Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics/Archive 1

Development

Any thoughts on getting this actively going?

There's two things I'd like to do, first of all -

• remove the "of x articles, y exist" sections - we've either got articles on all topics in that category, or they're innumerable (i.e. parliamentarians)
• get a COTW going - if we can get a handful of people willing to put in a little bit of time, we could start to get decent mid-sized articles on a few people, and it shouldn't take much more than a few minutes of Googling Ambi 07:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your suggestions are sensible. It does seem ridiculous to have an article counter when the number of associated articles is ever-growing. I have doubts that a COTW would be maintained (look at the Australian one!), but the article adoption programme seems reasonable. I noticed that was a scheme used at the WikiProject Melbourne. Has that been successful? Also, would priority be given to certain articles, or would the adopter just choose? A COTW would probably be more successful (in drastically expanding articles), but it would require numerous dedicated editors (like you).

Additionally, we need to set the scope of the project and identify areas of particular need. This is something you’re going to know a lot more about than me – I’ve somewhat neglected my initial wish to edit Australian politics articles. I’ve just created an empty Open Tasks template for the Project. I’ll transfer my (related) comments to the Project talk-page, for further discussion there. After further modification of the Project page, I’ll “launch” it (place it on WikiProjects, the Wikiportal and AWNB).

Sorry again! -- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 05:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article adoption idea for WikiProject Melbourne wasn't a bad idea, but it ended up being

stillborn - the project was past its prime by the time that was suggested. What I think might work, though, is crossing it with the COTW idea. Everyone interested adds an article each for the week - everyone works on that batch of articles, and at the end of the week, the list is erased and started again, with everyone who is still interested adding another one (so as to stop things becoming stagnant, as they did with Melbourne). I think it could work - if we were willing to get it started, hopefully some of others might join in.

There's a few key things we're missing.

• articles on MPs, particularly state ministers and opposition leaders
• lists of MPs, particularly at state level, but also in the first half of the century at federal level
• most of the party articles, as well as the legislature articles, could do with a lot of expansion (see what the Canadians have done in that area)
• electorates are a serious mess, and are probably the first thing we should straighten out (we now have four different naming conventions in four states)

I've got a basic to-do list together, with some of the more obvious cases that I could think of, but feel free to make any changes you want. Ambi 07:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yep. That's a good start. I agree with you that the Politics of Canada articles are quite good. By and large, I think we will be able to emulate what they have achieved (vis-à-vis organisation and article layout).-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 07:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've made a couple of other changes. What do you think needs doing before we start advertising this? Ambi 07:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The legislation section needs to be replaced, as that is already being undertaken by WikiProject Australian law. What do you think should take its place? Government departments; Ministeries; Official buildings?-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 08:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was going to leave it there, as it's somewhat relevant to both, but I see your point. How about ministries? Canada particularly has excellent articles on ministerial positions and individual ministries, but ours are nonexistent at the state level and mediocre at best at the federal level. Government departments and buildings probably need a section each of their own too - we have articles on no government departments AFAIK, and all of one state parliament house (Vic). Ambi 08:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about we title the section "Executive", with ministeries and departments falling under it. I suppose departments could also include the respective Minister and building (for important dep't like Casey for DFAT).-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 08:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - I forgot all about public servants (Harry Evans, Peter Shergold). Ambi 09:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Created new spaces for government departments (under executive) and legislative buildings. I also posted about the naming convention issue, which is now linked from the task box - anything more to do before advertising this around some? Ambi 09:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. I'll add the Project to relevant pages, and post a notice at AWNB. If you can think of other places to advertise, please feel free to do so.-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 09:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about Australian political cartoonists? List_of_cartoonists#Political_cartoonists

(The preceding comment was posted by anonymous IP 192.102.239.195) Cyberjunkie ^TALK 09:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's more of a media thing, I think. There could probably be an entire WikiProject covering that sort of thing - methinks it's stretching this one just a bit too far. Ambi 10:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. They're not really within our ambit.-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 10:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Missing articles

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

Project name

Is it too late to consider naming this project WikiProject Australian government instead of WikiProject Australian politics? Most of the scope outlined so far is about government rather than politics. --ScottDavis 00:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We could, but I think it might turn a few people off. I think the focus will end up being on politics - MPs, parties and electorates, but there's a few tangentially-related things which it's still useful to cover as well (i.e. government departments). Ambi 02:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've joined now anyway, but I was almost turned off by the "politics" title, as I have been writing article stubs on Governors of South Australia and local government areas of South Australia which are government but not really politics. I guess elections and MPs sort of fit in both spaces. Electorates, departments, governors are government. Policies are politics. Do we intend to take responsibility for {{Australia-gov-stub}} ? --ScottDavis 03:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I pondered that last night. I don't think we need a new Aus politics stub, and was hoping to use the Aus gov stub in its place - unless others think it necessary. We could re-title the gov stub "politics", but I don't know if that would gain support. Don't let the word "politics" worry you; at its broadest, it may refer to government in general. -- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 06:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about renaming it Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian politics and government then (or something similar)? I see your point. Ambi 08:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK. I think we should capture {{Australia-gov-stub}} as any article it's on should be in the scope of this project (and no other project owns it). The same for {{AU-politician-stub}}. Hopefully we'll capture some new participants. Do you object to me adding government-related stuff explicitly to the intro and related projects? --ScottDavis 07:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. Please, go ahead with any changes you think will improve or attract more participants to the Project.-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 07:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree entirely - I think we should take over both stub categories, and feel free to do whatever necessary to attract participants. Ambi 08:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I missed your earlier comment about a longer name. That name ("Australian politics and government") seems to be the best name to cover the subject, but it's fairly long. I think I'm becoming convinced that "politics" is good enough, as long as the whole-of-government scope is expressed. I'd still support any real move to change the name to include "government", but won't push it. There's plenty of "real work" to do. --ScottDavis 11:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Elections

It would be great if we could get some more coverage of elections, especially historical ones, because they can show so much about indvidual moments in history. Also, it would be good to include some info on state elections (eg. South Australian legislative election, 2006) - Aaron Hill July 5, 2005 02:01 (UTC)

Seconded. If anyone's interested in writing them, the 2004 election article is a damned good example - that very nearly made it to featured status (and still could with a little work); our only other major one is the 2005 Northern Territory election, which I've been working on and which is very nearly finished. I'm going to keep trying to write on state elections as they happen; I might try and cover some past ones too, particularly if others are interested. Ambi 5 July 2005 09:41 (UTC)

Divisions

We now have (short) articles on all the federal electoral divisions. Does anyone know of some good (online) resources for state and territory districts? I might get started on those once the naming conventions are sorted out. --bainer (talk) 6 July 2005 02:27 (UTC)

Just about all of the state electoral commissions have some information on each division, though to varying levels of usefulness. The NTEC is fantastic; the NSW and SA SEOs are okay - they're the only ones that I've used so far. As far as member lists go, the NSW Parliamentary Record includes complete member lists for every current division. I'd already put together complete member lists before I started on the NT electorates; I'm not sure about the other states.

The naming convention issue seems to pretty much settled, at least for lower house electorates (though some more feedback on Legislative Council seats would be nice), so I think it'd be pretty safe to get started. I've now nearly finished incorporating and linking the new convention from all the state lists, with only one past WA and one past Tas list still to go. Ambi 6 July 2005 06:36 (UTC)

Resources

The party colours templates (eg {{Australian politics/party colours/Democrats}}), are not listed here yet. Are there other resources such as this that could be added? In September, I added results to Marrickville by-election, 2005, using the election box templates used on the British pages, which involved making templates such as Template:Australian_Democrats/meta/color and Template:Australian_Democrats/meta/shortname, as well as some others such as Template:Election box 2pp to reflect the Australian system. This is clearly duplicating things, so I wondered what people thought? (On a separate note, I have been basing the colours on those used by the media, particularly the ABC - this seems more appropriate to me than using colours from the party logo, and changing whenever the logo is changed.) JPD (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know those existed. It seems we've duplicated our efforts. I created party colour templates such as {{Australian politics/party colours/Democrats}} for all federally represented parties (as well as PHON) for use in infoboxes and tables a while back. I forgot to add them here. Australian parties don't seem to have official colours, so I based them on their logos. Someone else has since changed the Greens colour to match other countries, and Democrats to match their new logo. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

So what should we do? {{Election box candidate with party link}} requires a template with only the colour value in it, and only needs the party name to use the correct colour and create the right link. It seems to me we either decide not use that for Australian elections, or change the templates you created to bgcolor={{foo/meta/shortname}}. As for colours, I think we need to have a system not simply based on logos, otherwise the colours are not stable and (for example) the Nationals and the Greens are too similar.

Reorganising 'Parliaments' category

I propose to tidy up Category:Australian parliaments by creating a new sub category called - Category:Parliaments of the Australian States and Territories. This category would contain articles on the State Parliaments but not lists of previous parliaments (which have made the current Aust parliaments cat very mesy). This would allow the new category to be listed at Category:Legislatures of subnational entities in place of Category:Australian parliaments. If you would like to comment, please do so at Category_talk:Australian_parliaments Thanks. Adz 08:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I could go with this. Where would the current content go under the new system, though? Category:Lists of members of the ****? I'm having trouble thinking of a decent alternative - which is why I put them here in the first place. Ambi 00:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines of 'Previous Australian parliaments' or 'lists of previous ...', BUT, I 'm aware that it would take quite an effort in changing stubs, and I'm not sure its worth it. I think it could just stay where it is. Adz 01:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you're exactly right that this needs straightening out; I'm just not sure where to move the current content to. Previous parliaments works, but what happens to the current ones? Alternatively, we could create subcategories for each parliament and put the lists under that; it wouldn't completely get rid of the mess, but it'd be better than it is now. Ambi 03:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

How about 'Lists of the composition of Australian Parliaments' (as a sub category of Australian Parliaments)? Parliaments of the States and Territories could then live there as well. Or you could call it 'Historical lists of Australian parliaments'. Adz 04:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Joint Sitting of Federal Parliament

The Federal Parliament has only had one joint sitting to pass legislation, in 1974, after the reelection of the Whitlam Government. This was an historic sitting and I think needs an article on why it occurred, and with what result. I think Medibank was one of the triggering pieces of legislation, but I'm sure there were 2 or 3 more, which had been blocked by the senate in the previous parliament. Any takers?--Takver 16:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

♥== Categories of politicians by State/Territory ==

I've recently noticed that there is a gap in Categories of politicians by state. Categories exist for ACT, QLD, WA and Tas. These appear under Category:Australian politicians. There don't appear to be categories for the other states. The various categories should also appear as subcategories under the state category, eg under Category:People of the Australian Capital Territory, or Category:Politics of Tasmania (or both). Although I don’t have much time to work on setting these categories up myself, I thought it would be worth mentioning in case others felt enthused to help set up categories and sort existing articles into them. Some useful pages include: List of Australian politicians and Category:Political office-holders in Australia. -- Adz 06:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It does need doing. Nearly a year ago, I think it was Chuq and I, hashed out a potential categorisation scheme for all of the Australian politician articles, the results of which are at User:Ambi/AusPolSandbox. I struck one night and implemented the party categories on every single relevant article, but never did get around to implementing the other sections. Feel free to take or adapt anything from there if helpful. Ambi 10:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm a numpty head. Can someone tell me just how many categories a generic state politician should be in? eg, pam allan is currently in:

Category:Living people|Allan, Pamela

Category:Australian Labor Party politicians|Allan, Pamela

Category:New South Wales State politicians|Allan, Pamela

Category:Australian politicians|Allan, Pamela

Category:People from New South Wales|Allan, Pamela

This seems excessive, I know they aren't true hierarchical categories but surely there's no reason for BOTH: Category: Australian Politicians AND Category:New South Wales State politicians.

Not saying I'm NOT the person who dumped all those categories there but I am looking for a guideline... Thanks!

Garrie 05:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

She should be in 1-3. 4 is a parent cat of 2 and 3, and 5 is a parent cat of 3. Ambi 05:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

m

Proposal to re-organise categories relating to Australian Parliaments

In December 2005 there was a brief discussion at WP:AWNB regarding sorting out categories relating to the various Parliaments in Australia. (See Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 15#MHR Category). It was agreed that these categories are currently messy and need to be sorted out.

Since then User:Ambi|Ambi, User:Snottygobble|Snottygobble and I have discussed the problem at length and formulated a proposal to overhaul and clean up the current categories. The proposal is located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian politics/Parliaments. If you're interested, could you please take a moment to look at the proposal and either provide comments or support on the talk page. Thanks. -- Adz|talk 01:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Federal electorates template

Hey everyone. I've started a federal electorates template. User:Thebainer suggested that the way it is set up needs to be changed, so I brought it here for suggestions. I agree it's looking too big at the moment, so the ideas I have are:

• Have eight different templates (for each state and territory), like "Federal electorates in New South Wales"
• Get rid of state distinctions and list them alphabetically.

What do people think about these? I'm going to continue making it, as it will be easier to fiddle around with it once I've made the links, but I will make those changes. Braue 01:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

How about having state templates, with a link to a list of all of the Electorates form all the States? -- Adz|talk 01:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that, but what about places like Tasmania, the ACT and the Northern Territory? Part of the role of it is to link up all electorates. If the template is restructured to get rid of state distinctions, the size is cut to about 1/3 of its size, much more reasonable. Braue 01:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I can see what you mean, although I think that the names of electorates mean little to most people without knowing what state they're in. Another way of doing it might be to have one template for the two territories, one for all the states, and have a link in each template to each state, and to the complete list, in a similar way to how these Canberra suburb/district templates are linked to other canberra districts and to the complete list. (see Template:Belconnen Suburbs. - Canberra is divided into Districts, and each district contains a number of suburbs). (btw, how do we left align the this text?) -- Adz|talk 02:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean like this?

Braue 02:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

That's the sort of thing I was thinking of. Looks good. Have you worked out how your're going to link the states at the bottom. Link them to List of House of representatives electoral districts in Victoria for example? -- Adz|talk 22:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think we need the links to the other states, and if so, it might be best (not to mention easiest) just to link them to the templates for that particular state. Ambi 09:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If anyone else wants to change it, go ahead, but I didn't put links to the other states in each one. The link under "electoral divisions" takes you to a list of all electoral divisions. Braue 00:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Cabinet, Ministry and Government

The page Cabinet of Australia lists the members of Cabinet and their portfolios (don't worry, I've already updated it for today's Cabinet reshuffle). However, there is no page for junior ministers or parliamentary secretaries. I can't just add them to the same page, as it is specifically about the Cabinet, but where else can it go? I don't want a separate page for Junior Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, so maybe something like Federal Ministers of Australia? Braue 08:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You could rename (move) the page to 'Cabinet and outer ministry of Australia' or 'The Australian Federal Ministry'. Just a suggestion. Somebody may have a better idea, so maybe hold off before diving in. -- Adz|talk 09:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There are articles on each PM's ministries, eg. Fourth Howard Ministry (the current one), First Whitlam Ministry and so on. Perhaps the article Cabinet of Australia should just discuss the history of the cabinet (such as when certain portfolios were added, etc), and simply link to the current one? --bainer (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm including the Cabinet reshuffle in Fourth Howard Ministry. However, I think that this format (which lists changes to the ministry at the bottom and simply displays the original line-up following the 2004 election) is not best for showing the current ministry. I'm going to create a page called Current Federal Ministry of Australia, which will only show the current line-up. It won't show what the reshuffle means, the current pages do that fine. Braue 12:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone has created an article caled Fifth Howard Ministry. What should be done? I'm thinking of asking for a speedy delete, but I don't know how. Braue 02:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted it. For future reference, to ask for a speedy deletion, simply use {{deletebecause|insert reason}}.--cj | talk 04:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Notes on the day

• Following the McGauran defection, we have two brothers in federal Parliament belonging to different parties. This has occurred twice before. Can anyone tell us when?
• "One of Prime Minister Howard's great strengths is that he rarely makes the same mistake twice save for his appalling judgment in the women he appoints to the Ministry." ex-Senator Noel Crichton-Browne at Crikey. A very shrewd observation which only NCB would dare make.
• How can we stop this persistent problem of people editing articles to record changes which have not yet happened? (eg Gallop resignation, Hill resignation, ministerial changes). I spend half my time reverting these silly premature edits.

Adam 10:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

On brothers, I count three pairs: Donald Norman Cameron (House, FT) and Cyril Cameron (Senate, Prot) were in together from 1901 to 1903; Sir Thomas Ewing (Australian politician) (House, Prot) and Norman Ewing (Senate, FT) were in together from 1901 to 1903; Thomas Brennan (Senate, UAP) and Frank Brennan (Australian politician) (House, ALP) were in together between 1934 and 1938. --bainer (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Note that there have been no brothers in different parties in the same house - all these pairs (including the McGaurans) have been one in each. --bainer (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thebainer goes to the top of the class. I had forgotten the Ewings. Adam 15:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the Hill resignation, but in the case of the Gallop resignation the changes weren't premature. You compared the case to Carr's resignation. However, in the case of Carr, he announced his retirement, effective ten days later. This wasn't the case with Gallop. Gallop resigned immediately, hence the references in the media to "acting Premier Eric Ripper". Andrew Refshauge didn't serve as Acting Premier during the time between Carr's retirement announcement and the election of Morris Iemma. I think it's also acceptable for people to make edits to pages in certain cases where a change hasn't taken place:

• Where the change has been announced, and the result of that change is certain (ie. when someone announces a reshuffle or a retirement)
• Where, for all practical purposes, the change has already taken place, and the formality of the change is all that remains. For example, we will list people as being elected to represent a seat before the election is formally declared by the AEC, because we know that that seat has been won by that person, and there is little or no conceivable scenario in which they would not become the member for that seat in the very near future.

By reverting changes made in these scenarios, you're effectively leaving the Wikipedia article in a fantasyland where no change has taken place. If John Howard announces a reshuffle there has been a reshuffle. Indeed, if you read the text of his announcement of the reshuffle [1] it is clear that the reshuffle is meant to take effect immediately. To pretend that no change has been made reduces the value of Wikipedia for people to gain information. Braue 01:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• No, Gallop did not resign immediately. He resigned only yesterday when Carpenter was sworn in. Ripper was Acting Premier because Gallop was on holiday when he announced his retirement. So you see your edits (or whosever edits they were) were based on ignorance. It is safer to wait until things actually happen.
• No, it isn't acceptable to make "prophetic edits." Things only happen when they happen, and cannot be reported as having happened before they have actually happened. As it turned out, for example, Ripper did not become Premier, so the "Premier of WA" box that someone added to his page was premature as misleading.

Adam 04:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems (no Chaser editors please!). Can you recommend any suitable articles on the Australian politics? I see that poor Mark Latham got delisted as an FA (will his troubles ever end?) but would this article still count as A-Class?. How about John Howard? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Walkerma 04:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Gough Whitlam remains an FA, although I'm not sure it should (it looks in worse shape than Mark Latham). From the top of my head, some B-class articles might include Australian federal election, 2004, Australian electoral system, Copernican federalism, Women and government in Australia, the Parliament of Australia, and the Australian Greens. All are lacking in some way, but are "usable". There are several other quality politician articles as well, but none I can cite right now.--cj | talk 05:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added them here under Australian politics. Feel free to rank them or add new entries which you feel are at least B-Class level. Thank you! Gflores ^Talk 17:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Australia's alleged East Timor cover up

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

Foreign relations of Australia with East Timor perhaps, to tie in with Foreign relations of Australia. It could also be expanded to cover the whole history between the two places, I might be able to help with that. --bainer (talk) 05:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Names of templates

Please see the templates: Template:Electoral districts of South Australia Template:Electoral districts of New South Wales Template:Electoral Districts of New South Wales

The second two are copies of each other and one of these needs to go. Is the South Australia one right naming convention or wrong? It was the one I copied to create the NSW one. I "assumed" it should be Electoral Districts of...

I didn't really follow the naming convetion discussion really all that well.

Garrie 00:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Tasmanian elections nav box

I'd like to include something like the following, as a template, on each Tasmanian election page. I think it will make it easier to navigate through past elections. Anyone agree/disagree? Thanks -- Barrylb 04:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Elections of the Tasmanian House of Assembly	File:Tasmania flag.png
1979 | 1982 | 1986 | 1989 | 1992 | 1996 | 1998 | 2002 | 2006

Looks good to me. I hope it'll go all the way back to the first election though. Ambi 04:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem, here is a version with the full list as given on the parliament official site [2]. -- Barrylb 04:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Senators and house of reps by state

I've been categorising some Senators and Members of the House of Reps, and I noticed that people have started to sort these individuals by state. Rather confusingly we seem to have Category:New South Wales Federal politicians, Category:Federal politicians from Western Australia and Category:Federal politicians from Victoria, there seems to be an unwritten rule that we don't use the term federal in relation to the Commonwealth Government - so naming of these categories would seem inconsistent.

So is it important to identify these people by state above and beyond category:Person from X and category:Australian Senators? If so what is the best way to go about it? Would it be worth doing away with Category:Members of the Australian Senate and Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives and replacing them with Category:Australian Senators from state and category:Member for electorate X? There really should be consistency in the Categorisation, especially at the federal level.--Peta 05:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I would categorise Australian politicians by the House in which they serve, and the state in which they were born. Carmen Lawrence, for example, would go in Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives and Category:Politicians from Western Australia. Category:Federal politicians from Western Australia is probably over-categorising and can go in the bin.

Eventually, I think it would be good to break Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives into something like

Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives

Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives by division

Category:MHRs for Brand

Category:MHRs for Curtin

Category:MHRs for Fremantle

etc

Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives by name

Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives by name/A

Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives by name/B

etc

Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives by parliament

Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives in the 1st Parliament

Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives in the 2nd Parliament

etc

But this is probably overkill at the moment. Snottygobble 05:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that Drew is on the money with answering Peta's issue, but I'm not sure the second two categories would work - categories are already divided up by names by default, and categorising members by parliament would lead to a lot of categories for some of those that've been in office 30+ years (not to mention duplicating the relevant lists). Ambi 05:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point re: categorising by parliament; something similar has been adopted for American baseballers, with the exact result you've stated: long-serving baseballers end up in a ridiculous number of categories. e.g. Hank Aaron. I'll withdraw that suggestion. Snottygobble 07:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Should we roll out the by MHR by division and senator by state cats, and orphan the existing federal reps categories?--Peta 07:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• As a side note, the Senate and House of Reps categories aren't that big yet, but I get the feeling that is because they haven't been applied widely.--Peta 05:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Peta and I have started rolling out the MHR by division and senator by state cats. Unfortunately, I've been leaving articles in their original Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives/Category:Members of the Australian Senate cats, as I thought we should still have a category containing all members sorted by name; whereas Peta has been removing them. This is of course something we should have discussed earlier :-(. Can we get some discussion and consensus on how to handle this? Snottygobble 02:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I misread a diff; Peta hasn't been removing from their original cats. I'd still like discussion and consensus, as Donama has removed a few supercats as redundant; quite sensible, but possibly not what we want to achieve here. Snottygobble 02:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed some of the senators in SA have had the Category:Members of the Australian Senate for South Australia cat. This cat is a subcat of Category:Members of the Australian Senate so I started removing the latter, being superfluous, from some of the articles it was added to, but it looks like a job for AWB. What is the issue here? Why do we want to keep including both cats? — Донама 02:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the MHR and Senate supercats are pretty redundant with the division and state cats. On a difference note, the MHR for division cats are taking up quite a lot of space in NSW politicans, should the Senate and MHR cats go into some sort of consistently named sypercat?--Peta 02:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Australian federal politicians? — Донама 02:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I've used Category:Federal political office-holders in Western Australia, which is a subcat of Category:Political office-holders in Western Australia. Category:Politicians from Western Australia wouldn't have been appropriate, because this is for place of origin (i.e. it is a subcat of Category:People from Western Australia) rather than place of holding office. Category:New South Wales politicians probably should have a "place-of-origin" semantics too, although it obviously insn't being used that way. If you enforce a "place-of-origin" semantics on Category:New South Wales politicians, then your division cats should be taking up too much space in Category:Political office-holders in New South Wales, so why not create a Category:Federal political office-holders in New South Wales to solve your problem? Snottygobble 03:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

On the second thoughts, I'm not sure the MHR by division categories are necessary. They seem to create a lot of small categories, and largely duplicate the articles on the divisions themselves (which should all have lists of all members for that electorate by now). Ambi 03:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

How about historic divisions? I included one in NSW, should we include them all?--Peta 03:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think so; I included Coolgardie and Dampier. Snottygobble 03:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Basically, in the future hopefully wikipedia will be complemented by some really cool datamining software which depends on good organisation of categories to pull out lists of articles for a certain purpose. And we probably can't fully pre-empt what sorts of paths the researchers using these tools might want to take, but ideally all would be supported. So, for politicians they would search by both, nation, state/province, historical categorisation, by gender, by nationality, by political responsibility, political level in nation, major ideologies, etc.

Sorry I'm not going to suggest anything concrete here -- just putting the idea out that we don't have try and decide on which heirarchy is best for an topic, because probably multiple heirarchies are in order. Possibly the best approach to take is to think of the categories as tags (as in Technorati tags), except we don't use both tag A and tag B if A is a superset of B -- instead we just use B. But there could be quite a few tag-B-like tags! — Донама 04:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There's an argument for making "Members" an empty parent of both "Members by name" and "Members by State/Division", which would resolve any superset issue. But I expect there would be resistance to the "Members by name" part of that proposal. I think the consensus is for the parent to be empty; and I noticed Scott removing the parent category from a few articles too. Shall we confirm this decision? Snottygobble 04:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me.--Peta 04:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I've done the current MHR divisions for NSW, ACT, QLD and NT, so if anyone wants to take over, VIC and SA and the historic divisions still need to be done.--Peta 04:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this conversation, but started removing Category:Members of the Australian Senate from articles also in Category:Members of the Australian Senate for South Australia until Drew was on the ball and pointed out I should look here first. I saw a discussion about 8 months ago I think about being able to view all the articles under a set of categories, but I don't recall exactly where that thread was (possibly bugzilla). I think the tool server offered a similar interim capability. Breaking down senators by state is reasonable - 8 categories. Breaking the lower house makes nearly 200 categories, most of which have less than 10 members. Since it's almost done, I won't object. I tend to use categories when I'm browsing, but "What links here" and list articles if I'm searching, so smaller categories are not a problem for failing to find something. I do not think the "...by name" subtree outlined above is required—having the same first letter of their last name does not really make two MHRs more alike than all the others.--Scott Davis ^Talk 05:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus to empty Category:Members of the Australian Senate and Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives into their electorate subcategories? --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe so. Snottygobble 11:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Categorization of safe/marginal electorates

I had a discussion about what constitutes a safe/fairly safe/ marginal seat, so I thought I might copy this from Talk:Electoral district of Morialta.

I was referring to the wiki page for Morialta where it says "created in the 1998 electoral distribution as a moderately safe seat for the Liberal Party of Australia" should this be changed in peoples opinion? Timeshift 04:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, in 1998 at creation it was a 6.5% buffer to the Liberal party. I took this from the ABC classification for 0-5% being marginal, 5-10% fairly safe, and 10+% being safe. I also sometimes use 20%+ to be very safe. I haven't been cautioned about whether this is appropriate, but I'll send it to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics to see what anybody thinks.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Electoral_district_of_Morialta states that Morialta is a moderately safe liberal seat. With the electorate losing most of liberal-voting Magill and gaining the rest of labor-voting Paradise from Hartley at the last redistribution, and considering the 12% swing (2% higher than state average), I find a wanting for it to be rephrased but not sure how... and whether it would become a marginal seat or a moderately safe labor seat. I think classing a seat as marginal/a level of safeness is a good thing to have within the text of a wiki article. Timeshift 12:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Are these guidleines appropriate and NPOV? Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think categorising electorates on "safeness" is a bad idea. It's something that should appear in the text of the article but not in a category.--Peta 04:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh sorry, I didn't mean I created a category, I meant this was the description criteria that I used in the text in line with the ABC. I was wondering if these descriptions were POV?ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The best way to avoid the POV problem is to cite exactly who said it's a safe seat, in what context, and their criteria.--Peta 04:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Ok, I should probably start doing that sometime, although I saw that Ambi just seemed to use an ABC style thing also, so I just copied that for the 10-15 SA state seats that I did.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Preselection

This is probably not an Australian issue, but I know not where else to turn. I am shocked, shocked!, that preselection is a red link. I would have thought there'd be heaps to write about it. Is there another term it should be redirected to? Snottygobble 02:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

We have Primary election for the US equivalent, but nothing concerning our version. An Australia-specific article (as with the Italian primaries article) might make sense here, so as to avoid having to try and generalise across a whole variety of systems. Rebecca 04:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed primary election, but I didn't think a redirect would work because the US primaries are decided by a jurisdiction rather than a party. Snottygobble 04:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think its definately an article worth writing - you might want to call it electoral preselection in Australia -or something - so it's bias is obvious from the title - unlike the primary election article which should have a limited scope tag stuck on it.--Peta 04:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Not me; I lack the knowledge of internal party politics to do this one justice. Perhaps we should ask DarrenRay. ;) Snottygobble 05:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

2004 Division Results

I just added the 2004 results to the Division of Lalorpage, but I had problems trying to get party colours on the graph. So, should I keep doing this to the other division pages or not?144.137.44.115 00:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The particular template you have used does not support party colours. You will need to use a different template to achieve what you want. -- Barrylb 13:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

South Australian legislative elections

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

Fight Dem Back

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

Liaison?

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

Created Australian anarchists category

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

2006-7 Queensland Election

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

Joining WikiProject Australian politics

Hi guys Would like to join WikiProject Australian politics How do I do it? CatonB 09:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Add your name to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian politics#Participants (optional).
2. Have this page on your watchlist (optional).
3. Make insightful and articulate contributions to articles related to Australian politics.

Snottygobble 12:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Politics of Australia template

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

Getting 2006 SA election up to Featured Article status

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

Suggestion for article Australian Conservatism

Hello, I'm American so wouldn't know how to write such an article. I'm doing Disambiguation link repair - You can help!, and keep running into the term "conservative." There doesn't seem to be a Conservative party per se, and I can seldom (given the context) link to "The Coalition." I just link to the default -- Conservatism. Perhaps y'all should write something along the lines of American Conservatism and Canadian Conservatism, to give it the Australian context. Just a thought. --Ling.Nut 16:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

My oh my. I can't imagine the amount of opinion that would be put in to that. It would be good if done properly... Timeshift 16:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Dangerous, given the different nature of major parties in Australia - ie. whilst the Liberals/Nationals are nominally 'the conservatives' - the distinctions between the ALP and those parties ideologically are very blurred (save, I suppose, for issues of workers' rights.)

If done as a historical article, maybe. But as a political one - not so sure. Blackjack4124 11:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Election Results for Ryan Federal Electorate

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

Easton affair, et al

This is to advise wikipedians with an interest WA politics that I tried to change the Carmen Lawrence biog. article from a unverified Easton afffair rant. For example List of Australian political scandals contained [[Carmen Lawrence#Penny Easton affair|Penny Easton affair]] with more libel at Richard Court etc. But I am new here so criticism of my approach would be welcome.--Fred.e 00:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I remember when this material was first added a year or two ago. I remember thinking it was POV and there was way too much of it, but I didn't know anything about the subject, and back then we didn't have a WP:LIVING policy, so I left it alone. If I recall correctly, it read more like the work of a grieving relative of Easton than a smear by one of Lawrence's opponents, but either way it was inappropriate. Thanks Fred.e. Snottygobble 02:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Election Results for Blair and Dickson Federal Electorate

Just added the election results for the last federal election 2004 for Division of Blair and Division of Dickson LW77 15:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Division of Bonner, Division of Brisbane, Division of Bowman and Division of Capricornia also completed LW77 22:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to change Election boxes

I have a proposal to change the style of election boxes we use from the current one being used above to one that is very similar to the boxes one the British consituecncy pages. The boxes we are currently using are very cluncy to make and edit and they also look unprofessional on the actual pages. By contrast the British election boxes look professional and they are much easier to edit. I know the british style election boxes need to have 2pp results build into them but I am confindent that one of the editiors in the project could make such an edit to them.

PS I am currently aparting the british boxes to the Victorian electorates pages in roughly alaphbetical order. Aussie King Pin 11:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

PPS The current boxes as also way to big to be able to but historical results on the pages like they do for the British articles. Aussie King Pin 11:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

An election box including the 2 party preferred results,etc, and using the colours templates from this WikiProject can be seen at Marrickville by-election, 2005. JPD (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

To be honest I don't think that including only a two party preferred result is a good idea. The other template I've used isn't to bad to edit. I would actually like to put a sub-page on each Division page with previous results. This will take some time, and whenever i get bored with writing my thesis I'll get around to doing more historical results. I think regardless of what template you used, putting more than the most recent election result would make the page look crappy. LW77 13:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Besides the election box I have been using is consistant with the federal election boxes used on Results of the Australian legislative election, 2004. LW77 01:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

LW77 I know the election box you are using for the electorates at the moment is consistent with the election summary boxes but I am not aruging that the summary boxes should changed, only the electorate boxes; and yes I do find your election box find not hard to edit diffiently hard to make.--Aussie King Pin 07:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

OIC, umm well i actually think they look better. How about I get all the Qld ones done and then go onto the historical elections as a sub-page. I want to expand each electorate with alot more info. I think historical elections could be liked as sub-page/s LW77 08:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

LW77's boxes are actually too consistent with the summaries at the 2004 results page for my liking. The summary boxes have been (well) designed for that purpose, and at the very least need a bit more adapting for use with individual electorates. I do actually think the {{Election box}} style looks better, as well as being consistent with British and Canadian (and others?) election boxes, but it would be good to have some more opinions. As for ease of editing, creating, if we do decide to go ahead with the style LW77 is using, they could could made into actual Wikimedia templates. JPD (talk) 10:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well if we can get a better box going I'll change the other ones I've put up. Making a new template would be good. Its just that some of the summary ones I have seen don't use party colours. I also don't like summary boxes which don't list all the people seeking election. Including only the parties which are contesting an election would reduce the completness of the election. Especially if a sitting member has been unseated. I won't add anymore electorates results until we can get a consesus. I will just have to find another way to procrastinate while writing up my thesis. LW77 11:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

So far, I see the options to compare as the one at Marrickville by-election, 2005,something based on Division of Blair (at the very least, the last column should go), or the much smaller style at Electoral district of Bragg. Aussie King Pin's boxes at Electoral district of Altona were made before that style was set up to have all the colours. I haven't seen any boxes that don't list all the candidates. JPD (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Electoral district of Bragg while listing party affiliation it doesn't list the names of candidates. Sorry that what I mean't by not listing candidates LW77 12:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I see. I think the candidates should definitely be listed in an article about the election, but there might be a case for using smaller boxes on electorate articles, intended simply as a summary of the most recent election result. JPD (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What about a summary box on the divison page then on a sub-page give a complete result with historical elections as well. I'd like to get all the elections as far back as possible fro each divison somewhere on wiki LW77 18:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

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

Politician photos deleted

I notice that a fair few of the photos from the Federal politicians' pages have been deleted by Quadell, possibly as copyright violations? I know these are fair use, but I was of the understanding that we had permission from the Government to put these on Wikipedia. Is this correct, and if so, can we reupload them? JROBBO 05:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Permission is irrelevant these days, as we can no longer use photos if we only have permission to use them on Wikipedia. We may, however, be able to make legit fair use claims on them, which may let us keep them around. Rebecca 09:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Check out http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image_talk:Peter_Beattie.jpg - what a load of crap. Can I please get some assistance with replying to this unreasonable user? Timeshift 14:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Rebecca. I actually meant that with fair use AND permission that should be alright - is that so? It's actually very hard to get politicians' photos in Australia - as unlike in the US, photos taken for Government websites are not freely accessible. I have read somewhere that Adam Carr got permission from the Government and uploaded them as fair use as well - surely that would have been ok? As for Timeshift's problem I think this is why all our photos are being deleted - I think someone needs to explain the difficulties of getting politicians' photos. JROBBO 21:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the fundamental problem here is that by going on about having gotten permission, we're muddying the waters. We need to focus on making sure we have justifiable fair use claims for each and every politician image we did not take, and ignore anything about having gotten permission, since it's irrelevant. I think we also need to stress just how hard it is to get a free alternative in the rationales, to avoid stupid situations like that at Peter Beattie. Rebecca 02:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought the rationale used on Image talk: Peter Beattie.jpg was pretty good... Timeshift 04:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

...if someone isn't being an unreasonable git. Rebecca 04:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Me or him? Timeshift 10:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the fair use image police aren't budging... Image talk:Peter Beattie.jpg Timeshift 01:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a pic of big pete I took in person a few months ago if you would like me to up load it LW77 11:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Awesome! Upload it and let's have a looksee! Timeshift 11:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Here you go.. Have a Butchers LW77 14:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I was going to ask you to crop the image, but I just came across http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image_talk:Springborg.jpg - fan bloody tastic. The image police are out in force. Thanks very much for your efforts but one picture without the other is back to square one :-( Timeshift 16:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well i cropped alot of the image out. Didn't want to have a pic of me running around on wikki.. although big pete is a nice guy LW77 18:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is, it's more horizontal than vertical. Have a look at Queensland legislative election, 2006 and you'll see what I mean. Timeshift 19:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah yeah.. doesn't conform to the golden ratio. I'll see what other pics I have from that night LW77 08:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

hows this version? LW77 08:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheers heaps, I believe everything should be a'ok from now on :-) Timeshift 08:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I kinda think its a bit bizarre that State and Federal Govt pics don't have the same copyright as US federal govt pics LW77 11:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I blame the overzealous wikipedia image police. Timeshift 12:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Electorate categories

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics/Electorates#Electorate categories.

Userboxes

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

Australian Politics article that needs great expansion.

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

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

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

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

Where is everybody?

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

Father of the House

The listing of the longest-serving members of the Australian House of Representatives is pretty comprehensive and most MPs to have filled that role have a page. To better manage the succession boxes for many of these people, it would be good to use the subheading templates developed for these boxes.

My question is what sort of office is the title of Father of the House. A cursory look around other pages seems to indicate a lack of consensus. Is it an honorary title, a government office or a parliamentary office?

Any thoughts? - Kiwifruitboi 07:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a title, not an office. It is honorary in the sense that it has no obligations and is unpaid. And it is parliamentary, not governmental or party political. Hesperian 10:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

SA election FA

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

LGAs

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

Wikipedia Day Awards

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