User talk:Frickeg/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
The Australian election candidate pages would be more useful if the successful candidates were highlighted, so that it would be clear who had won in each electorate. I'm approaching you on this because I think you're very familiar with both Australian politics and with Wikipedia formatting to know how to get it done. If you don't have the time or the inclination to do it, I would appreciate if you could show me how to highlight wiki text, and I will then do it myself. Thanks.Mrodowicz (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh God. I kind of agree myself, but it's not going to be as easy as that. I mean, how do we show "other" candidates who win, like Oakeshott, Windsor and Wilkie? And what about the Senate? If a way can be worked out, I'm happy to take this on myself. Frickeg (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I think highlighting would be the most effective way to do it. However, if there are technical difficulties in achieving this, there may be alternative ways to do it, such as placing an asterisk next to the name of the successful candidate Mrodowicz (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Mrodowicz (talk) 10:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Frickeg - You would obviously have a better grip of wiki formatting than I, but just from my own understanding of what needs to be done, I would think that it might not be so terribly complicated. All we would have to do, is subdivide the appropriate sections. For instance, take the seat of New England and subdivide the Other Candidates column into two sections a) Tony Windsor b) all other candidates. We would then highlight subsection A. We'd then do the same for all successful independent candidates. Similarly with the Senate. Subdivide the columns of winning parties into two. Row A would have all successful candidates from that party which are then highlighted whilst Row B would feature the remaining candidates. Mrodowicz (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I checked out your demo on the sandbox. Good work! Personally, I think Option 1 is the best. My suggestion would be to use Option 1 and Option 3 combined as an interim measure. By that I mean that I would highlight all successful HR candidates with Option 1. Then in relation to successful Independent candidates, I would also place an asterisk beside the appropriate name. I'd then provide an explanatory note, indicating that in sections where multiple candidates are highlighted, the actual successful candidate is marked with an asterisk. If and when we can workout how to subdivide sections, or some other idea is brought forward, I think we could quite easily make any necessary modifications to suit when the need for it arises. Mrodowicz (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Historical division results
Hi, my apologies if this has been asked before, but how did you access the historical division results? I am assuming you contacted the AEC and they gave it to you. Cheers U8701 (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
NSWLC
Hi Frickeg Just saw this page on the NSW parliament webpage. The minutes of the LC begin each session with a summary of the membership unfortunately it is only from 1856 to 1881 but it may make the task of compiling membership lists easier. There is of course also an enormous article or group of articles to be written about the non-responsible council 1824 to 1856 http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/web/common.nsf/key/parliamentarydebateshansard Now that the election is over and my thesis is in a less perilous state I will try to get back to the NSWLA biographies and elections. As it is a long term project I will start at 1856 and work forward although some of the early biographies may be very stubby. Cheers Porturology (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Election Results
Oh, didn't see the 'These results are not final' I've been paying close attention to a few seats (especially Greenway since I was a candidate) and haven't seen any changes for days Paulyt (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Angela D'Amore
Howdy. Would you please have a look over changes made to Angela D'Amore by unregistered user, Lachso at 18:16, on 26 September 2010, and advise if I was over-stepping the mark by including her relationship with Joe Tripodi? In need, feeel free to edit / revert. Cheers. Jherschel (talk) 10:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I've reverted, and added a comment to the discussion. We'll see how it goes. Gosh, just completed a two day marathon effort on cleaning up Mick Keelty. Jherschel (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
If you don't mind...
Would you mind updating Full national and state-by-state lower house results and maps for the 2010 Australian federal election and Full national and state-by-state upper house results for the 2010 Australian federal election? They're basically just missing the micro-parties. I'm too predisposed at the moment to commit the time to it... thanks if you can. Timeshift (talk) 06:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Just an fyi... the Lib/Nat Coalition Senate primary, like the lower house, doesn't include the WA Nat vote, so like the lower it should probably be listed seperately in the upper too... Timeshift (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes. For all the Coalition complications because of the LNP, and the CLP reentering to make a fourth, one thing was made easier. No SA Nats, WA Nats won a seat and are distinctly seperate, nicely carving out the sandgroper Nat from the eastern states Nats :) And thankyou so much for the timely speedy assault on the state level and seat by seat level results for the 2010 election. It must have been hard work! Someone should give you another barny ;) Timeshift (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The "Liberal Democrats" couldn't even crack 2 percent. Pfft :) Timeshift (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
IMHO I think that says more about the condition of One Nation and the Democrats more than anything else... I still find it very amusing when Democrats claim they're still alive and kicking... as much of a pity as it is. The micro party result that surprised me the most was the long-running Shooters and Fishers... where on earth did they come from? Timeshift (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Lib David Fawcett or Bob Day FFP for the last SA Senate seat... hmmm... felt weird cheering a Lib on! (begrudgingly!) =D Timeshift (talk) 08:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- I also think that ironically, currently the DLP has more ideology in common with the ALP than the FFP or Libs. I wonder how the DLP will operate compared to the DLP of 40 years ago? That is the real question here. The DLP is of a Labour-oriented, ameteur economic left and social right sphere. The FFP is to a lesser extent economically, not to mention I think the FFP base is far more sympathetic to the Libs than the DLP is. I don't know a lot about it but I hear the (comparatively) lefter ALP in Victoria actually works reasonably well with the DLP there. I'm not exactly au fait with Vic ALP legislation though... Also, he won't be anything more than a meaningless voice in the 2011-14 Senate... but he could come in to play if the Coalition can generate enough of a swing at the next election. Timeshift (talk) 08:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, we are understating the Greens... they did very well. No minor party has won a Senate seat in each state at an election before. They beat the Democrat 1990 effort. They hold the sole balance of power in the Senate... but the flipside is that parliament as a whole still doesn't give the Greens the balance of power with the government! Now it's the lower house in particularly Windsor and Oakeshott! Bah! Timeshift (talk) 08:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Once the political landscape moves on and 2PP polling swings firmly and sticks (in either direction), the Greens will undoubtedly go down. Yes they have a green ideology but I think the vast mass of the Green vote are unsatisfied Labor voters (preferences remained at four of five going to Labor over Coalition) rather than genuine ideological subscribers. And polling always shows how much of a component the "soft vote" is to the Greens compared to the majors. The Greens still have a lot of pragmatism to undergo if they wish to become a permanent solid part of the lower house. Timeshift (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, i know NT is a small voting pool (and only elects two), but i'm rather surprised by the swings in the upper house there. And all we see are the net swings... though i'm still surprised the Coalition did so miserably in the upper generally! Timeshift (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Microparties only have a realistic chance in the Senate. I'm glad they're starting to figure this out, it makes house results cleaner :) Timeshift (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh wow, a socialist party got 3.5% in Fowler! Timeshift (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well that would explain it!
It's a pity about the distortion of the vote. I just had a look at Division of Barton... an 8 percent 2PP swing to the Liberals, yet there's also a 7 percent swing to informal/no show! And the trails nationwide suggest the vast majority of these are Labor voters. The Coalition are wrongly taking heart from this election, I hope it comes back to bite them in the backside thinking this election somehow validates their methods and current state of the party :) Timeshift (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Armadale
There could be an Adele factor here keeping Liberals away from the Greens with Freo fresh in their minds... leaving a choice of an independent or the conservative CDP. Though I suspect the quality of the CDP candidate (as far as the quality of CDP candidates go) might have had something to do with it. But it's a seat which wasn't contested by the government. One-major-party by-elections in safe seats are always prone to things like that. Grey Power on 27% 2CP lulz :) Timeshift (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Re this one, you'd have to know the area to understand it. Firstly, the CDP is the only non-Liberal right-wing party that ever does well in WA - they're not as completely extreme as the NSW ones and have the support of a number of mainstream churches. Secondly, Armadale has the nickname "Centrelink City" for good reason and it's part of the wider "southeast" which is sort of like our answer to Western Sydney. And thirdly, for reasons I don't quite understand, the CDP do uncommonly well in Armadale and Thornlie anyway. (If you're bored, have a look at the results for the tiny Wheatbelt town of Mukinbudin (formerly O'Connor, now Durack), which consistently has the highest CDP results in Australia - despite surrounding towns having a negligible CDP vote.) Orderinchaos 14:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Dashes, hyphens and minus signs
Yeah, no problem, I noticed that and I'm not really fussed. According to WP:MOS, en dashes are wrong anyway, one is supposed to use a special minus sign character (−). Might as well be consistent, I agree, and it certainly does seem like a job for a bot. --Canley (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Democratic Labor Party and The Age's mistake
Hi!
I noticed that you corrected an error the that the source - in this case The Age - made. Could you possibly reference this? As I'm sure you already know, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
--Shirt58 (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC) I apologise for this uninformed comment. I should have done more research before I added this comment.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please accept my apologies. Completely agree with both your assessment and sentiment! Evidence of absence and all that - references for every senate election from 1974 to now would be
proofverification that they weren't elected, but that would just be ridiculous. I'm certainly not buying a superhero outfit and return tickets to Berlin about it, the anyways (I'm saving that for the super-important debate over whether Karmichael Hunt was or was not "recruited" to the Gold Coast Suns. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC) PS: after sitting as a redlink for so long, Ruth Fairfax now has an article. Care to help out?
Hi again,
I've self-userfied this little article. "The Split" still remains huge to this day. Your opinion? --Shirt58 (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
NB: I bags starting the article in mainspace :-)
That IP editor is back. I'm on a wikibreak at the moment (I stumbled over the latest changes by chance), so if you could keep an eye on it that would be great. Thanks! -- Lear's Fool 05:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you have an opinion on the latest apparenty controversy? Timeshift (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Again. They're, their, there... it's really not that hard... yeesh. Timeshift (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
SA
Thought you might be interested - I finally sorted out who went where in the massive SA Labor split of '32, which had been holding me back from doing much on that state/period for ages! Rebecca (talk) 06:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I know how much you like doing these...
Candidates of the Victorian state election, 2010, ref. Only if you have the time and feel like doing it :) Timeshift (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- lol! Well no point having great information if it's not available - added! Thanks! Timeshift (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Nomination of Electoral results for the Division of Darwin for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Electoral results for the Division of Darwin, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electoral results for the Division of Darwin until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Orange Mike | Talk 01:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Happy Birthday
 | Just a happy Birthday message to you, Frickeg, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! |
--Monterey Bay (talk) 07:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Belated greetings and well deserved. 21? (again?). BTW, found refs to D'Amore's membership suspension / termination at today's Australian. Jherschel (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Announcement
Hello! I'm The Arbiter, one of the coordinators for WikiProject Zoo. I am proud to announce the launch of a new portal: Portal:Zoos and Aquariums! ZooPro, ZooFari, and I worked hard to create a new portal for information on zoos, aquariums, and the associated projects and articles on Wikipedia. If you could head on over, take a look at our work, and maybe learn some more about zoos and Wikiproject Zoo, it would be great! Cheers and Happy Editing!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Arbiter (talk) at 03:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC).
Hi. Notability may not be in question, but all unsourced items in Early Life and Personal Life sections will be removed if not sourced.--Kudpung (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Birth dates
I notice you have added quite a few dates of birth to BLP articles, especially those of politicians. Where are you getting your information? They all need citations. StAnselm (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Invite
You may be interested to come to the Wikipedia celebration on 15 January in Canberra. see http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra . Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Would you mind working your DOB/infobox magic on this MP article? It's looking a bit weird at the moment! Timeshift (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikibreak
Noooo! Can I ask why you think you've lost the enthusiasm? Timeshift (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Candidates for NSW Election
Hi Frickeg. Just thought you might be interested, if you intend to be involved in the NSW election candidates article, I thought we could trial the following wikitable format (see ACT Senate sample below) for the NSW upper house. The advantage it has, is that we can create sub-sections to highlight each successful candidate. BTW, you've done a great job on the candidates sections for previous elections. Well done! Let me know what you think. --Mrodowicz (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Australian Capital Territory
Two Senate places were up for election. The Labor Party was defending one seat. The Liberal Party was defending one seat.
Labor Candidates Liberal Candidates Greens Candidates Democrats Candidates Ungrouped Candidates 1. Kate Lundy 1. Gary Humphries 1. Lin Hatfield Dodds 1. Darren Churchill John Glynn 2. David Mathews 2. Matthew Watts 2. Hannah Parris 2. Anthony David
Sloss
Go ahead! No time these days... Rebecca (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Grenfell Price
The truth is, that I'm not sure either way. I read his edition of Captain Cook's ship-logs, which were published under the name "A. Grenfell Price". I actually created this article as "Grenfell Price" and let it go at that for years. Now, everywhere the "Archibald" seems to be mentioned. If you are sure that he was/is known rather as "Grenfell Price", then move it back. Kraxler (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, he certainly didn't like the "Archibald"... Kraxler (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Your opinion
Hi, since you seem to be an expert with elections I thought I would ask you about the decision in NSW where a seat has been won on first preferences, the two candidate preferred is libs/labor even though on some seats it should be libs/greens. What do you think of this? Not really a big deal I know and they said its to make the state wide two party preferred easier, they were of course issues with this in the federal election leading to some confusion. Thanks 211.30.121.12 (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm of the opinion that the 2PP and 2CP should always be calculated and published for every seat in every Australian parliament. But we don't always get what we want. Timeshift (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Page moves
Dear Frickeg, please allow me to question some of your recent page moves of Australian politicians:
- I've already raised Robert Cotton's move to Bob Cotton at his talk page. He was never, ever called "Sir Bob Cotton".
- I now question moving Kenneth Anderson to Ken Anderson on similar grounds. To his friends and family and colleagues he was no doubt Ken. But he was always Kenneth to the world at large, and particularly after he was knighted he was always Sir Kenneth, never Sir Ken.
Are there any other moves you've done that I wouldn't agree with if I knew about them? :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Electoral district of Vaucluse
I'm trying to figure out what you were you trying to achieve here. Are you aware you that deleted the link to the results page? Miracle Pen (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Albert Gould
The article Albert Gould you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Albert Gould for things which need to be addressed. I notice that 2A is not specifically designed for the concern I've raised, but I raise it all the same. Anyway, little things that need not be done if they can't be done easily.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Update: as you will see, I've passed the article. Although there remain faults, GA does not require perfection, far from it. I encourage you to review another article. Take a look at WP:GAC and see whether you think you could identify those things in an article. One review would account for the one GA, it doesn't take much. Cheers, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Defamation action
Hi, can we discuss offline about an article that I contributed to? Jherschel (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Pilot whale
Hello. Can you please pass the pilot whale article? LittleJerry (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
It's done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 02:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Linden Cameron
Hi Frckeg. I noticed your removal of maintenance templates from your Linden Cameron article, and guess what, I became wiser! Criteria is no longer 3 but zero. Sorry for that, mate. Please tell me why you removed {{one source}} from the article? Cheers - MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 19:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi - I was surprised myself about the orphan criteria; I looked it up to see how many there had to be, and it had changed! As for the onesource tag, I admit I have a personal bias against these because I think they're vague and not always necessary, but here's the rationale: according to Template:Onesource, "a single source is not automatically a problem". I've always understood the template to be intended for longish articles relying entirely on something like Quadrant or Green Left Weekly, rather than short articles relying on the Australian Dictionary of Biography. I mean, ideally multiple sources are better, of course, but for what that article is the single one is fine, especially considering its veracity. The template page suggests that when applying the tag a rationale for the problem with the source be provided (this is why I hate the fact that it's part of Twinkle!). Anyway, hope this covers it! Frickeg (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hope you don't mind I bring your reply over here, hate fragmentation. Makes sense to me what you say regarding the ADoB sourced articles and one source. Always interesting to get opinions from you who have been here longer. Had I had the time, should I have tried to add a source myself, but you know how NPP is. Did you ever read WP:ONESOURCE? It's not meant as a counter-argument, I just stumbled upon it now. Have a good day down yonder. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 00:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Great burst of articles you did there, by the way. Much interesting reading! :) Rebecca (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Your records page is fascinating - just reading through it at the moment. How do you define Asian-Australian - it claims the only one was Michael Johnson, but what about Penny Wong and Tsebin Tchen? Rebecca (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of John Neild
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article John Neild you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. – Quadell (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I have reviewed the article. It is close to passing GA status, but there are some remaining concerns, particularly with the issue of close paraphrasing from the sources. If there concerns are resolved in the next seven days, the article will be given GA status. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Good Article promotion
|
Congratulations! |
| I'm happy to report that John Neild is now a certified "Good Article"! Thanks for all the effort you put into this, and it was good working with you.
In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk) |
WP Australian Politics in the Signpost
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Australian Politics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Good Article promotion
|
You did it again! |
| Another round of congratulations are in order for all the work you did in making Edward Millen a certified "Good Article"! Thank you; your work is much appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC) |
Old MPs
Was briefly flipping through your MP birth year lists.
Louis Bisdee (should be Lou) died on November 16 last year.[1]
William McAnaney died on October 26 1987.[2]
Lin Gordon died in June - already in his article. Rebecca (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hell of a spree you've got going on there! Where are you finding these people - they seem to be a smattering from everywhere? Rebecca (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello Frickeg, Just wanted to let you know that I saw that you created the new article Henry Bailey (Australian politician)--It would be great if you could also upload a picture for the related article Members of the Victorian Legislative Assembly, 1929–1932.
Kind regards and happy editing! Jipinghe (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Liberal Democratic Party (Aus) Political stance
i agree with you that the LDPs political stance cannot really be shown through the left-right spectrum, but Centre-Right is pretty accurate for their political stance, their social stance on the other hand....any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irving17 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Jay Weatherill DOB
Hey, can you please assist with settling any doubt that his DOB is the one in his article? Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Harry Lassetter Article
Article: Harry Lassetter.
I would like to encourage you to expand the above article as best as you can. I do realise it has not been long on Wikipedia, "we" do (at WikiProject Military History) encourage users/contributors to do high class articles for WikiProject Military History. Due to the reason the amount of articles assessed at "Stub" and "Start" are a little to much, and would like to see this article assessed at a higher level. Adamdaley (talk) 01:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
New Page Patrol survey
 New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Frickeg/Archive 5! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
Isaac Selby
Loved the Isaac Selby article. I have a vague memory of reading about him in a book I may or may not have in my collection. I'll have a look to see if I can find him. --Roisterer (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Foley DOB
I don't suppose you can find a more reliable source for Kevin Foley's DOB? Also I notice that the 25th day in his infobox DOB component isn't displayed despite adding it per the same format as Mike Rann... any idea why that might be? Timeshift (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ah of course, thanks for that. I did find a DOB cite ending in .gov after posting to your talk, but as far as gov sites go it appears a little dodgy. A check when you get back when you find the time would be good, thanks. Timeshift (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Re "Democratic Party"
Hi there, hope you had a good festive season.
I just moved Democratic Party (Australia) to Democratic Party (1920) (not absolutely sure if it was set up in 1920, but it can be no later than 1920, because they contested the NSW state election of that year) and Democratic Party (New South Wales) to Democratic Party (1943). "New South Wales" is an insufficient dab because both of those parties are from NSW, and "Australia" isn't a terribly useful dab for the same reason.
Anyway, I was going through the backlinks for the Australia/1920 party and one of the links is Candidates of the Australian federal election, 1931, where there are three lower-house candidates from Victoria (specifically, standing for Balaclava, Batman, and Maribyrnong) who apparently belonged to a "Democratic Party" - the links next to their names are to the Australia/1920 article. But that can't be the correct party, because the 1920 party was defunct by the mid-1920s, and at any rate, these guys are in Victoria, the 1920 party was in NSW. So the links can't possibly be correct.
I googled for the Balaclava candidate, one "James Denyer", and found this summary from Psephos, which duly informs me that "Denyer was a Democratic Party candidate", as were the other two guys. So there's no doubt that there was some entity in Victoria in the early 1930s time called "Democratic Party". On that basis, I've changed the 1931 candidates article links to read Democratic Party (Victoria).
So, there's some third "Democratic Party", active in Victoria in the early 1930s, that is not either of the NSW parties. I figured I'd drop you a line because you created the 1920 article and the 1931 candidates article, and to ask if you knew anything about this 1930s Victorian outfit.
(The other backlink to the 1920 article was at at List of political parties in Australia. I looked at your most recent edit and it took me a few seconds to work out that the Climate Sceptics had not, in fact, changed their name to The Communists...) Miracle Pen (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Communists
Quick question - what was your source for Communist Alliance being renamed to The Communists? I can't find one (looked on AEC and on their site), and my friend who's part of the organisation thinks it's still called the CA. Orderinchaos 06:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, scratch that, found the thing. The organisation is registered as the Communist Alliance, it is registered electorally as The Communists (although the AEC haven't updated it yet) and it's basically the electoral wing of the Communist Party of Australia. Why do microparties have to be so confusing? (I mean, I can understand why the CPA didn't register, but having an alliance with a 'see also' name is silly!) Orderinchaos 06:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Happy Australia Day! Thank you for contributing to Australian content!
.jpg)
|
Australian Wikimedian Recognition (AWR) |
| Thank you for your contributions on English Wikipedia that have helped improve Australian related content. :D It is very much appreciated. :D Enjoy your Australia Day and please continue your good work! LauraHale (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC) |
Port Adelaide
Well, can't be anything but happy about the result. An odd thing, either there is extremely little wiki interest in it, or i've managed to be too up to date with it! I've done basically all the editting... :\ One thing I looked at earlier today but failed on, is to find the right type of result infobox. The Frome one simply labels each as independent, and in three years, i've become a lot more picky. Do you have a template handy that can keep the independent labels, and independent gray? If so, can I ask a favour that you add the result table to the article(s)? :D Timeshift (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oh dear... i'll see what I can find on other less common election results in articles... Timeshift (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Good job
Nice work on the politician obituaries. Well done! Regards, WWGB (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Robert Crowe
Nice catch here. That'll teach me to check the citations, not just the honorary medals! I've fixed it now. Graham87 15:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Speaking of...
Template:QldCurrentMPs has been bothering me. The parliamentary biographies seem to use the election date as the beginning and ending dates for time in office. So many of the people on that list are no longer members that it's wrong to keep it up in its pre-election form. It seems to me that the template should, at the very least, be blanked with a "pardon our dust" message. On the other hand, I can see that rubbing someone the wrong way and I don't want to get into a whole thing about it. What's your advice? -Rrius (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)