Talk:2006 South Australian state election/Archive 2

Scope of article

This article is overlong (the software flags it as worthy of a possible split). Part of the problem is that it aims to be a comprehensive political history of South Australia. No amount of excellent research and good writing will make such a broad article encyclopaedic - the casual reader will struggle to find the useful bits. I humbly submit the structure of the New South Wales general election, 2007 articles as an alternative. Joestella 11:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think there is too much background, though I can forgive that. One obvious split is to put the "Electoral Background" into an article of its own because it's relevant to all SA elections. But also I think the "Legacy" is too long, and should have stopped after the two sentences on Evans' election as Liberal leader. If we want a running commentary on state politics we could have articles like South Australian Politics 2006 and South Australian Politics 2007, but it doesn't belong here. It's time to draw a line under the 2006 election and move on. Rocksong 11:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking South Australian general election, 2006 to cover the system, candidates, results; South Australian general election campaign, 2006 for issues and campaign-trail info and South Australian election pendulum, 2002 for the pre-election pendulum. A lot of the other stuff, party histories, what happened next and future reforms to the electoral system can go on the relevant existing pages. Joestella 12:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: South Australian general election campaign, 2006 exists based on material from this article but may be deleted soon. Joestella 18:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

While I can understand that you have an ongoing campaign with relation to article length and the need for campaign articles, your method of tackling this issue is not by any means acceptable. Please seek consensus before completely rewriting or pulling apart an article. Orderinchaos 16:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia will only be improved through frequent and thorough editing and improvement. I am not interested in submitting my changes for the approval of those with an emotional attachment to the article as it stands. Joestella 16:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no emotional attachment to the article. But as a featured article, and having not sought any kind of consensus to change it, you have no mandate to effectively delete hundreds of hours of people's hard work and rewrite as you see fit. That is saying "I am better than all of youse", which is *not* a healthy or productive attitude to bring on board here. Orderinchaos 16:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm better than "all of youse". What a ridiculous response to Wikipedia being edited. The whole point of Wikipedia is that it is constantly edited. In editing this article, I read and digested the work already done, and applied a new structure. I do not need your permission to do this. And I'm not interested in a conversation with contributors that goes "I think we should cut it down and copyedit" "This is a Featured Article, it doesn't need your self-imposed concepts". Joestella 16:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out WP:BRD. You've both burned through B & R, so now it is time to discuss. I will protect this article from editing (and it will be my own wrong version no doubt) if I see more edit warring here without discussion of the changes being proposed.--Isotope23 16:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it hilarious how Joestella complains about others alleged "self imposed concepts" and left cabals (he really doesnt know the political range of those who have issues with his editing), when we have to for some reason put up with his "self imposed concepts" - his bad faith editing, snide comments, utter refusal to seek consensus on anything, long term edit warring, monologuing and other unWikipedian behaviour. When two of us decided that we were going to compromise on a few things in order to get a few things done, he then goes and tries to rewrite an entire article which has been featured by the wikipedia community and took 3 months to get there, if you read this talk page. Featured articles are by no means sacred but theyre not featured for no reason. Joestella needs to recognise that the FA star is won by appealing to the Wikipedia community, not to his own personal standards, he is welcome to go and start a project at Wikia where he can write whatever he wants about any subject without fear or favour to what anyone thinks. Wikipedia however has core policies however. DanielT5 16:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Self imposed concepts" is a quote from another editor. I have no idea what it means. Joestella 17:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

One thing to remember is that while a featured article is by no means "locked" from editing, it was featured for a reason and major editing should be done with great care. It's always better to err on the side of caution.--Isotope23 16:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have no idea how this thing got to featured status. In all seriousness, it is one of the worst-written, unfocussed articles I've come across. Comments below suggest that this is the result of writing by committee and attempting to please the wider FA-reviewing audience. Joestella 17:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You haven't been around Wikipedia long enough if you think this one is that level of bad :) Some of the ones that come up every day are atrocious, believe me, especially the biographical ones. And there's the entire case of a past iteration of Winthrop, Western Australia which had a photograph of a phone box, a cable pillar, a post box and a "typical Winthrop alleyway" (the latter of which has inexplicably survived even to the present), as well as some fascinating commentary which I found worthy of WP:BJAODN inclusion (a great page if you've never been there). I actually agree with you to some extent on your last point - and you might be surprised to find some of the editors who most strongly contributed to this article would agree as well. That's one reason why I suggested you might want to wait for more input - I think the consensus will be to modify the article in a way which improves it but doesn't fundamentally alter its balance. The FA reviewers aren't stalking over every contribution at the moment, our mission should be to improve the article to a standard where we as a community can be happy with it, but it doesn't lose its accreditation at the same time. Orderinchaos 18:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Balance in what sense? Joestella 18:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, respecting what is already there and who put it there and trying to improve on it (while recognising some bits, as you and I seem to agree on, really do need attention in terms of whether they should be there or not), rather than assuming the whole thing is wrong, it stinks and is not likeable without even approaching the relevant editors on their talk pages or on any of the community noticeboards, which is a very hostile way of starting off with an article which, whatever you may think of process as opposed to outcomes, did pass the community's highest bar. Why should the people who worked on it be robbed of that just because one person thinks their work is not worthy? Let's help and assist them to keep it there instead - and some of the ideas you've raised and I've raised (note some, not even most) will work towards that end. I look forward to constructive dialogue which includes as many WP:AUSPOL people as possible and has the aim of enhancing this article's correlation with core policies and with grammatical and logical-construct standards. Orderinchaos 18:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The community's highest bar, from what I can see, was the sign-off of five users, yourself included, plus one editor withdrawing her objections solely because she didn't want to 'stand in the way'. It's a poor article and the unearned FA should not have the perverse effect of preventing it from being fixed. No-one on Wikipedia should think themselves robbed when their work is edited - or even removed. I certainly wasn't approached by those seeking to completely delete the WA and SA campaign articles, since notification isn't compulsory. And prior notification for all edits would be too time-consuming.

There is no need to balance between what is there and the new stuff. Our only criteria should be quality and accuracy. Agreed? Joestella 18:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Problems with this article

I have written a new version of this article, which can be viewed at User:Joestella/SA 2006. The new version substantially addresses a number of concerns:

1. The article, at 99 kilobytes, is way too long
2. The article contains ponderous writing, to say the least. From the first paragraph, we see sentences like "The centre-left Australian Labor Party, in government since 2002 under 44th Premier Mike Rann, gained six Liberal seats and a 7.7 percent statewide two-party preferred swing,[1] resulting in the first Labor majority government since the 1985 election with 28 of the 47 House of Assembly (lower house) seats, a net gain of five seats." and "The centre-right Liberal Party of Australia, led by Rob Kerin, regained a former independent seat with a net loss of five seats, leaving 15 seats, which based on 47 seats is the lowest Liberal result in any South Australian election." Bottom line, it's poorly-written.
3. There's a blank section called Elections since 1965. While the 2002 and even 1997 elections provide context, "elections since 1965" do not.
4. There are length paragraphs explaining who the parties are. Why go through this on every election article? These can all be removed and replaced with links to the party articles.
5. The electoral system section is longer than the corresponding section in the main state electoral systems article. It contains pictures of federal ballot papers, which is a stretch. It contains esoterica, such as the Governor's name and the concept of writs. Worst of all, its scope seems to be as far back as 1856. And the standard of writing is so poor as to admit inaccuracies: "As elections have fixed four-year terms"
6. The so-called election background only concerns the independents, when in fact the main issue facing voters was the suitability for office of the major parties. Even the independent info is mainly about Peter Lewis whose role in the 2006 election was insignificant. The 'background' contributes nothing to an understanding of the 2006 election.
7. The campaign section is long enough to merit its own article. As it stands, it makes unnecessary historical detours "(Labor cabinet minister King O'Malley dropped the 'u' in 1912 to "modernise" it as per American English)" and stuff about what happened after the election re Kerin's leadership. This is not the place to discuss it. The statement "Martin Hamilton-Smith was considering mounting a leadership challenge, however, he withdrew on 14 October 2005 (probably for the sake of the impression of party unity) and subsequently resigned or was pushed from the opposition frontbench." really sums it up: irrelevant, incomplete (who did replace Kerin then?) and poorly worded.
8. Under issues, there's more poor writing and questionable inclusions: "Continued delays by Labor to improve the safety of the Britannia roundabout were focused on by the Norwood Liberal candidate." I'm from a bigger state, sure, but was this really a big deal on the SA campaign trail.
9. Why does this section have a Rann gets results image when the image doesn't relate to policy?
10. "December 2006 saw the Domestic Partners bill pass which provides greater recognition to same sex relationships on a range of issues such as superannuation." Again - poor writing and not a campaign trail event.
11. "Electoral reform policies received little attention" along with two other issues identified by the editors. Why are they here?
12. The three opinion poll tables could be condensed into one - and/or moved to a separate page. The current arrangement lacks order and resembles a noticeboard.
13. The election of the speaker of the house is not part of the election result.
14. The inclusion of minor and joke tickets in the results table just makes it harder for readers to pick out the important information.
15. What on earth does the 2PP seat gain/loss mean?
16. The overlong sentences and odd inclusions - did you know that Billy Hughes served 51 years in parliament? - continue through the results section.
17. "Despite expectations before the election of a safe Labor win, Hanna defeated the Labor candidate by 0.6 percent of the vote with the aid of Liberal preferences" is unclear and thus inaccurate.
18. There's no pre-election pendulum, a table which would provide insight into the context of the election. The post-election pendulum is less relevant because a redistribution is held after each election.
19. The pictures of the state electorates are unclear, especially to non-South Australians.
20. Federal electorates are shown in one of the images. Why?
21. "Almost 40 percent of voters deserted the major parties for Nick Xenophon and the minor parties" - this suggests a minor party swing of +40%. It was more like +10%.
22. That Dignity for Disabled won 506 and 492 votes in Wright and Bright seems to be non-notable.
23. The entire "Legacy" section, in addition to being badly titled, is by definition irrelevant to the article itself.

There. I have no idea how this thing got to be a featured article. I hate to pick it apart like this, it's a waste of time and will no doubt engender hostility. But apparently I can't make the improvements myself. I look forward to everyone's comments. Joestella 17:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Many of these issues could be achieved without a rewrite. I agree that some sections that were clearly *not* related to the 2006 or 2002 election (one would expect the current to cover the former and its fallout) or in fact anything to do with it at all, should ultimately go. One of the issues above I in fact took on at the time this article was reaching FA (I couldn't see the point in the 44th). I would disagree about Peter Lewis, as he provided a lot of backdrop to the preceding year or two, but himself really wasn't much of a player *in* it. With a government relying on independents to stay in power, it is necessary to view those independents in context of what could well have happened. Some of the points, however, related to the electoral system and the parties were actually necessary to put in in order for the article to gain featured status, were written specifically for this article, and although I think they are excessive, removing them would result in downgrading of the article. Essentially, it required that this article stand on its own two feet, as if it were in a printed encyclopaedia.

The lead needs to carefully summarise the article and stand in its own right, and its present form was agreed by several people after literally four days of hammering it out, and if you'd seen the original, you'd have to accept this was superior to what was previously there. I think my views on this are shaped by the experience of going through that one, and then my own a few months later. FA's are tricky work and require an insane amount of background. As I don't think we're planning to get 2002 or any other elections to quite that level, it's harmless for *that* content to stand, while revising some of the other stuff that really doesn't need to be there (King O'Malley being a classic one). Orderinchaos 17:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, I am not interested in hearing about the FA process. All it seems to produce is fierce loyalty to an version that is replete with mistakes, poor writing and excess. An encyclopaedia is a series of short, specific articles, not multiple views of the same content through a wide variety of prisms. Joestella 17:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted, but the fact this article has attained it and hence, whatever you or I may think about parts of it, it has been recognised by the Wikipedia community as being among the best in its collection, and the fact that major changes to this article may see it lose its status, you can understand why there is something of a wariness in making very large changes to it. Please think of the others in this community who spent 3 months of their time to get this article there. We can improve on this, I agree with you. But we don't need to do it disruptively, and it is possible to take on board a number of opinions. I don't doubt some of the others who worked on this article and got it to FA may also feel it can be improved, and with time and 3 months of reflection can come back to it with fresh eyes. They should be given the chance to do that - you started editing this at 1:00am Adelaide time on a weeknight just after Easter, not a good time to get anything moving quickly. As I said, as an article which has attained FA, it's our job to keep it there, even when making changes to it - and it is doable. I can see right away from your growing list that I agree with about 1/3 of the issues, partially agree with a few others and disagree with the rest, and I'm neither a South Australian nor particularly hung up on the status of this election (most of the ones I agree with you on relate to *completely* irrelevant trivia). Most of the ones we disagree on relate to your personal views on what should, or should not, be in an election article. I think legacy is actually quite important - you wouldn't have an article on World War II without discussing the Marshall Plan or the beginning of the Cold War, for example. Orderinchaos 17:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You miss the point on "Legacy". The current state of SA politics is no more a legacy of the 2006 election than the Marshall Plan was a legacy of the Battle of Stalingrad. Readers interested in party histories, electoral systems or the day-to-day of SA politics should be directed to other, more specific articles.

Don't kid yourself that because of the FA vote, there is a high-quality article here to protect. It's just long and well-referenced, that's all. A close reading yields dozens of clumsy, overlong and incorrect sentences. Joestella 17:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, you challenged me to answer each of your 23 points, so here goes:

1. Not particularly relevant - far longer exist on Wikipedia, and this is a featured article, so necessarily has more bulk (regardless of whether I think that's a good thing or not.
2. While some rewording here and there wouldn't hurt, much of that was introduced to explain the entire article in the lead paragraphs. I agree that 44th is irrelevant (I contested it at the time) while the wording (I'd have gone with "seat while losing five", and dropping "based on 47 seats" as the lead has it already) could be improved in the second quote.
3. I haven't right now the opportunity to look at it but it sounds like a valid issue. Why on earth would a 1965 election have anything to do with events in 2006 when most voters then wouldn't even be alive today? - noted one sentence where it is relevant (10 of 14 elections one) but any other mention elsewhere probably is not.
4. Necessary for FA. I don't like it either, but them's the breaks sometimes.
5. Necessary for FA *but* you have some valid concerns about its length and scope. It is not necessary to know how a system evolved beyond simple statements, what it is is far more important. Last point correct re grammar (I am a self-confessed grammar nazi though.)
6. I disagree with all points raised, although it's not beyond improvement.
7. I disagree with most points raised, although I agree on unnecessary historical detours.
8. Disagree - major factor influencing key (and rather overreported) marginal seat which did in the end go somewhat against the norm for this election.
9. Disagree - totally relevant to campaign.
10. Disagree - although grammar needs work.
11. They should be there, but receive the same level of attention they got during the campaign - i.e. little. The fact that it was actually aired a short time before the election could well have influenced some people's view of the current government, and the proposals are easily verifiable.
12. Agree - bit glitzy. Opinion polls aren't *that* important, although do need documentation in an article of this type and especially in an FA.
13. Disagree - immediate result of election dynamics.
14. Disagree - as long as the mention is appropriate, as the parties did in fact run and did collect votes, however few, and the events are verifiable.
15. No answer as I am beyond actually reviewing (seriously, it's 1:54am here.) Will edit later.
16. Some of these such as the one you identified clearly need revision and excision.
17. This is verifiable against official returns, and against press reports.
18. I prefer statements to pendulums - this article did actually have a MASSIVE pendulum at one stage which totally distracted from the content of the article.
19. Agree somewhat, but they were designed outside the scope of this article, and technical images of this type are hard to generate. I know someone who does that kind of stuff but he has a lot on his plate at the moment.
20. See answer to 19.
21. Needs revision on figures or clarification of context but the basic statement is fine.
22. Notable as was a result of the election.
23. Disagree - see comments made earlier re followons in general.

All totally my opinion of course, just as yours is totally your opinion. We'll wait a bit and see what others think. Orderinchaos 17:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The elements of the page that are "necessary for FA" but compromise the brevity, clarity or quality of the article should be removed. Who cares if five Wikipedians think it's a comprehensive guide to South Australian democracy if it's useless to the lay reader? Joestella 18:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've done a little bit of work to the least controversial sections. I'm looking to the above list and some of the things we clearly can agree on - mostly the fluff. If you are willing to not make massive textual alterations at this stage, I'd be interested to see what you can do with the newspaper polling results etc (your point 12 I believe) - they are actually a fair portion of the 99k bulk. Orderinchaos 18:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to do it right away, but something like what I made for NSW would look better... New South Wales general election campaign, 2007#Polling Joestella 19:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Joestella I agree that there are legitimate concerns regarding this article and a lot needs to be trimmed and refined; I do not think anyone will question that. But the extent to which you want to do it (as shown in your draft) is going too far. Slaughter the partisan legacy, cut back a lot of the banal detail, hide as many unsightly tables as possible and tinker with the prose. michael ^talk 01:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides my earlier comments on "Electoral System" and "Legacy" (which I stand by), I'd like to comment on FA and background. If lots of background (especially party background) is required for FA status, then the FA process is flawed. When going into any subject, there is a certain amount of assumed knowledge, which is is assumed that most people who are interested in the subject will already know. For instance a recent featured article, The Turk (a supposed chess playing machine), does not give the rules of chess as background. It doesn't even explain how a knight moves, even though it solved the Knight's tour puzzle. Why? Because nearly anyone interested will already know, and those that don't can follow the links. By the same token, nearly everyone who is interested in South Australian elections already knows who the parties are, and those who don't can follow the links. Rocksong 03:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Having said that, I'd rather not do radical changes before we get a consensus. Rocksong 03:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I really think you should heed this, Joe. Orderinchaos 08:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

Until the others get here, neither you nor I have any right at this point, esp given the events tonight, to turn the relevant sections of the article inside out. We can agree on some minor and uncontroversial edits, and I think *anyone* would agree the polling section is an eyesore and is taking up way too many kilobytes, but leave the major changes for now. Note that I've also agreed to the same, so nobody is censoring your right to speak up - as Isotope said, we should be discussing this, not just going in there and doing. Orderinchaos 19:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

On the basis of the above, however, I do propose we completely remove the last two paragraphs of Legacy. One looks like a Labor press release and the other has been adequately covered in the first paragraph - it is sufficient to say the leader changed (whether or not we agree the article should even say that). The section reads fine without them. Thoughts? Orderinchaos 19:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"The events tonight" over-dramatises it. And remove as much of legacy as you like. Joestella 19:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Polling & legacy

Anyone else notice that someone has been updating the poll figures well after the election? And has anyone besides the author/s actually read the legacy section? Not only is it a partisan guide to the last 12 months of SA politics, it also makes no attempt to link the events it describes to the actual article subject. Joestella 19:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I must admit I'm not terribly observant re the polling. For that I'd say sources should be checked and if what's there now disagrees with what the figures should be, they should be fixed. (If that requires access to Australian newspapers that are no longer online, I can *probably* get it off Factiva as long as it wasn't a graphic.) As for the legacy, it's just lost about 60% of its bulk, I moved the biggest section to the Martin Hamilton Smith talk page so people can decide what is the most appropriate way to incorporate it somewhere other than here (it was well referenced, needed some formatting work, but definitely was not a consequence of the 2006 election.) Orderinchaos 19:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Kill it. It is partisan and irrelevant to the election itself. michael ^talk 01:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection and edit war

Guys, the article is correctly protected now as the edit war is neither purposefull nor productive. How about leaving it as it is (note that I haven't read it ), copy to Talk:South Australian general election, 2006/temp. That can then be edited and, once consensus here is reached, it can replace the main article. This way any issues stay out of public sight until we have a better article, rather than a battleground. Just being an independant view on the way forward, I have no opinion on the article content. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have incorporated some of the concerns expressed into the draft I made yesterday and moved it from my user space to the talk page Talk:South Australian general election, 2006/temp as suggested by Peripitus. I have re-read it and can't see why it would be viewed as partisan. I would ask that other users add {{fact}} and {{POV-statement}} inline tags where necessary, or copyedit themselves.

My edit presupposes the need for a separate campaign article (similar to the consensus on NSW '07 and Vic '06) and deliberately ignores the supposed FA imperative of outlining the state's electoral system and history. If you disagree with these presuppositions, please don't express this on /temp - set up something at Talk:South Australian general election, 2006/temp2 (or wherever) so that editors favouring a shorter article have the opportunity to develop the best possible candidate for inclusion. Joestella 12:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look and even done some small edits myself. But on further reflection my opinion, FWIW, is that the new article it too radically different and throws away too much good work; and that instead a better way to go is to incrementally edit the existing article. I think the concerns can be divided into 2 parts: the small style changes (which includes removing obviously useless stuff like Billy Hughes), and the arguments over which entire sections need to be deleted or severely pruned. I wonder if we can unprotect the article so that the minor changes can be done, on the agreement that no major deletions will be done until a consensus is reached. Rocksong 12:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Except for the removal of the campaign and issues sections, the old and new versions aren't all that different. The /temp version is tighter, and more focussed on the election itself. Sadly, the "too much good work" of the old version is mostly extraneous stuff. Joestella 12:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"incrementally edit the existing article" is exactly what I think we should be doing. The funny thing is we actually all agree that there are problems with the existing article. I don't believe, however, in binning large quantities of work which has been appropriately referenced and verified. The main issue is tightening. Yes, the grammar and sentence structure needs work. Some of the tables are huge and add little. Some irrelevant facts have made their way into the article (we've cleaned out the most egregious thus far). I do believe the electoral system needs to be covered, and at absolute minimum the last paragraph of the original article section needs to be there in some form, although I agree that the 1800s stuff and the Governor really doesn't add up to much in value. I am also in favour of a half way point between the candidates/parties section that was there originally, and the one there now. The one there now lacks detail, lacks references and could be held to be partisan. I think we should go back to the original on that, see what changes were actually made or proposed, and discuss the value of them, or alternative changes (which I'd be happy to forward and propose). When I get time tomorrow or Saturday I'll have a go at making a userspace version based on the existing, but addressing the concerns we have raised. Orderinchaos 12:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You talk a lot about my supposed partisanship. You think you know my politics, your own are made clear on your userpage. Why not lay your cards on the table and add the {{POV-statement}} inline tags in the /temp version so I can address your concerns? Joestella 13:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

ignoring grahame's pointless comment, i did some more work on the Talk:South Australian general election, 2006/temp page, added an image. it's looking really good. the campaign article South Australian general election campaign, 2006 still needs more on the issues ... preferably from sources other than the govt's website. ChampagneComedy 17:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Changes to parties/independents section

One key concern I had, and I only realised it this morning, relates to changes made last night which have not been subject to revert to the parties and independents section. They actually change the characterisation of the election and its players and remove key facts and valid references from the article. At least three of these removals could be argued to come from a partisan standpoint. While we should present the best article possible, we should also respect readers' ability to discern what they want to read and give a complete but not excessive story of what did happen - if users want to skip, that is the purpose of the section headings. The original was far from perfect, and I have many ideas to improve on it (mainly grammar and wording), but is better than the present version. I think that if we are to work on it, we should return to those paragraphs or at worst have both side by side and decide what to do with it, although I'm happy to accept many of Joe's *other* non-reverted changes as improvements, and I'm sure others would agree. Orderinchaos 10:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected, lecture

I unprotected so that this article could move forward, and within two hours I see a major revert, and one that is clearly partisan with respect to the previous debate, with no discussion here. This may well be in line with community consensus; I don't know. But the fact that it hasn't been discussed here first disturbs me. If someone reverts back again, or I see any other sign of this dispute being played out in article space, I'll be reprotecting and I won't be sticking my neck out for this article in future. Please guys, tread very carefully for a while - this is neither the time nor the place to be bold. Hesperian 13:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The article in its previous form looked nothing like the article that went through the months of Featured Article reviewing, and was not worthy of the title Featured Article. The featured article process was the biggest concensus one could want. Nobody complained about this article, people simply ignored it once they saw Joestellas hands getting all over it. Timeshift 13:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Version 0.7

I decided to hold this article for this release, as it is a little too specialised. I believe there are many more important SA articles we will need to include first. It will be automatically reviewed for the next offline release. Thanks, Walkerma 03:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

eek

That table was not in the WP:LEAD when this article passed review; it's really unsightly and too much detail for the lead, and there are incorrect WP:HYPHENs in the lead where they should be WP:DASHes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What does the 2206-102006-10 in the table in the lead refer to? Is that supposed to be October 2006? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

FA status does not mean the article cannot change. The results table and leaders table are viewable at first click of the page. This is the design for all SA elections, and all federal elections. As for 2006-10, not 2206-10, views of previous elections should give off another clue. Timeshift (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you planning to leave the table in the lead? It's unsightly and a lot of detail for the lead; several of the other tables in the article are distorted on my browser. The 2006-10 is unclear; I have no idea what it's referring to. I fixed several MOS issues, but there is still an inconsistent uses of numbers (see WP:MOSNUM). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Haven't received any other complaints. Timeshift (talk) 09:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

WHat browser is the 2006-10 turning up on? I'm looking in Firefox 2.0 and am not seeing it (unless it's already been rectified). Orderinchaos 10:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, found it. Changed it to "October 2006". Orderinchaos 14:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistent hyphenation of two party, I believe it should be hyphenated, some are, some aren't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

In the "Post-election pendulum" section, there are pictures and charts that are running off the screen; can someone fix the layout? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Strange how only you have issues... Timeshift (talk) 09:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia is the deputy FA coordinator, I think we probably should go with what she says on this one (especially since it's such a minor point). Orderinchaos 10:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well isn't that fantastic. Fine, rip apart the article, see if I care. Timeshift (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're overreacting just a tad - she's talking about a hyphenation of one word in a few places, and a picture which needs slimming, both are quite achievable with little consequence to the article except improved readability. The table's more difficult an undertaking - I was addressing my comment to this half of the conversation though. Orderinchaos 11:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about dashes, it's the other stuff. But i'm not in a good mood which doesn't help. Timeshift (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just want to place on the record that I take no issues with the changes that have been made up to this point. Timeshift (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverted the edit where the editor decided to non-standardise the table from all SA and federal elections by bolding all parties, not just the winner in the 2PP field, and centre all party names. Timeshift (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 15, 2007

Reversion of vandals appreciated. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 05:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have however unprotected it as per Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection - noting it is a guideline but it does state The Main Page featured article is rarely semi-protected. However, it is recognised that there are some extreme circumstances in which semi-protection can be introduced for a limited amount of time.--Matilda ^talk 06:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This article was only move protected, which is done for every article that appears on the main page. Woody (talk · contribs) has restored the protection. - auburnpilot talk 22:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Bias

Seems awfully biased for a featured article. FenderTele^Criticise 09:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It went through months of reviews during the FA process. Don't dare make such baseless accusations without providing some examples of such. Timeshift (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If there are allegations, we can hear them and then decide what to do about them. It was something of a landslide election, with the opposition party being reduced to under one quarter of the parliament, so the facts themselves naturally bias towards the victor, but if there's any undue weight issues or whatever we can fix them. Probably best to provide examples and links. Orderinchaos 12:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

FWIW his first userbox is the Liberal Party supporter one. Of course this doesn't mean much, but perhaps those not too familiar with this election and who support the Liberals could see this as an article with some natural bias per OiC comments above. Timeshift (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I had another read of the article, and yes, I guess it is just my support of the Liberal Party that got in the way of my judgements. It was late at night when I posted that comment, and as Orderinchaos said, the facts would obviously sway towars the ALP, and I mistook that for bias. Sorry FenderTele^Criticise 22:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

All good. Thanks for clarifying. Timeshift (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the article is biased but I can't see the merit in having it as a featured article of the day. It's pretty second division subject matter - even in an Australian context. Albatross2147 (talk) 04:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Mind you, many of the featured articles of the day are on very esoteric and narrow subjects. Orderinchaos 06:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Was he sacked?" "No, worse, transferred to Adelaide!" (laughter) -- Frontline (Australian TV series). Peter Ballard (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

And John Safran too - "Live in New York once. Live in Northern California once. Never live in Adelaide, it's a hole." :) Orderinchaos 06:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

And thanks to the image deletionists, we now have some genuine bias on an FA. Wikipedia shoots itself in the foot again! Well done to all concerned. The encyclopedia has indeed improved greatly thanks to the efforts of such persons. Note sarcasm. Timeshift (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia contradicts itself again

I seem to recall creating the 2010 state election which had a fixed date which was deleted, yet let's take a gander at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian federal election, 2010. Wikipedia contradiction strikes again. Love it. Timeshift (talk) 08:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The lack of any response is damning and an indictment on wikipedia. I will be recreating the page at my next convenient time. Timeshift (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Posting anything on an article talk page hardly anyone watches a week before Christmas is probably the explanation for the trouble in getting a response, let alone within 31 hours. Orderinchaos 19:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, you have a good point there OiC. However, some admins may have trouble explaining why they deleted the election page. FenderTele^Criticise 20:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It was, from what I can tell, deleted nearly two years ago after someone placed a proposed deletion tag on it and no-one contested it.[1] Looking at the content of the page, I'm not surprised it went the way of the dodo. Its entire content read as follows: "State elections for both houses of parliament will occur on the 18th of March 2010 which will also coincide with a referendum to abolish or reform the upper house. [2]" Orderinchaos 20:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hardly the point and you know it. Pages/stubs don't get deleted for lack of content. I recall raising the issue on the SA 2006 talk page (now in the archives) and didn't bother participating in the PROD process once I realised it would be futile. WP contradictions. Timeshift (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

See criteria for speedy deletion A1. Substubs can indeed be deleted under Wikipedia's guidelines without even the need for discussion (stubs are another matter). Orderinchaos 22:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't find 'substub' on the page. This btw is the most superficial excuse for a contradiction on wikipedia that i've seen during my time on wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:SUBSTUB for a definition. A1 covers it, though. Orderinchaos 23:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested in the claim that you raised it, but am struggling to find it. No user talk page, article talk page or project talk page edited by yourself anywhere in that timeframe even mentions the article or your feelings about it, unless I have missed something that's been posted months after the fact. I even checked deleted contribs. I am quite happy to discuss this in good faith, but I think we can do without the unsubstantiated allegations and epithets about Wikipedia's alleged failings. Orderinchaos 23:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I am also unable to find the discussion, but I do recall that there was one somewhere. I recall the reason not being because it was too short, but because it was too far away from the (fixed date) election and I even recall WP:CRYSTAL thrown at me. That is beside the point anyway. I am also happy to accept good faith individually, but not as a whole. I think it is extremely poor to delete the fixed-date state election but to keep the variable-date federal election, both years away. Any further clarification is just semantics. Timeshift (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally I see nothing stopping you from recreating, so there should be no problem. The one for the next Victorian election (2010) may be of use as we got that one to survive AfD from a near-certain delete consensus. Orderinchaos 00:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Thus the second comment made on this subject on this talk page. I was simply replying. Timeshift (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

ALP South Australia

I'm in support of state pages for the major parties, but a) created at the same time and b) based on facts, not some random crap spouting that the state and federal Labor Parties formed in 1891, and the so-called "policies" section below it. Timeshift (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Also the name should be the name of the division. Several possibilities exist - South Australian Labor Party, Australian Labor Party (South Australian Branch) or Australian Labor Party (South Australian Division). The second is the most correct, but it may sound to overseas people like it's "just" a branch, so I'm not sure what the best nomenclature would be. Whatever we do here can of course be applied when other states' articles are created. Orderinchaos 09:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)