Talk:Division of Isaacs

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

Australia: Melbourne / Politics Low‑importance

	Australia portal Division of Isaacs is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Untitled

There is a page for Gregory Wilton - It's just called Greg Wilton. Can the page be edited to point to this page instead of the non-existant Gregory Wilton page? -- Commking 19 Sep 2005

Done. For future reference, you can edit any page yourself, just by clicking the "edit this page" link at the top of the screen. --bainer (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The two Isaacs seats

We're told the old Division of Isaacs (1949-69) was abolished and a similarly named but otherwise unrelated seat was created at the same time. I wonder if this is the best way of relating this information.

This page from the Parliamentary Handbook suggests the seat has existed continuously since 1949. Redistributions change boundaries, and over time a seat can find itself in quite a different place from where it originally was. For example, in 1901 the Division of Werriwa extended as far south as the edge of what later became the ACT; it was named Werriwa after the local indigenous name for Lake George, which was part of the electorate in 1901. Werriwa is now safely ensconced in Sydney's southwest suburbs. Nobody would suggest the current Werriwa is unrelated to the 1901 Werriwa just because of this. The Isaacs case seems to have achieved a similar geographic discontinuity in one step, rather than gradually by degrees. And after all it only was moved to a different part of Melbourne, not to a different state or anything like that. I'd like to suggest these 2 articles be merged. -- JackofOz 10:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about utter and total indifference. Three and a half years, and not a single response. Consider my proposal withdrawn. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]