Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian politics/Archive 4. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Australia: Politics Project‑class

	Australia portal WikiProject Australian politics 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
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This page is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by .

More eyes needed

Talk:Australian diaspora

Please help to improve the article. Uncle G (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, can we please keep an eye out for vandalism on Michael Atkinson - he's the most targeted SA MP on wikipedia. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Organ

I've done some improvement. Any feedback would be great. --Sumthingweird (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By-elections page

I would like to redo the list of Australian federal by-elections in the style of the list of United Kingdom by-elections. I have found the UK page to be much easier to use mainly because it (a) divides by-elections per parliament and (b) highlights especially significant by-elections, i.e. those that changed hands. Does anyone have an issue with changing this? Frickeg (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Good idea. Timeshift (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also in agreement. Out of curiosity how do the Canadians manage it? Orderinchaos 05:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of federal by-elections in Canada. Various designs can be seen at By-election#See also. Timeshift (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useful, missed Cook by-election, 1955 in Members of the Australian House of Representatives, 1954-1955.--Grahame (talk) 07:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happens when image sources are removed?

Andrew Evans and Kim Carr. Both images were uploaded by staffers of theirs, and both images appear to have been removed after they were nagged that verifiable source was needed. For Evans' case, the source link still exists, but the image is dead, for Carr's case, the source link itself is dead. It's not like Flickr images where a trusted user or bot can come along and add a tag to indicate that it has been observed that at the time of checking, that it was available for under the specified license. What to do in these situations? Timeshift (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeshift, the important thing is that you create a paper trail. So while they have the license page up, have them email OTRS to notify us of the licensing, or you can do so yourself, then an OTRS worker will check their website and confirm the license is valid. That way there will always be a record of the licensing. This is actually quite a common problem in general with material sourced from other websites as the websites will change over the time and the text or images may disappear but if there's a record of it with the Foundation then there shouldn't be any further problems. I just checked and we have an email from Carr's staff on July 24 releasing that image so that one should be okay. The ticket number is 2008072410004834 and if it's not noted on the image page already you can add it (sorry, I'm just heading out and don't have time to look at the image myself). I can't find anything on OTRS for Evans, though. Sarah 06:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sarah. Timeshift (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability questions

The following are articles I have come across where I am not sure that they meet the notability guidelines. However, some of them aren't cut and dried and I'm not overly familiar with deletion policy myself so I thought I'd raise them here first. They're all candidates for election who have failed to be elected.

Nick Beams - no sources, no apparent notability; failed candidate for the Socialist Equality Party
Justine Caines - leader of What Women Want; I'm unsure if her presidency of the Maternity Coalition is grounds for notability
Nola Fraser - I would say she's not notable as a Liberal candidate for Macquarie Fields, but perhaps as a whistleblower, although this seems to be WP:ONEVENT to me
Mia Handshin - unsuccessful Labor candidate for Sturt; I'm not sure about the conventions on awards such as Young South Australian of the Year
Jeannette Jolley - unsuccessful Democrats and Australian Progressive Alliance candidate, also author of several textbooks
Saeed Khan - Greens councillor in Marrickville, also unsuccessful candidate for state and federal elections
David McAlary - former president of the Liberty and Democracy Party
Ruth Russell - unsuccessful Democrats Senate candidate in SA 2007; protest info appears to be WP:ONEVENT
Eddy Sarkis - fairly straightforward, unsuccessful Liberal state election candidate
Michael Towke - WP:ONEVENT?

I just wanted to raise these here before I nominated them for deletion, as I'm unsure of the conventions in certain cases. Thanks, Frickeg (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just my opinion, but I feel Handshin has definately done enough to be noteable. Russell to a lesser extent but still noteable. Timeshift (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By-election resources?

Does anyone know if there is an online source for by-elections in state parliaments, in particular South Australia? Timeshift (talk) 06:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a complete list between 1890 and 1964 in a book here, but I don't know where one would get a list either side of that. My book also covers WA and Tasmania, and we've accounted for all WA by-elections since 1890 in the member lists. Orderinchaos 07:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Combe

I suddenly remembered that the fourth ALP figure at right in my pic is David Combe on whom I have penned a stub which some of you might care to hack around and categorise, etc. (I'm still searching for the doc which precisely dates this pic.) Cheers Bjenks (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categories: "scandals" versus "controversies"

We've already got Category:Political controversies in Australia, but in the last few days Category:Political scandals in Australia has been added. When I questioned the editor on this (User talk:Hugo999#Political scandals in Australia), he pointed out that this was to fit into Category:Political scandals by country. Now I see a few options here:

The new scheme (two different categories) stays in place. Pretty stupid IMHO, because the difference between a "scandal" and a "controversy" is a POV judgement.
Go with the flow, and merge Category:Political controversies in Australia into Category:Political scandals in Australia. I don't like it, because "scandal" is far more POV, but it fits an existing convention.
Buck the flow, merge Category:Political scandals in Australia into Category:Political controversies in Australia, and add Category:Political controversies in Australia to Category:Political scandals by country. i.e. every other country has "scandals", but Australian Wikipedia editors opt for the more neutral "controversies".
Try for a revolution: endeavour to get Category:Political scandals by country renamed to Category:Political controveries by country, and all other countries to rename "scandals" to "controversies". I for one don't have the time or energy to fight that battle.
(edited to add) make "scandals" redirect to "controveries". (Is this even possible?)
(edited to add) make "scandals" contain the subcategory "controveries", and nothing else.

I think we should do something because option 1 (no change) is the worst. Personally I'd like to go with option 3 (buck the flow). Thoughts? Peter Ballard (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Australia alone have to be so prim as to term a scandal a mere controversy? Seems a clear enough distinction to me without any undue POV. Maybe you should first try rewriting the respective WP articles :) Cheers Bjenks (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]