Talk:Electoral divisions of the Northern Territory

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: Northern Territory / Politics Low‑importance

	Australia portal Electoral divisions of the Northern Territory 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 Northern Territory (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, or the Northern Territory Library.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Naming style

Is there any particular reason why the NT electorates use Electoral division as their prefix as opposed to the Electoral district prefix used for most other states? Bush shep (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is because that is what they are called. It also helps to distinguish Goyder in the NT and Goyder in SA. --Bduke (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first reason might qualify as a good reason for a different convention, the second would not.

The first reason would mean that the name 'district' or 'division' has a stronger association with the electorates than I realise. Perhaps that's the names for them laid down in legislation or something. In which case, the names of the articles aren't merely wikipedia nomenclature, but their official terminology. Although I doubt that is the case.

As for the second reason, differentiation isn't a good reason to adopt new system of prefixes. Otherwise you could be coming up with eight different naming conventions! There are better ways to distinguish between different seats in different states. See Electoral district of Mulgrave or Electoral district of Nepean.

--Bush shep (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Division" is used here. That seems good enough for me. I meant it was what they are officially called. As to the second, I did not mean it was a reason for changing it. I was just pointing out that it was handy. --Bduke (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The NT Electoral Commission also uses the term "Division" here - click on "Find Your Polling Place and Electorate". --Bduke (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it would appear that the term division is the offical term. Fair enough then. Bush shep (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the reason we put in place the different convention for the NT (and also, I believe Tasmania): we wanted to use the official terms so as not to delve into OR. Rebecca (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct - NT and Tas specifically refer to divisions, ACT to electorates, and everyone else to electoral districts. We've simply followed the legislation on this one. See for example here Orderinchaos 20:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abolished divisions

G'day. I was browsing the Namatjira division page, interested in the changing political allegiances of the unique demographic of this constitutency over the years. I found it frustrating that it only goes back to 2012, and then you have to go the MacDonnell page to see the rest of the history, and read the article kinda carefully to eventually realise that in fact these divisions are not in any meaningful way distinct divisions, but rather have always been as far as I can tell substantially identical. With all due respect to the hard-working Wikipedia editors, it seems to me that this is another instance of form triumphing over substance on this great website. For all relevant intents and purposes, MacDonnell and Namatjira are the same division. No-one is going to be interested in one, but not the other. The only difference is the name. It would make a huge amount of sense to combine them. I did this, as a form of public service to the universe, but it was subsequently undone because it flouted a 'convention', apparently. I am not sure how this convention emerged, but I hereby propose that this convention be done away with. Thanks for your time. CountryLad (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]