Talk:2006 Queensland state election

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Australia: Queensland / Politics C‑class Mid‑importance

	Australia portal 2006 Queensland state election is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as High-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Addition of "Approx seat %" and "Queensland Greens call for proportional representation" sections

I just thought I'd mention that I've added an "Approx seat %" column to the Results Summary section, and a note underneath saying that the Queensland Greens issued a press release calling for Proportional Representation, given the vote to seat ratio for each of the parties. I just wanted to see what everyone thinks about my addition - is what I've written fair and appropriate for this article or would it be better off in the Queensland Greens article? For the sake of transparency & openness, I am a member of the Queensland Greens, I'm not acting on behalf of the Qld Greens (or anyone else besides myself for that matter) in editing this article, but I don't feel my addition is laden with non-NPOV or anything. My main concern is whether what I've written fits in this article, so discuss :-) --Green Adam 15:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bit naive for the Greens (and nothing against them, i'm considering giving them first preference next federal election) to complain about "Labor Party gain 66.3% of the available seats with 46.9% of the vote, the Liberal Party get 9% of the seats with 20% of the vote, One Nation with one seat and less than 1% of the vote and the Greens unrepresented with nearly 8% of the vote"... if the Liberals contested all seats as well as the Nationals, their % would be higher. One Nation challenged something like 4 seats, so of course they won't get much of the vote. The Greens challenged most seats as far as I recall, and without a support base anywhere in particular, their vote was spread out amongst electorates. The Greens are no doubt disadvantaged by a unicameral parliament. Timeshift 16:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, I don't think the additional column in the table adds anything new, it merely repeats data in the column to the left, just in percentage terms, I think it should go. The Queensland system disadvantages minor parties no doubt, the same is the case in the House of Reps. Perhaps this could be mentioned in the article. And proportional representation is implemented at the federal level, in the Senate. However, I think this info should be moved to the Queensland Greens article, under perhaps a policies section or something like that. You might even like to expand that article as it's pretty bare at the moment. I'm sure every party has a gripe about the current system in some way (e.g. the Nationals) and I don't think it is appropriate to just discuss one party's views here. Cheers --- BrightLights 13:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for your input. I see your point that many parties would have a gripe about the current system and that it isn't appropriate to discuss one party's view, so I've got no problem with removing the "Greens call for proportional representation" section. However I don't see any harm in keeping the seat percentages in the table. In my humble opinion, it presents an informative view of our electoral system that isn't immediately obvious when you only look at the seat numbers. I know this article is about the 2006 election and isn't the place to push any political agenda but like I said, they're just numbers, and I don't think there's any harm keeping them there. Feel free to disagree though. Green Adam 14:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date Speculation

www.abc.com.au/elections is a relevant source only becuase Antony Green has started his guide before the one for the Victorian election which is due beforehand. Aussie King Pin 01:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pendulum

Please add a verifiable external source, so this data can be checked. Otherwise it appears to be original research.--Peta 01:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the QEC site and there I can't find anything resembling this information, the only thing that comes close is vote totals.--Peta 01:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Green has a similar but not identically presented pendulum - the figures are all identical since both are based on figures from ECQ. Slac speak up! 01:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pendulum is a re-presentation of existing data. Original research would be if we worked out our own vote totals etc. Calculating a margin does not count as original researh. Slac speak up! 01:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The table should be propperly referenced, not with a half-assed mention of the source, see WP:CITE. Did a Wikipedian sit down as calculate the margins, or did they just lift them from the Green site, if the latter is the case, then it should be cited as the source for the data. Who's safe seat classification does the table use? If we are reporting data we need to be very clear about where it comes from and who's analysis we are presenting to deal with obvious POV and verifiability issues.--Peta

Sigh. I certainly haven't calculated margins for every seat (I have for some), but any Wikipedian is more than able to do so using a calculator and the data from ECQ. In any case, all the margins listed here are identical to Green's, since his arithmetic is not defective. If what is required to satisfy NPOV is a flag saying "This information is identical to what is presented on Antony Green's election guide. Go visit it", then of course we can put that there. I resent slightly the implication that I have been half-arsed.

The classification for marginal/safe/very safe is a conventional one: >5% rounding down,/>10% rounding down/<10% rounding down. It's the same as used on Green's - but he certainly didn't originate it. I'd rather remove the headings than get into a dispute over what constitutes safe or not. Slac speak up! 02:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just saying that our sources need to be accurately identified and made obvious for the reader. Since the information is from Green, then Green should be cited as the source then to make the source of the data obvious. --Peta 03:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some more referencing for the data presented. Just wondering, should we credit Malcolm Mackerras as the creator of this 'pendulum' format? BrightLights 03:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now we're getting really silly. Rebecca 03:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll Bludger

An invaluable resource for all you editors, the 2006 SA equivelent has time and time again given me an excellent source of information for my expansions on the 2006 SA election wiki page :-) http://www.pollbludger.com/category/queensland-election-2006/ On a side note, does anyone else find it a bit strange, and quite frankly unpolitician-like that Bob Quinn remains standing next to Bruce Flegg on the letterhead of http://www.bruceflegg.com/ ? Timeshift 15:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that's because it hasn't been updated since Flegg knifed him. You can see it if you look closely enough in the picture :). . . Slac speak up! 21:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look again :P Timeshift 17:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign

Do you think we should include information about the campaign because the article so far doesn't have much information. Aussie King Pin 07:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely. It's mostly my fault that it doesn't.

Eliza Roberts

While Eliza Roberts has withdrawn herself from the election she will still be on the ballot (and theirfore still win) because she nominated herself as a candidate. See www.pollbludger.com for a detaled desciption of the situation. Aussie King Pin 00:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Aussie King Pin, I did not realise that, and have just read what you said here. BrightLights 01:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preferred Priemer Polls

Now that the Morgan polls have been added we need to delete the Preferred Priemer Polls to make this fit on 1 width of a browser screen. Aussie King Pin 23:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It all fits on the same line for me... Timeshift 01:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed anyway. Timeshift 08:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign/Issues

Are there any other issues that people believe should be in the campaign section that are currently not? Timeshift 17:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition costings?

Today being Thursday, two days before the election, Springborg should be releasing the costings of their promises today as per http://www.abc.net.au/news/items/200609/1732105.htm?elections/qld/2006/ - and does not appear to have happened yet. Does anyone know anything to the contrary? Timeshift 07:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post Election Pendulum

I think we should have a post election pendulum now that the election has been declared but I don't have the Wiki markup skills to do it, can anyone help. Aussie King Pin 23:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I start it off (ie: implement the actual table and colours etc etc) would you be prepared to add all the electorates/names/percentages? Timeshift 00:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would be. Aussie King Pin 11:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Give me a day or so when I can find the spare time. Timeshift 15:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please try and complete it ASAP because no doubt people will try to remove it if it's left like that. Let me know if you need any assistance with anything. Remember to preview before saving too. Good luck! Timeshift 15:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pendulum is completed. BrightLights 10:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Labor logo.JPG

Image:Labor logo.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Labor logo.JPG

Image:Labor logo.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#RfC addressing the inclusion of minor parties in Australian election article infoboxes

A RfC has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#RfC addressing the inclusion of minor parties in Australian election article infoboxes which may affect the infobox of this article. ColonialGrid (talk) 11:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Queensland state election, 2006. 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.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Queensland state election, 2006. 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) 22:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]