User talk:Bush shep

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Bush shep! I am SatuSuro and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Satu Suro 12:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Candidates of the next Western Australian general election

I have nominated Candidates of the next Western Australian general election, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candidates of the next Western Australian general election. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Mattinbgn\^talk 22:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Results

They'll only have finished some of the counting tonight. I suggest to keep looking at that link, if "Updated: 28/06/2008 8:11:37 PM" hasn't changed in the next 10 or so minutes they've most likely already stopped. Timeshift (talk) 10:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did those results come from? These look slightly different. Timeshift (talk) 10:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The figures came from the same place. I waited until the the results said 87 of 87 booths in. But there was still some final adjustments. 10 votes were shifted from LDP to Lib and the Greens lost a vote. The swings for the Nat, ALP and Grn were also changed. Presumably they were unable to decide whether to compare the swing to all the votes last time, or just do a "matched swing", i.e. a comparison with the ordinary votes last time.

Thankfully, the primary figures now say FINAL COUNT. Bush shep (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or at least they did. They now say 87 of 92. I'll keep watching it. Bush shep (talk) 10:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

State byelections

Just so you're aware there's no underlying agreement in favour of "by-election" for state by-elections, it's more a case of default practice than consensus of any kind (I can't find any discussions to that effect). Last year, despite incredible opposition from a very small minority, we managed to get "general elections" renamed to "state/federal elections", and that was done with majority support on principles. I have been wanting to put the "state by-election" change for some time (while leaving federal as they are), and have offline agreement for it, but I know of one very strong opponent who has edit- and move-warred with me on this very issue on two occasions now, and who I'm unsure how to deal with. I don't even know if I *can* raise it publicly as all indications are it will end up being something I have to fight publicly and nastily with someone I consider a friend just to get it through (it was easier with the state/federal ones as the dedicated opponent then was a troll who later got banned for sockpuppetry and persistent edit warring). In the meantime, I have talked with a couple of people who have confirmed that there is no need for a consistent national standard on the issue for the time being, until we can sort out the personal issues involved. The rationale for the change, by the way, is simply ease of use and reduction of ambiguity for readers, so people realise that, to give one cogent example, Fremantle state by-election, 1990 and Fremantle by-election, 1994 were for entirely different constituencies. Orderinchaos 05:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all. I've seen and appreciated your edits over the last number of months on a variety of articles. Orderinchaos 09:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out at Murdoch/Jandakot. With respect to naming, it's always a difficult issue as to whether one should stick with one name or not - for example Mitchell and Leschenault, where it was known as Mitchell for 6 terms and Leschenault in its final term. In general I was going with the Commissioner's comments in the redistribution summaries. It's quite confusing with Jandakot (which IMO was improperly named in 1988-94, as it included Jandakot Airport but not the residential sections of Jandakot), Scarborough, Mount Lawley etc too as the seats which existed historically and the new seats created for 2008 are quite different. Mount Lawley for instance was a safe seat for a Liberal premier but under current boundaries is quite winnable by Labor. The other funny ones are Moore which has been abolished twice and recreated, Murray / Murray-Wellington / Wellington which gets created/renamed/split/recombined/recreated every couple of elections and Canning which spent many years being the "offcuts" electorate of the southeastern suburbs, containing simply anything that didn't already have an electorate of its own and changing hands every time it was redistributed, until it was finally put out of its misery. Orderinchaos 12:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a confusing one as some electorates are renamed while others (and I think this applies to all of the ones you just highlighted) are abolished and recreated. The problem is if we have commissions which like in WA rename the electorates sometimes once every two terms of office, you end up with a less useful article that tells our readers very little, and a profusion of little articles which confuse rather than inform. As such, I tend to work from the basis that if the commissioners have not abolished the former electorate, and if there is a clear unevenness in terms of importance (i.e. the example I gave where it was 6 terms with one name, 1 term with the other then abolished) then we should unite them under one name. Murdoch/Jandakot is a genuinely weird one - Murdoch was abolished, Jandakot was created, then renamed to the new Murdoch, despite their areas being fairly similar. The other issue of course in that instance is we have two completely different seats which happen to have the same name which were created by different commissioners at different times.

As a complete aside - 1988 saw the end of a *lot* of electorates including ones that went back to the 1800s, such as Gascoyne and Canning - reason was the Burke/Bryce reforms which saw the metro boundary fixed as the MRS area and its number of seats as 34. It had previously been 29 and the metro boundary was quite flexible over time as it related to Legislative Council provinces, and excluded Mundaring, Swan, Dale, Darling Range and Kalamunda, and historically Toodyay which was more metropolitan than not (Toodyay for example included everything north of Beach Road in the northern suburbs in the 1970s!) Orderinchaos 16:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still think we're trying to create a resource for readers. Having to sort through a bewildering array of individually useless small pages which give no historical context and, from the point of the Electoral Commissioner at least, we're looking at exactly the same seat, then it seems pointless to have them do that. In 1994, a bunch of 1988-created seats were renamed because their names were deemed too confusing, people didn't know where and for whom they were supposed to vote. Incidentally, the names are rather tangential to the seats... the outer north and east of Perth in this election provide ample evidence for that. I'm still waiting for email confirmation on this, but it appears Kalamunda is in fact the renamed Darling Range, with a new seat having been created (after the abolishment of Serpentine-Jarrahdale) which has, somewhat confusingly, been given the name of Darling Range. The redistribution report appeared to suggest this was the case, so yeah. Orderinchaos 22:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for helping out with the copyvio electorates, I greatly appreciate it. I would be doing more of it myself at the moment, but after the buildup to the election I am simply exhausted (not from doing the membership lists, but more from the emotional rollercoaster!) I will probably be back on board on Tuesday. Orderinchaos 15:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick one - while i'm offline, if you rewrite any electorates could you cross them off on WP:SOIC as well? (I've been doing it until now.) Can do them in bulk at the end if you want rather than having to go in each time. Thanks heaps :) Orderinchaos 05:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balkatta

Back then they were less particular about the spelling of a fair few things. Pilbara/Pilbarra, Balcatta/Balkatta, Brown Hill-Ivanhoe/Brownhill-Ivanhoe, etc. The 1904 redistribution which created it spells it Balkatta, but I've been researching the 1911 election as well and most newspapers note Frederick Gill was the member for Balcatta, and Hansard index in 1910-11 - which is generally authoritative, as it reflects the Speaker's list of the House - lists the same spelling. David Black's book lists "k" as the spelling. Orderinchaos 04:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW thanks for the list debugging, I've seen it on my watchlist. There'll undoubtedly be a few others left. Pity there isn't like consistency software of some nature that could be run over it all! Orderinchaos 05:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Candidates of the next Western Australian state election" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Candidates of the next Western Australian state election. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 27#Candidates of the next Western Australian state election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Senator2029 ❮talk❯ 20:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]