu.au/ UWA election summaries]</ref><ref>[http://results.aec.gov.au/13745/website/HouseStateFirstPrefsByParty-13745-NAT.htm Lower house results: AEC]</ref>}}

{{Election result AU|
|party=Australian Labor Party
|votes=5,388,147
|percentage=43.38
|swing=+5.74
|seats=83
|change=+23
}}

{{Election result AU|
|party=Liberal Party of Australia
|votes=4,546,534
|percentage=36.61
|swing=-4.21
|seats=55
|change=-20
}}

{{Election result AU|
|party=Australian Greens
|votes=967,781
|percentage=7.79
|swing=+0.60
|seats=0
|change=0
}}

{{Election result AU|
|party=National Party of Australia
|votes=682,424
|percentage=5.49
|swing=-0.40
|seats=10
|change=-2
}}

{{Election result AU|
|party=Family First Party
|votes=246,792
|percentage=1.99
|swing=-0.02
|seats=0
|change=0
}}

{{Election result AU|
|party=Australian Democrats
|votes=89,810
|percentage=0.72
|swing=-0.51
|seats=0
|change=0
}}

{{Election result AU|
|party=Independents
|votes=276,369
|percentage=2.23
|swing=-0.27
|seats=2
|change=-1
}}

{{Election result AU|
|party=Other
|votes=222,004
|percentage=1.79
|swing=+0.25
|seats=0
|change=0
}}

{{Election result AU
|party=Total
|votes=12,419,863
|percentage=
|swing=
|seats='''150'''
|change=
}}

{{Election result 2pp}}
{{Election result AU|
|party=Australian Labor Party
|votes='''WIN'''
|percentage='''52.70'''
|swing=+5.44
|seats='''83'''
|change=+23
}}

{{Election result AU|
|party=LibNat Coalition
|votes=
|percentage=47.30
|swing=-5.44
|seats=65
|change=-22
}}

{{Election box end}}

So - thoughts? Suggestions? Condemnations? Frickeg (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 

{{Election result AU begin|title='''Senate ([[Single Transferable Vote|STV]] [[Group voting ticket|GV]]) — Turnout 95.17% ([[Compulsory voting|CV]]) — [[Spoiled vote|Informal]] 2.55%'''<ref name="UWA" /><ref>[http://results.aec.gov.au/13745/website/SenateStateFirstPrefsByGroup-13745-NAT.htm Upper house results: AEC]</ref>}}

{{Election result AU|
|party=Australian Labor Party
|votes=5,101,200
|percentage=40.30
|swing=+5.28
|seats=18
|held=32
|change=+4
}}

{{Election result AU|
|party=LibNat Coalition<ref name="jointticket">Seat total of 37 includes 32 Liberal, 4 National (2 NSW, 2 Qld), 1 CLP (NT). Coalition percentage total equals the sum of the joint ticket (30.68%), Liberal-only ticket (8.77%), National-only ticket (0.17%), and CLP ticket (0.32%). The Liberal and National parties ran a joint ticket in [[New South Wales]], [[Queensland]] and [[Victoria (Australia)|Victoria]], which lists candidates from both parties on the same ticket. The Liberals-only ticket ran in [[Western Australia]], [[South Australia]], [[Tasmania]], [[Australian Capital Territory]]. The Nationals-only ticket, in [[Western Australia]] and [[South Australia]], there is no joint ticket or coalition whatsoever. The Nationals do not field candidates in [[Tasmania]] and the territories, with the [[Country Liberal Party]] (CLP) replacing both parties as the [[centre-right]] coalition party in the [[Northern Territory]].</ref>
|votes=5,055,095
|percentage=39.94
|swing=-5.15
|seats=18
|held=37
|change=-2
}}

{{Election result AU|
|party=Australian Greens
|votes=1,144,751
|percentage=9.04
|swing=+1.38
|seats=3
|held=5
|change=+1
}}

{{Election result AU|
|party=Family First Party
|votes=204,788
|percentage=1.62
|swing=-0.14
|seats=0
|held=1
|change=0
}}

{{Election result AU|
|party=Australian Democrats
|votes=162,975
|percentage=1.29
|swing=-0.80
|seats=0
|held=0
|change=-4
}}

{{Election result AU|
|party=Independents
|votes=174,458 
|percentage=1.38
|swing=-0.13
|seats=1
|held=1
|change=+1
}}

{{Election result AU|
|party=Other
|votes=813,538 
|percentage=6.43
|swing=-0.44
|seats=0
|held=0
|change=0
}}

{{Election result AU
|party=Total
|votes=12,656,805
|percentage=
|swing=
|held=
|seats='''76'''
|change=
}}

{{Election box end}}

Added Senate table and infobox per second section of talk below. Timeshift (talk) 04:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks great to me, although there may be some devil in the detail. Definitely a positive model to work from. Orderinchaos 08:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, I think that somewhere there should be a complete results table (as in, including every party that contested the House of Reps). Where should this go? The new format is more compact and it shouldn't be too huge, but maybe still too big for the top of the article? Frickeg (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't feel the need to list every single party. There is no page for it. However I would like to get implemented the table (slightly modified) above, but when I preview it it seems to want to join on to the top of the Senate table even though they're coded differently, and stuffs the table and the page up. What needs fixing? Timeshift (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Did you remember to finish it off with Template:Election box end? (The Senate tables probably need a similar type of coding as well.) And I would suggest maybe the full party results on Australian federal election, 2007/State-by-state lower house results. Frickeg (talk) 03:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, will do, thanks. Also, I still cannot see why the above cannot be implemented (with the lead above the election results but not TOC). I fail to see how wikipedia says this should not be the case. It allows for easy navigation from election to election without the need to scroll down. Sigh. Timeshift (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Why can't it be implemented? There are similar tables on the UK general election, 2005 page and other UK elections. (But shouldn't the Liberals be the "Government", as they were before the election? Labor contested the election as the Opposition.) Frickeg (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
People decided (stemming from the SA 2006 state page) that the TOC should be above the election result tables like it is on 2007. Why they didn't change the rest of the pages i'm not sure, just another oddity of wikipedia. But I still strongly believe it should be like the above, with the table above the TOC, and infobox to the right of the table, with the lead above the table. NOT like it is on 2007. Timeshift (talk) 04:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Was an MOS issue, and was resolved that way in order that election articles could be eligible for GA/FA. The reason it wasn't changed on all of them is that too many people have too little time, unfortunately. I have a backlog of projects I want to get into but my real life constantly interferes, I know this is true for many of our regulars. Orderinchaos 04:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made the changes, however here is a problem, the held column doesn't work, and LibNat doesnt work in the Senate table like it does in the House table. Assistance would be very much appreciated. Timeshift (talk) 04:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The table will need some formatting changes to accomodate Senate results; it's possibly a better idea to make an entire new template for them. The LibNat doesn't work in the Senate because of the references; for it to work, there'll need to be another way of making those notes. Frickeg (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you created the current ones, did you create them or copy them? I'm not very good with tables myself, especially the ones coded like these are. Timeshift (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
A bit of both. They are based on the election box templates, and given the time I could probably work out the new ones, but my method of template making involves a great deal of trial and error. There are probably many, many people who could do a better job than I could, but if I get time I'll have a go. Frickeg (talk) 04:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok thanks. I also think that you can't have Howard's 65 seats and his name/party bolded if they lost the election with a minority of seats. I think the current infobox placement/format is perfectly fine, all that needs to change are the words "government" and "opposition" to something more appropriate. Timeshift (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer a normal mode and a switch mode - both having the winner bolded, but the incumbent government always in the left panel. This is a weakness of the current box that we can't do this, and thus when I have more time later in the week I plan on looking into this and seeing if we can get a model which works. Orderinchaos 07:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the current infobox used in the article is quite suitable now. Timeshift (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What's with the "First Party" and "Second Party" thing? Is that some sort of insane compromise? Peter Ballard (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
It has been like that for a while, someone took it upon themselves to change the infobox coding, as a result the same thing has occurred on all election pages using this infobox, not just Australia. Timeshift (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Date linking

Date linking is now deprecated by the Wikipedia Manual of Style, for lots of good reasons identified at MOS:SYL. Ground Zero | t 10:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't mean we have to follow it. It should be a page-by-page consensus. JRG (talk) 10:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why we shouldn't follow the MOS standard though. Apart from various other things, it makes pages more readable. Orderinchaos 10:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Polling booth images

These were added in, I think, March. I've not been visiting this page much of recent months, and now that I've seen them again, 11 months on from the election, I'm wondering whether we really need 8 of them. One image of anonymous people lining up to vote is much like any other, so one image would seem to be enough. Nobody disputes that Aussies have always come out in large numbers on election days (perhaps mainly because they have no choice) all over the country, so I can't quite see what purpose this gallery is serving. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's not broke don't fix it? Timeshift (talk) 10:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Nice try, but that doesn't quite cut it, Timeshift. I'm not saying it does any harm having 8 pics, but that's not the test we use. It's whether it does any good or not. Eight seems to be seven too many. It's saying the same thing (whatever that is) in 8 virtually indistinguishable ways. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I can’t say that I can see the point either. Whatever doesn’t add value, including that which is unnecessary, should be removed. --Merbabu (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I find your attitudes disappointing to say the least. Timeshift (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I said above, I can't see what the purpose is in having more than one. If you could convince me otherwise, I'd happily take a different viewpoint. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I can't see what the purpose is in removing them. Timeshift (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I think you're avoiding the question. The general default position isn't that editors who don't want some material in WP have to demonstrate why they want it removed; it's that nothing should get into WP unless it's verified, or otherwise serves some useful purpose. Relying on that principle, the purpose of these 8 images needs to be demonstrated to anyone to whom their purpose is not clear. That includes me, and Merbabu seems to be of the same mind. Just because something has been sitting around for 9 months causing no harm is no argument for keeping it indefinitely. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The solution may well be to have a Commons gallery and link it to this page, as we have with others with many images. Free images should be encouraged, but to be actually in the article they must demonstrably add something. However I'd hate to lose any free content to the encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 03:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the commons link is a good one. 8 is overkill as they all show the one thing. Chose one, and the rest should go to a commons gallery or similar. They are essentially the same. If they were highlighting key and relevant differences then there would be a case to keep. --Merbabu (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Jack, but as you are wanting to change the status quo, it is indeed upon you to show why they are detrimental and should be removed. Having dozens of images is overkill, 8 is not. Timeshift (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
That's where we differ. And I've already said the "status quo" argument doesn't wash with me. This isn't an article on Australian polling booths, in which various images illustrating the different kinds of locations in which booths are established might be appropriate. Even then, you probably wouldn't have 8 from the same election. One image in this article showing people lining up at a booth is okay. What more do the other 7 tell us? What? That's what the originating editor needs to explain. I appreciate that you were the originating editor, and maybe someone with a lesser interest in the pics might be better placed to make a comment. At the moment, it's the originating editor for inclusion (perfectly understandable, but hardly an impartial opinion), and two other editors against. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd support the commons gallery idea. We don't need 8 images showing the same thing.Jmount (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I’d suggest using the image from Epping as it was Howard’s electorate from where he got voted out, and remove the rest from the article. Personally, I don’t see much of a need for the gallery on commons so if someone else if very keen to keep them then they can create it – I can contribute to linking it to the article. --Merbabu (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that 8 images is overkill. They're all of the same sort of thing, and they're not very interesting. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I see the "The WikiCommission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice" are out to stop us from having a little amusement. At the very least they serve to demonstrate to our Seppo friends that you can have an election in summery weather and not have long queues in corridors. I say keep and in fact I was going to see if we could collect a few more of these loverly images which show the rich diversity of this wide brown land girt by sea. Albatross2147 (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Nobody's arguing they should be deleted - we're instead suggesting taking one or two appropriate ones, placing them here, and placing the rest in a special Commons gallery which could theoretically include a lot more than 8. That gallery would then be linked from the article - see for example Waratah, New South Wales for such a link. Orderinchaos 16:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
You say that as if people take notice of them. Timeshift (talk) 07:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with removing most of the pictures with the article. They don't add anything to the article, so we should delete them. Guy0307 (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've halved the number which I think is a good compromise. Timeshift (talk) 06:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Timeshift. You still haven't provided any good reason why more than 1 is necessary, but I'm prepared to accept that outcome. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
All requests here are for 1 image, with the exception of timeshift whose "compromise" is to cut 8 images to 4. No reason has been given for 4 photos of the same thing. --Merbabu (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
It's an overstretch to say all requests are for 1 image. I'm severely disappointed in your bad faith attitude to compromise, and decided to remove them all before letting others discuss said compromise. Poor form, my impression of you has dropped that little bit further. Timeshift (talk) 06:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Let's not make it personal. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Timeshift, a compromise might work when there is one person on each side, or even 1:3. But not when there are 5+ against 1. Guy0307 (talk) 08:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to create the recommended gallery in Commons. I can't get it to work. Anyone know how? Cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

A very basic one I did a while back is at commons:Waratah, New South Wales. That's just one line text + pics themselves with captions + cats. Orderinchaos 06:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorting out phony claims of a content dispute RE leadership debate

This text will be reinserted into the article today. Please submit any revisions you may have ASAP.

I'm not a mindreader but I believe the initial objection here was to my citing as a reference Mr Howard's interpretation of his own policy, which had not at that stage been noted by other journalists, and which may have been seen as advocacy. This issue has more or less resolved itself as Monday night's Four Corners program has become a minor news item, Howard's policy was mentioned in the program, and thus Howard's interpretation of said policy has been widely commented on.

As of today, the editorial board of The Age ("Opposition turns the political heat back on itself" [1], The Age, 13 November 2009, p 14), the editorial board of The Australian ("No need to rush as Rudd goes global" [2], The Australian, 9 November 2009, p 15) and Paul Kelly, sub-editor of The Australian ("On the road to oblivion" [3], The Australian, 11 November 2009, p 14) have all made note of Howard's interpretation. Ottre 16:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This is reportage two years after the election, and much of it opinion. Howard's own reflections on the matter years after being defeated, in light of events that happened well after the election and may not even have been foreshadowed by it, are of no consequence to anyone, just as Rudd's would be were they to be reported as they'd similarly not reflect the reality at the time of the election. I see no abiding reason why any of it should be included. Orderinchaos 16:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The reports satisfy our policies on verifiability and asserting facts. Your concerns RE the applicability of Howard's remarks two years after the election are warranted, give me a week or so to research whether they confirm his original comments about emissions trading. Ottre 09:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Dispute at November 24

There seems to be disagreement as to whether the election is noteable for an event that happened on November 24... views at Talk:November 24 appreciated. Timeshift (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


Kevin Andrews racism

It is true prior to the election date annoucement that Kevin Andrews said remarks about African mirgrants that were considered racist it should be mentioned in the 07 election page. I mean the Howard government on three elections campaigns campaigned on race. --122.107.216.220 (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)122.107.216.220 --122.107.216.220 (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm always inclined to think that if it flew under the election radar at the time (in this case eight years ago) then there's a reason why, and if disputed, a major argument should be mounted by the contributor, including but not limited to relevance/notability, and why it should be added in this article rather than, say, Howard Government? In addition, not just myself, but another experienced contributor, Frickeg, also reverted one of your attempts, labelling it as a POV (point of view) contribution. Your statement of "I mean the Howard government on three elections campaigns campaigned on race" to an extent is something I agree with on a personal level, however it is not a reliable fact, it is opinion, which we avoid, and seems to be your motivation for the contribution you're attempting to add. If you feel that strongly and still believe it should be in this article then please mount your argument, but do not engage in re-adding the contribution beforehand, or else it will be seen as starting an edit-war for which there are potential consequences. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Whether you are against Howard or for pro Howard it was a incident that was a issues going on prior to the election which I felt should be added. I wanted to add the info just to point ot history not to undermine the Coalition or Kevin Andrews.--122.107.216.220 (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC) 122.107.216.220

I would like it if the Kevin Andrews part could be re added what would others think I would of course be happy to hear other suggestion on how to write it too. --122.107.216.220 (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)122.107.216.220

Do I have consent to add the Sudanese Kevin Andrews scandal back? --122.107.216.220 (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)122.107.216.220

Not as far as i'm concerned. Timeshift (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Australian federal election, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 14 external links on Australian federal election, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Australian federal election, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Australian federal election, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australian federal election, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Australian federal election, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Australian federal election, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 32 external links on Australian federal election, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Australian federal election, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Bolding in lead sentence

There is no need for edit-warring and 3RR violations over this, especially since Wikipedia's Manual of Style is clear on this point: the subject should be bolded in the Lead's first sentence — see MOS:BOLDTITLE.  JGHowes  talk 01:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

...but only if it actually appears. Just to make it absolutely clear why my edit was necessary, if the article's title is absent from the first sentence, do not apply the bold style to related text that does appear. Your edit is a further improvement, though I don't think the hidden text is really necessary. 95.145.130.94 (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_Australian_federal_election/Archive_6&oldid=1088791118"