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
2010 Victorian state election 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
Erechtheus proposes to delete this page. I understand that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but I think it is relevant to create a page for the next election when the date is set and the contestants almost certain. Your comment that even the United States doesn't do this is incorrect - see United States Senate elections, 2010 as an example. We in Australia take our politics seriously as well. I'll let your message stand for a few days to see if anybody makes further comment. George196600:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
looks to me like Erechtheus is a serial tagger... i think the page should stay, it's relevant, especially with the by-elections coming up. there's too few pages on Vic politics as it is Kringle7 0701:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do spend much of my time placing appropriate editorial templates on articles. Do you question that sort of contribution to this project? If so, perhaps you should review more policy. Improving the content we have is an essential part of making our encyclopedia a better reference. Erechtheus01:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] I support the proposed deletion. Please review WP:CRYSTAL I think this article falls into the category that little can be said that is verifiable and not original research. The article contains speculation about Labor politicians being elected in by-elections beforehand - likely perhaps but still specuulation. Similarly that Brumby will still be the premier in 2010 is speculation - a few weeks ago some assertion about 2010 could have been made with Bracks as premier as there were few if any clues he would resign.
As the tag has now been removed it will need to go to AfD - Malkinnann needs to read WP:Crystal more carefully - that an event will happen does not bring it outside the scope fo the policy.--Golden Wattle talk01:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The VEC refers to this election as the Victorian State election with an upper case S, see vec.vic.gov.au/aboutelections.html I can't edit the title. HTH, yours, TDG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.68.100 (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me the question is whether the article is going to stay in its present state until some time in 2009 or 2010 or whether it will take on the same character and referenced discussion the Senate election article linked above has. If any of you really believe it will take on that sort of character, I'm certainly okay with giving it a chance to blossom before taking it to AfD. I'm certain Australian politics can be very interesting, and I mean no offense to Victoria by placing the template -- I'd do the same if Virginia's 2009 state elections had an article I was aware of (I'll go look now), and I'm a proud resident of that Commonwealth. Erechtheus01:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The intent was always for the article to evolve over the next three years. I created the article because I wanted to make a template that linked all of the Victorian elections, and I thought it a good idea to put in 2010 as well. The basic information I put in is just a starting point. I'm strongly against deletion on this basis. However, if the consensus is for deletion, I won't get in the way. George196601:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly can't vouch for other editors, but I'm happy to see how this develops before taking the AfD step. I'm all for this becoming a nicely referenced and thoughtful discussion on an upcoming election. Even if it doesn't work out that way, perhaps we can at least find somewhere to redirect the title until an article would be more appropriate. Erechtheus01:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it came down to it and the article just doesn't develop, I'd suggest a redirect to the Parliament article as a good place for a redirect. It could then be turned into an article when more information is available. There is no need to rush to take this action, though -- we can hopefully just see where this goes over the next month or two. Erechtheus02:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CRYSTAL, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." I do not believe this article violates WP:CRYSTAL in any way However the 2007 by-elections are not relevant to this article and should be moved. Dbromage [Talk]05:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - this will be an important indication of support for the Government, and the event that will be looked back upon the most when the 2010 election is closer. I think the consensus here is to leave it for a couple of months - I'd suggest until after the Federal Election, when interest in state politics might be a bit higher. George196602:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - by elections 3 years away are not a predictor for the election in 2010 and should not be included in the article - they increase the speculation over the result when it is not justified.--Golden Wattle talk03:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mate, you are not contributing here. I accept that you are in favour of deleting the page, but haggling over events like by-elections does not contribute to the debate. Without a doubt the by-elections will be looked back upon as an indicator of Government support. I think that the consensus is to wait a few months and see if the article expands; if you disagree with this point only, say so. George196604:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think Government support in 3 years time can be judged by by-elections held in September 2007 and the fact that the opposition do not field candidates in those seats. To include mention of the by elections draws an inappropriate connection and becomes speculation on the results in 2010 and thus against the policy at WP:Crystal - while the AfD will continue on its way, in the mean time speculation needs to be out of the article. The Herald Sun article covers the by election but makes no mention (unsurprisingly) of the 2010 election. I have thus again removed this relatively unrelated fact. --Golden Wattle talk06:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Phillipphi has just flagged this as a current event. It's over four months away. Right now most politically interested Australians are concentrating on the federal election, which is only 5 weeks aways. I don't regard the state election as current. HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How solid is The Coalition in Victoria? If I recall correctly, the last time the Libs were in power, under Kennett, the Libs held power on their own and abandoned the Coalition. Have the two parties formally re-established "The Coalition" in opposition? HiLo48 (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have found the answer. I got my timing wrong for the separation, but yes, they have re-established the Coalition in Vic, in Feb 2008 - HereHiLo48 (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems Orderinchaos wishes to go back to the this one rather than keep this better one. I believe most users would now agree that we've well moved on from those times. The one advocated by Orderinchaos in my opinion is old stale and uninformative. Opinions of editors welcome. Timeshift (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the new one is factually incorrect, which is a significantly bigger problem from a core policy point of view. I'm actually not opposed to change, it's just that whatever change happens must by definition give us something better than we have. Orderinchaos23:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then correct the factual inaccuracies rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater. Is it just "elected Premier"? Change the wording. Fix the infobox that seems to have gained wikipedia ozpol consensus, rather than go back to the old uninformative stale box. Timeshift (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional point - a non-WP friend I showed this debate to as a joke pointed out that he couldn't read the new infobox on his mobile device. We should be improving, not deteriorating, user experience and recognising that users are increasingly using new ways to view content. Orderinchaos23:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The recent 2010 federal election. That's why I said "seems". If yours was better then we'd be using that. And we do not confine and constrain our editting to basics to ensure all mobile phones are compatible. Timeshift (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason for state to follow federal. Different groups of editors. Same as it's not necessary for Australian election articles to follow those in other countries. Consistency is desirable where it is possible but quality should never be sacrificed for a poor quality compromise. Orderinchaos23:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My main problem with Infobox Election (the new one) as opposed to Infobox Election Result, is that it generally only displays a two-party result—so for the 1999 Victorian election in the example the three crucial independent seats are not mentioned. I know it can display more parties (such as the last Tasmanian state election in which the Greens were included), but for independents with no "leader" such as in the 2010 federal election, how would that important information be imparted? I'm not suggesting Infobox Election Result be applied to the 2010 federal election as it does look rather dated, but is there anyway we can either modernise Infobox Election Result or include independents and minor parties in the Infobox Election template without it becoming unwieldy?--Canley (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox is not a results table. It is designed to summarise. Look at . We have results tables for non-majors. The infobox is not the place for non-majors. Timeshift (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for non-majors - what about seats held by non-majors, or situations like WA 2008? The lack of flexibility of the new infobox is one of its least desirable features? Orderinchaos23:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about seats held by non-majors? They are referred to in other parts of the article (like the results table, for one). The infobox is designed to give a brief overview, and it does it far better than the old infobox. For such a bad design, it sure seems to have gained strong consensus for federal articles. Timeshift (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and I don't think every minor party/independent, whether or not they win seats, should be listed in the infobox of course. I'm just saying it can be problematic and slightly misleading in cases where independents hold the balance of power in a minority government, such as 1999 Victoria and 2010 federal, and the "summary" provides no indication of this at all. --Canley (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do, however, have the pre election premier and post election premier part of the infobox. So worst comes to worst, end of the infobox states who got in. Timeshift (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is an advantage of T:IE, and I suppose is more likely to be what a non-political junkie reader would want to know: which leader won and is Premier/PM/President? not the minutiae of minority government! --Canley (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting, there is a "Minor candidates" section in the Infobox Election template which allows for listing minor parties and independents, but it doesn't seem to have a attribute to indicate that they won any seats (just name, party, % vote). If that could/can be included that would certainly address my minor objection. I haven't seen it used so I don't know how it appears. --Canley (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of IER (and I agree re it not applying to federal elections) is that it allows for "backwater" articles, which is the norm in state elections, to have meaningful information. The norms are very different for state and federal elections - state normally has less info available, doesn't typically have good photos available, and is often restricted to one or two editors (and not always ones from the state in question). The 2006 Victorian election, whose article I'm trying to fix at the moment, is a classic case of what happens in state elections, you get an article gets generated over an election cycle then utterly ignored thereafter, and then I get offline comments like "Oh, Wikipedia's election articles are like a bad high school essay" based off one article. Orderinchaos23:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And this applies to a better infobox how? Federal infoboxes started off with bad images too. But bad images is the catalyst for what we now have available on those pages today. Good quality, free photos on all elections except Hewson/1993. Timeshift (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Critical mass generates improvement. There is no critical mass on state election articles, even recent ones. The 2006 Vic article is proof of this if it were ever needed. Orderinchaos23:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
External criticism of the type I received this morning actually matters to me as an editor of this thing. Readers don't give a crap about infoboxes. They care when the content is so bad that they're laughing at it and sharing it with their mates. Which wouldn't be such a problem if it wasn't a key staff member of a decision maker with 790 facebook friends which pretty much covers the entire decision making apparatus of a state (and people that the Wikimedia Australia chapter might one day want to engage - eg, ironically, to try and get better pictures). And also wouldn't be such a problem if they were wrong. Orderinchaos23:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read Frickeg's response below. Your latest post just confuses me and makes me wonder what it has to do with what is just should be a non controversial better infobox change (and is used on US/UK election links given above). So far, you're the only of the commenting editors to take your position, and you're debating with heat and anger. You're an administrator. Take a step back. Timeshift (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My being an administrator is irrelevant - show me even one place where I've used, or even threatened to use, my tools in this dispute. It's a content dispute between editors. I don't agree with Frickeg on this one - my position with the infobox is "the old one at least works, even if it isn't the best, while the new one does not work." If someone came up with an infobox that was better than the existing, I'd be the first to endorse it, as for one thing, the old one can't reflect 2pp. (The new one only can by misleading readers.) Orderinchaos23:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Am I correct in thinking the main thing at issue here is the newer infobox's inability to deal with a hung parliament? In which case, couldn't we just change it to "Resulting Premier" rather than "Elected Premier" as we did at Australian federal election, 2010? Frickeg (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion would simply be "Incumbent Premier" and "New Premier" - resulting can also be misleading as the premier's position is not directly elected, and the machinations which lead to a government taking office may not, in the case of a minority government, be the result of the election itself. In my view, though, any alternative must recognise, especially in the present, that Australia is a multi-party democracy and that independents are an endemic, ongoing feature of them which are unlikely to go away. In short, the infobox should account for the distribution of seats in the election, not just what the two biggest parties got. Orderinchaos23:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like the US and UK elections linked to above, it is a pretty standard election infobox and far more comprehensive than the one you wish to have. We can change the wording within it without issue. The UK is currently hung. Timeshift (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on "New Premier". However, I can't agree on independents being in the infobox. That's what the results tables are for (which should be higher up on these articles anyway); an infobox has to deal with the main parties vying for government, and in Australia that's only two. However, if the "minor candidates" option that Canley talks about above works out, that should be fine. (It's pretty standard to just have the majors, actually - here, for example, in a parliament that's a lot more multi-party than any of ours.) Frickeg (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It's not standard to have independents listed there, even in hung parliaments. That's what the results table and potentially the lead is for. Timeshift (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I thought we'd done this one. I see no problem with the new version at all - the tiny inaccuracies can easily be fixed, as we did for 2010. The infobox is not meant to serve as a results table - it is meant to summarise the major parties, and that is what this template does. The old one is primitive and, frankly, we're well past the days when it was moderately useful (all it is is a less useful version of the results table). Frickeg (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of not wasting pointless time and energy on this and wanting to move on with positive encyclopedia contributions, can I get this right? Canley, Frickeg, and I generally support using the fed election infobox (and any fixes/compromises needed such as "resulting premier" instead of "elected premier"), and Orderinchaos supports using the older primary vote/seat, smaller infobox? Orderinchaos, can you please outline your current issues with the infobox and state if/why you would not support the re-adding of the new infoboxes to the Victorian elections, and if you do not support re-adding, how many more users will be needed before this discussion can be over and we can all move on from this triviality? Timeshift (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Canley's taken a firm position either way. I've stated my view clearly above. Since I got drawn into this one, another person has pointed out to me that it's nigh on impossible to read the new one on mobile devices, so it needs to be physically smaller (read: not as wide) in size. Orderinchaos00:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Canley does support the new infobox, you're not reading the discussion. Like the US and UK elections linked to above, it is a pretty standard election infobox and far more comprehensive than the one you wish to have. We are not bound to ensure designs on wikipedia conform to all mobile phones - like the US/UK elections. I see no rational worthy reason to go back to the old primary vote/seat infobox, and so far neither does anyone else. Timeshift (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me to be fairly standard for an infobox. This is perhaps a broader issue but if it is one, then it is much, much wider than this page and needs to be discussed at the template's talk page or even somewhere higher. Frickeg (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's something I hadn't really considered myself until now as I'm not sophisticated enough to figure out how to view WP on a mobile :P (any time I've tried, it's been awful). The official one en.m.wikipedia.org doesn't even seem to work, a 3rd party one called 7val was better but was slow and didn't allow editing. Makes me wonder what they do in countries where almost nobody has land-based connections. Orderinchaos00:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me then, that if Orderinchaos wishes to change the world standard for wikipedia, he must not stop the use of the current world standard until he has WP:CONSENSUS otherwise. Orderinchaos, if we fix the old and new premier bits to your preferred wording, will you allow the consensus infobox to be re-added? If not, why and on what grounds? Timeshift (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sitting on the fence a bit here, sorry guys, and I think both templates have their advantages and disadvantages both functionally and aesthetically. Timeshift, I do slightly prefer the newer template but I am from a design background and the old one does look pretty horrible. Re: mobile viewing, both templates look pretty average on my iPhone but they both render fine and are quite readable. Now I haven't checked but did Orderinchaos only apply the old template to the 1999 Victorian election? I don't think that was at all unreasonable given the issue I mentioned above, or any indication that he wants to apply it to every election article, but I think if minor parties/independents holding the balance or power can be addressed as Frickeg says, whether by displaying them, footnotes, or whatever, that would address my concerns. --Canley (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on no response, i've re-added the global standard. If Orderinchaos wishes to change the world standard for wikipedia, he must not stop the use of the current world standard until he has WP:CONSENSUS otherwise. We can tinker away with wordings and customisations to our hearts content. Timeshift (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, missed your question Canley - I applied the infobox back in January 2010 (I think?) as part of a drive to get infoboxes on articles. There was prior to that no infobox at all on any of them. Orderinchaos03:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about no Infobox? As soon as one predesigned tool is chosen, details of the election, no matter how complex or out of the ordinary, have to be squeezed into an arbitrary format, inevitably losing some meaning. It happens all over WIkipedia, with many templates. I generally hate them. My preference, if summary information is required, is to put it into neat tables within the article. HiLo48 (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"But they're doing it too" is never a good reason to keep doing the wrong thing. Look more broadly. People have found fault with both proposed infoboxes. Maybe infoboxes are the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm not necessarily saying we should conform completely with every other country, but some consistency across the encyclopedia is nice, and not having infoboxes on election articles is just way, way, WAY too much of an "out there" idea at the moment. In any case, it's not helpful; infoboxes are helpful summaries providing clear information about the main contenders, the swings, etc. Removing the infobox entirely is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Frickeg (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK. Just sowing the wildflower seeds. I like doing that. Something good may germinate over time. Anyway, I say again, both infoboxes have been criticised. It seems silly to stick to absolutely supporting just one in its curent form. I reckon there needs to be a lot more flexibility in their use too. And some way we avoid getting such evil looking photos of the leaders on display. HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But we shall stick to it until consensus says otherwise. I happen to think the Victorian state election pages already look a lot better now. There is still much much room for improvement, but it's going well already! Timeshift (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus. If you actually committed to work on content rather than wasting everybody's time on fanatical and irrelevant causes, then maybe the Victorian establishment could stop laughing at us. To HiLo, I've never said the earlier one is perfect - it contains the right level of detail IMO but could be improved on in appearance. (And you may have a point about infoboxes being the problem :) I know at least one AUSPOL user who argues against any form of infobox, I think if they are concise and give people the information then they are a useful addition.) Orderinchaos02:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Get this through your head - you have no current support here, and you are deviating from the global consensus template. Therefore it is incumbent upon you to form consensus. Now stop insisting on your version as if being an admin means your opinion carries any extra weight. Cease forcing and start talking. Gain consensus. I repeat - no support here, no support on global template consensus, form one or both, then come back. Until then you have zero right to change it. Timeshift (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nor do you - there's actually quite a diversity of opinion expressed here. Consensus is not about winning or losing, I really suggest you invest in a new dictionary. I haven't seen a single person join in your zealous campaign this morning, which suggests you're operating on a very shaky and questionable reading of what's going on here. Orderinchaos03:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis can you argue you are allowed to revert? We have a global election template. Consensus 1. We also have people on talk pages saying they do not want your old election box, they want the standard global box, and customise the wording and components to it as required. On the basis of these two, you are not in any rights to insist on your version. You simply cannot answer this. I'm not arguing we can't all discuss what we should be using - but that's working toward consensus! Until that point, you cannot revert because you have no grounds to! I don't quite understand how you don't understand this basic wikipedia process, especially being an administrator. Timeshift (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Timeshift, you're acting like a bully to someone who holds as strong an opinion as you, but in another direction. Do step back a little and act nicely. The situation is not as cut and dried as you claim. I haven't seen anyone aggressively support your position. I don't like either infobox, but I prefer the earlier one. It has less of a tendency to end up being cluttered with garbage. but quite frankly, some mix of both would surely be a good compromise. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Timeshift, you have never understood basic Wikipedia process - just think of all the content wars you've been in over your time here and the people you've alienated along the way. Consensus means compromise. Everyone here is doing just that except you - you adopted a fundamentalist position from the very beginning and have stuck your fingers in your ears any time anyone has disagreed. I have not said my position is unchangeable, I am doing my best to ensure the encyclopaedia's (not mine, as I don't have any huge stake in this, neither infobox has my design ideas) interests are served. They are not served by the new one, they are somewhat served by the old one. Were you not to be part of this discussion, I'm pretty sure the rest could sort out what exactly we should have and we would have a better infobox. Instead, you're like "it's my way or the highway, **** you" to myself and to everybody else here. That sort of conduct is just not on. Orderinchaos03:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is Orderinchaos believing he can insist on his template. a) article templates already been changed over to the global one, b) has implicit support via global consensus, see UK, US election pages, c) some consensus drifts from the 2010 federal page to other pages, what's good for the geese is good for the gander, d) more support in this discussion for new template (with modifications) than the old template. Based on any one of, or all of these four, he cannot unilaterally insist on his changes. I don't have issues forming consensus and having open discussion, my issue here is the way Orderinchaos is behaving. Leave it on what it is and discuss. Only then can you ever get proper discussion happening. Timeshift (talk) 03:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This all started out because you went out of your way to disrupt my work this morning with the Vic 2006 election. You succeeded. As a result, the encyclopaedia is worse off. We still have an article which, at least count, 28 people were laughing at on Facebook. And for what? What have you actually achieved? (They think both infoboxes are hilariously funny, too, in case you're curious - the old one got "shrivelled and stale" and the new one got "no comprehension of Australian politics".) Orderinchaos03:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went out of my way to disrupt your work this morning? Oh get off it and stop playing the victim. I'm not going to bother with these silly mindgames. Nobody cares about facebook childishness. Timeshift (talk) 03:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't see the irony here that your infobox relies on us getting better pictures of MPs and yet you're going out of your way to piss off the very people who will give them to us? Orderinchaos03:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not any form of valid reason. I would point out that federal election articles started out with crap too. But now we have free decent photos of every federal election leader in history except Hewson. Continuous improvement. Your old infobox doesn't even know the meaning of CI. Timeshift (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Improvement = better than. New infobox = not better than, therefore not an improvement. Possible new infobox yet to be developed = quite likely better than. As for "continuous improvement", point to one example of continuous improvement on a state election article that hasn't been initiated from our small group. I'll be waiting... Orderinchaos03:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not playing your games. You have no rights to insist on your infobox. I've outlined 4 reasons why you need to form consensus before forcing unilateral changes. If you wish to deviate from the status quo, then FORM CONSENSUS AND FOLLOW WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES! Timeshift (talk) 03:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for you to show me your consensus to change the status quo. One person's opinion does not a consensus make, no matter how strong or how loudly asserted. (And I'm still of the belief, and others can correct me if I'm wrong, that the two of us are the only people with a strong opinion in any direction on the issue.) Orderinchaos03:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
a) implicit consensus as article templates already been changed over to the global one previously from today, b) has implicit support via global consensus, see UK, US, and almost all other global election pages, c) some consensus drifts from the 2010 federal page to other pages, what's good for the geese is good for the gander, d) more support in this discussion for new template (with modifications) than the old template. Frickeg's response of "Wow, I thought we'd done this one. I see no problem with the new version at all - the tiny inaccuracies can easily be fixed, as we did for 2010. The infobox is not meant to serve as a results table - it is meant to summarise the major parties, and that is what this template does. The old one is primitive and, frankly, we're well past the days when it was moderately useful (all it is is a less useful version of the results table)." doesn't count as a strong opinion...? o_O And Canley says "I do slightly prefer the newer template". One, some, and all is this is more than you've got and more than sufficient to keep the global template until a new consensus is formed. As such, it is incumbent upon Orderinchaos to form consensus and not unilaterally force his own version. Discuss, talk, form consensus, and once formed, by all means change. Nobody has stopped Orderinchaos from improving the article in the many other ways it needs improving. I have found his from-the-beginning bad faith in my "motives" very unsettling. God forbid we aim for/see consistency between federal and state elections! Timeshift (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. What do we have there?
The infobox is not meant to serve as a results table - it is meant to summarise the major parties. Really? And where is that defined? In fact. the infobox is the tool that gives new viewers of the article that quick look at what has happened and what is happening. As it is right now, with no mention of the Greens (the big issue today), and appalling pictures of the leaders, it hardly does any of that. Please don't respond with "better pics could be found". They haven't been yet, and the election is a fortnight away.
I see no problem with the new version at all - Given the even minor criticisms made by everybody else who has commented on this topic, that just shows your absolute position. Settle a bit, and compromise, please. HiLo48 (talk) 04:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Try looking at other countrys' election infoboxes. The UK has far more minor parties in the lower house but only has the majors. Same with the US, same with other countries. Timeshift (talk) 04:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus doesn't "drift" - that's actually quite an amusing notion. The status quo is actually the old infobox, it remained unhindered for months and/or years. The general notion is that the status quo stays while replacements are being discussed. Having to resort to increasingly creative readings of a "consensus" which, quite frankly, isn't in either direction if it can be established at all, shows the weakness of your position. Orderinchaos04:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Timeshift, you say yourself this topic is trivial. I'm glad you raised it for discussion, but I don't think Orderinchaos has been unreasonable to revert to the old infobox on a single digit number of articles without "gaining global consensus", initiating a robust discussion or overstepping the bounds of WP:BOLDness. He added a quite valid (but arguably ugly) infobox where there was none in a small series of articles nearly a year ago, it was changed to a different one, he reverted it back for fairly valid reasons. Timeshift called for opinions here, got some lukewarm responses from the usual OzPol suspects and then proceeded to beat Orderinchaos around the head like he was on some kind of crusade or vendetta to force his personal infobox on the trembling world. It's not like he made some huge sweeping change to thousands of articles – the fact that we only have articles on 8 or 9 Victorian elections anyway is more laughable than which infobox is used. --Canley (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not "my" infobox, the "global" infobox. a) implicit consensus as article templates already been changed over to the global one previously from today, b) has implicit support via global consensus, see UK, US, and almost all other global election pages, c) some consensus drifts from the 2010 federal page to other pages, what's good for the geese is good for the gander, d) more support in this discussion for new template (with modifications) than the old template. Frickeg's response of "Wow, I thought we'd done this one. I see no problem with the new version at all - the tiny inaccuracies can easily be fixed, as we did for 2010. The infobox is not meant to serve as a results table - it is meant to summarise the major parties, and that is what this template does. The old one is primitive and, frankly, we're well past the days when it was moderately useful (all it is is a less useful version of the results table)." doesn't count as a strong opinion...? o_O And Canley says "I do slightly prefer the newer template". One, some, and all is this is more than you've got and more than sufficient to keep the global template until a new consensus is formed. As such, it is incumbent upon Orderinchaos to form consensus and not unilaterally force his own version. Discuss, talk, form consensus, and once formed, by all means change. And if there isn't enough interest either way, who's to say that Orderinchaos' preferred template has precedence over the global default template? The bad attitude originated from Orderinchaos, not I, I do suggest reading his talk page. Timeshift (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can I also say, it's refreshing to see the use of the "global consensus" as an argument on Australian articles! Seen plenty of RFCs, etc., where we Aussie Wikipedians argue that we're special cases and don't want no stinkin' US-centric template forced on us (see the Infobox settlement vs Infobox Australian Place wars of... pretty much every year)! :) --Canley (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh calm down, Timeshift, that was a tongue-in-cheek dig at Aussie editors in general, not at you or this barrow you're pushing today. I absolutely agree that there is extremely widespread consensus that the newer template is preferable. But I say again, I don't think treating Orderinchaos like he's committed some cardinal wiki-sin over such a trivial matter is helpful. --Canley (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. It is the repeated bad faith and gutter circular arguments that he started right at the beginning of talks that turned me sour. As long as the reverts stop until such time that new consensus is formed, i'd be relieved and happy to cease wasting energy on this gone-way-too-far discussion. Timeshift (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, for heaven's sake. I went off to my (two hour) exam (and no snarky comments about whether I should have been studying! :) ) this morning under the impression that we pretty much had this sorted. I come back and there's a legion of further "discussion" (I use the term loosely) in which not a single new idea or suggestion for reaching the much-trumpeted "consensus" has been raised. Surely, people, we're better than this. I don't really care where the combativeness originated, I'd just like to see a sensible conclusion reached. So: I believe we're agreed on how to deal with hung parliaments. The key disagreement now seems to be whether minor parties can (or should) be accommodated in the infobox. How about we get back to that? My own view is that unless the party has a reasonable chance of forming government, or is of a considerable size (i.e. the Lib Dems in the UK), they probably don't warrant a place in the infobox, which is about the contest for winning the election. I'm not maligning the Greens, but I don't think we'll see either them or the Independents forming government any time soon. Frickeg (talk) 05:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just enter the discussion by saying that I seriously didn't charge on and make the edit without thinking about it first. I really thought it was the better infobox, for a number of issues. Firstly, an infobox is meant to be a summary of the election before the other details are given, which are found later in the article. But for those that just want a summary, the previous state infobox is really good, much better than the other "infoboxes" which used to be found in the federal election articles before I replaced them, as they were kind of rubbish. But the infoboxed which Orderinchaos wants are really good, just not good enough. The only thing they do better than the new infoboxes, apart from the mobile thingy, which sounds pretty hit and miss, is the fact that they display the minor parties. I agree this is important, but if you want a quick summary, that's just not the type of things that are necessary unless there is a hung parliament or a party wins a significant amount of seats. If it's a hung parliament, that can be mentioned and the necessary information can be displayed somewhere else. If a minor party wins a significant amount of seats, then they can be a "Third", "Fourth" etc party. When it comes hung parliaments anyway, I don't see how saying "No Majority" helps anyone anyway. Who won the election, who was the subsequent Premier, is the single most important part of an election, and saying "No Majority" completely misses that. Who was in power beforehand is also a key issue, which also can't be displayed on the old ones. Coalitions are also part of Australian elections that need to be clear in a summary, and not only is that not obvious enough in the old infoboxes, necessary margins betweeen Labor and the Coalition require someone to do mathematics to add up the swings, seats gained, percentages and seat changes between the Liberal and National parties. That is an obstacle that is just not on. The leader is also a nice addition with the new infoboxes, the date is a good part, the amount of seats contested can be important, and possibly some of the things you may not notice but are actually fantastic additions are the previous and next election arrows at the top. If someone is quickly going through elections to find summaries about the elections in Victoria, or indeed, any state, those arrows can be a great assistance and the infobox in general is just better for that type of reading, which is what infoboxes are for. I realise that there are cons with switching, but for summaries which is what the infoboxes are for, this infobox is just better in more details than one. I would also like to say that I do appreciate the fact that Timeshift is supporting my view, but a longer fuse would be just fantastic, from not only Timeshift but also Orderinchaos. I previous that the latter of the two is probably the one who was provoked, but it still is unnecessary in such a petty discussion. I would also like to add that while I have worked pretty hard to improve the quality of the election pages, I am willing to remove some of the additions that I added, and I am not afraid of being proven wrong. So if it turns out that may changes are not for the better, and the majority agree, removing them is fine with me. At the moment though, I am fixed on my position that the new ones are better. Also, one last word: politics is not my only interest, I have a keen interest in animal life, but I believe that the election pages are the ones that need improving and can be improved. Kapitan110295 (talk) 11:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I've made the headings simple bold text because otherwise it's going to make commenting a bit awkward. Second, having campaign slogans as the headings (even when we have both parties represented) is a major POV issue. The rest of it could probably be worked into a single paragraph (without the two subheadings) including only the locations and the slogans. We don't need to know about former Premiers (generally a given), that the leaders spoke (again), or the warmup speakers. Can I suggest this? (Probably not under a specific heading, just under "Campaign".)
I'm happy with that version. On further thought you're certainly correct that we don't need wikilinks for Labor and the Coalition. We should include Романов's citations, though. Frickeg (talk) 06:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one I was working on the other day, but was waiting for the final results. I can change it if there are any errors or seat changes. --Canley (talk) 10:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! But I notice that Prahran and Mount Waverley are incorrect. I've done a quick fix until you can adjust and reupload the image (mspaint colour fill isn't perfect...) Timeshift (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to try adding something, but I can foresee immediate difficulties. Do you list all policies for all parties? Where from? Party manifestos? If you list less than all, which ones? That last question will immediately introduce some sort of bias. You will have an interest in policies in certain areas. My interest will probably lie elsewhere. And as for all those other readers.... I used to think policies were the most important thing, but we know that they can change. My view today, with most big parties trending to the middle ground, is that personalities of strong leaders are more important. But that's definitely POV. HiLo48 (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article tells us, seemingly correctly, that it was only in the final 48 hours or so that opinion polling showed the true scale of the swing against the government. This election is said to have had the highest proportion ever of pre-poll votes. Did those pre-poll votes reflect the "new", significantly different opinion poll results, or the earlier ones? HiLo48 (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your question and share it from an academic POV, but it's impossible to tell, for two reasons:
Prepoll votes normally have a "profile lean" to the Libs, which usually results in a small rise in the Lib primary and 2PP from booth totals (~0.5) once completed
Because more people prepoll voted this time it may be that the above represents a particular demographic who "normally" vote pre-poll whereas this time it's more broadly representative - or is it? Without proper, statistical exit polling, no way to know.
However I'd say that if prepoll ALP 2PP > booth ALP 2PP in any electorate outside the inner core (Grn vs ALP seats), it'd suggest those people voted on the previous "reality" rather than the new one. I'm inclined to believe that in so many ways the Vic election was a rerun of WA 2008 with different numbers / demographics, and Brumby was simply more unpopular than anyone realised for longer than anyone realised. (And I include myself in that, as I was one of the "reduced majority" forecasters.) Orderinchaos12:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen a few put forth the notion in an article or two that the Coalition has a margin of two seats. This is incorrect on two fronts. If Labor and the Coalition won 44 seats each, in practicality neither side would allow the other to govern, be unable to elect a speaker, and would have gone to a new election. Second, the Coalition will elect a Coalition speaker, so the Coalition will govern with 44 seats to 43, that is, one seat. Timeshift (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would just avoid expressions like "a margin of x seats" or "won by y seats". It's pretty straightforward, and simply true, to say "The Coalition won 45 seats to the ALP's 43." If refinement is needed, then you mention the speaker thing, as you have just done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs)
Me too. I've just edited Ted Baillieu to remove the highlighted part of "The Coalition won 45 seats to Labor's 43, with a parliamentary margin of 44 to 43." We never make this sort of distinction anywhere else. Plus, "parliamentary margin" is an OR term. The Speaker has a special role, to be sure, but as far as the Parliament is concerned, s/he is just as much a member as anybody else and has to be counted in the party/coalition of which s/he is a member. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Normally we wouldn't make the distinction over the speaker, but I think it is important to note that in this particular parliament, the 45-43 result means only one Coalition MP needs to cross the floor or a potential Liberal->Labor by-election occurs, which would bring down the government. It's because of this that the distinction can be made. Could it be better worded perhaps? Timeshift (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wafer-thin majorities speak for themselves. You don't have to dramatise it by talking about what would/might happen if something else happens (particularly as not just any crossing of the floor would bring down the government; it has to be on a supply or confidence matter). But if it really does need spelling out - and I'm far from convinced - you have to particularly avoid made-up expressions like "a parliamentary margin of 44 to 43". That relegates the Speaker to somebody who's not even a member of parliament. They only got to be Speaker in the first place because they are a member of the party/coalition that commands a majority in the Assembly, as measured by counting all the members of the Assembly from that party, compared with all the members from the other side. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this edit by a fellow editor, I would like to seek a majority consensus as to the difference between having an election outcome map in the space provided in the election box, or under it. My reasons for preferring the map in the election box include that:
The change allows for a neat and uncluttered article.
It does not change the width of the election box.
It does not increase the length of the artile.
Provides a neat unboardered image unlike that of a single image in the article.
Your version makes the infobox unneccessarily bigger, adds wasted white, and pushes the premier bits below the image which unnecessarily seperates them. This is much better. There may be a section for it, but we are not required to use it. Infact, in almost every election article, we don't! Timeshift (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unneccessarily bigger? The map takes up no more space than is required for an election infobox of this type. There are no measurement requirements or guidelines on Wikipedia for election boxes to my knowledge. Adds wasted white, Timeshift9 you will have to go into more detail there. In almost every election article we dont use election maps due to most being ill suited for that purpose, such as the maps found at South Australian state election, 2010 and Victorian state election, 2006. Романов (talk) 11:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Timeshift, I think it looks better without the map in the infobox. Reason being is that infoboxes are for imparting information "at-a-glance", and you can't really get meaningful information from electoral maps at a glance without clicking several times to get it to a decent zoom. That said, I can try and lay it out horizontally or something to see if the space can be optimised a bit—less whitespace and so it doesn't push the important Premier information down too far... I'll upload it if I can lay it out better. --Canley (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adding up the 2pp's for each electorate as published on VEC, per WP:CALC. All non-standard seats have had 2pp's published (see e.g. Melbourne), which made it fairly easy to do with an Excel spreadsheet. I didn't bother putting in numbers of votes until it's finalised as there's still very minor discrepancies in some counts (although the extreme bounds both work out to 51.58%). Since the figures are publicly available and anyone can add them, I thought there was no point in waiting further to indicate the "overall swing" of the election. Orderinchaos10:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
