Talk:2016 Australian federal budget
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2016 Australian federal budget article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Article naming convention
[edit]As per 2016 United States federal budget, 2015 New Zealand budget, 2016 United Kingdom budget et al, i've moved the Australian articles back to '20xx Australian federal budget'. As an aside, naming a budget article with eg: '2015-16' is just blatantly wrong, not to mention not used. The budget for 2015-16 is the 2015 budget. Of course, the article leads should state that it is for the period of 2015-16, but the budget itself is the 2015 budget, no ifs ands or buts. Timeshift (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Timeshift9: even when it is officially called Budget 2016-17? It makes sense in your naming convention examples, because they're all respectively called "Fiscal Year 2016 Budget", "Budget 2015" and "Budget 2016", however our government's budget is not labelled that way. It's labelled by its financial year, not it's release year. Philip Terry Graham 10:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- What the primary source calls something is irrelevant to the article name. I doubt the AEC call it the 'next Australian federal election' or the 'Australian federal election, 2016'. The 2016 Australian federal budget format used for the previous budget articles took that format for years up until a few months ago which went un-noticed and then changed again several days ago, which I noticed and reverted the articles back to their proper article names. a) I've restored them back to their original article naming format which through its very long term incumbency had implicit consensus, as opposed to your change which doesn't have consensus. b) It's consistent with other budget article naming formats - 2016 United States federal budget, 2015 New Zealand budget, 2016 United Kingdom budget et al. Unless you manage to gain a solid WP:CONSENSUS from the community then ensure you leave the article names as-is. Thank you. Timeshift (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Timeshift9: Alrighty then, if the name of the article has to conform, we can at least call it by its name in the article itself, yeah? Philip Terry Graham 05:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- The name of an article and the article name in the beginning of an article name should match. Having said that, there's nothing wrong with clarifying it later in the same first sentence in the lead. But it already does? "The 2016 Australian federal budget is the current federal budget to fund government services and operations for the 2016/17 financial year". I'm not sure I understand the issue as your concern is already clearly addressed... ensuring something be known by all readers can't get much better than making the prominence of it so significant that it makes it all the way to the first sentence of the article's lead! Timeshift (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Timeshift9: If both the name of the article and the "article name" have to match, then what's up with 2016 United States federal budget and 2015 New Zealand budget? ಠ_ಠ Philip Terry Graham 05:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Look at the previous year's budget articles, the newest ones tend not to be the most copyedited. Second, sometimes only part of the article name is put in to the lead sentence's article name. And the infobox heading should also match the article name. Timeshift (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Timeshift9: Okey dokes. I still think it's a bit silly for the first sentence to be contradicting itself, that the "2016" budget is for the "2016–17" financial year, but whatever you say, I'll see myself out. By the way, on an unrelated note, you can't declare an article finished when it's still being expanded. Sure, I'm being a bit slow trying to write the article, but I'm not The Flash either. Plus, there had been only one other contributor that has helped in the article's formation thus far... Philip Terry Graham 07:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- See below. Timeshift (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Timeshift9: Okey dokes. I still think it's a bit silly for the first sentence to be contradicting itself, that the "2016" budget is for the "2016–17" financial year, but whatever you say, I'll see myself out. By the way, on an unrelated note, you can't declare an article finished when it's still being expanded. Sure, I'm being a bit slow trying to write the article, but I'm not The Flash either. Plus, there had been only one other contributor that has helped in the article's formation thus far... Philip Terry Graham 07:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Look at the previous year's budget articles, the newest ones tend not to be the most copyedited. Second, sometimes only part of the article name is put in to the lead sentence's article name. And the infobox heading should also match the article name. Timeshift (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Timeshift9: If both the name of the article and the "article name" have to match, then what's up with 2016 United States federal budget and 2015 New Zealand budget? ಠ_ಠ Philip Terry Graham 05:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- The name of an article and the article name in the beginning of an article name should match. Having said that, there's nothing wrong with clarifying it later in the same first sentence in the lead. But it already does? "The 2016 Australian federal budget is the current federal budget to fund government services and operations for the 2016/17 financial year". I'm not sure I understand the issue as your concern is already clearly addressed... ensuring something be known by all readers can't get much better than making the prominence of it so significant that it makes it all the way to the first sentence of the article's lead! Timeshift (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Timeshift9: Alrighty then, if the name of the article has to conform, we can at least call it by its name in the article itself, yeah? Philip Terry Graham 05:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- What the primary source calls something is irrelevant to the article name. I doubt the AEC call it the 'next Australian federal election' or the 'Australian federal election, 2016'. The 2016 Australian federal budget format used for the previous budget articles took that format for years up until a few months ago which went un-noticed and then changed again several days ago, which I noticed and reverted the articles back to their proper article names. a) I've restored them back to their original article naming format which through its very long term incumbency had implicit consensus, as opposed to your change which doesn't have consensus. b) It's consistent with other budget article naming formats - 2016 United States federal budget, 2015 New Zealand budget, 2016 United Kingdom budget et al. Unless you manage to gain a solid WP:CONSENSUS from the community then ensure you leave the article names as-is. Thank you. Timeshift (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
under contruction vs incomplete templates
[edit]Given the edits made a substantial contribution when changing the template back again from incomplete to under construction, i'll give the user the benefit of the doubt and let it stand for now. However, the under construction template is mainly used to warn of likely edit conflicts and is a rarely used one, whereas incomplete is widely used. I'll give it an hour or so from the user's last edit before I change it back to the incomplete template. Timeshift (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Timeshift9: Your view of the template's use differs wildly from what is written in the message box itself: "You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well." It's not a warn-off, but an invitation to other editors to contribute in the "construction" of the article. Also, it states that the template should be removed after several days, not merely an hour. It is my belief that you are confusing this template for Template:in use instead, which is more along the lines of what you describe, which warns off other editors from editing an article, and has an expiration of "several hours". Philip Terry Graham 07:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Clever-dick article that lacks basic info
[edit]There ought to be a simple table which lists the total amount of the budget and the amounts for various ministries and functions. This should come before any discussions or explanations.
Mind you, the Australian government's budget website doesn't have that either. Instead they have clever-dick audio and an interactive "personalized" budget.
Rich Rostrom (Talk) 03:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). Timeshift (talk) 03:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
