This is the
talk page for discussing
WikiProject Australian politics and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
![]() | Australia: Politics Project‑class | |||||||||
|
![]() | WikiProject Australian politics was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 12 September 2011. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
So, in my opinion, the table with First Preference Percentage and the Two Candidate Preferred percentage is pretty uninformative. Just from those numbers, you might be left scratching your head as to why the person leading on first preferences ends up losing. Sure you can *imply* that the Greens vote went to Labor, One Nation vote went to Liberal, etc, but there should be something more explicit.
With minor parties surging, outright wins on first preference (i.e. a candidate receiving more than 50% of the vote, rendering preferences meaningless) are becoming more and more rare, with 133/151 (87%) seats being won on first preferences in 2022, way up from only 63/147 (43%) in 1993. [1]
I was inspired to start making Sankey diagrams of Australian lower house seats (this wouldn't work in a visually coherent way in the Australian Senate because each state is effectively a multi member constituency) from an image from 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska (right). This image clearly shows that the Democrats overwhelmingly preferred Murkowski over Tshibaka and this got Murkowski over the 50% line.
I have made quite a few Sankey diagrams of various Australian seats here on Flourish. Would people support if I generated one for every seat (in a better format than Flourish, possibly Plotly or another custom designed one to best convey the information, the Alaska senate example is a good one) and added them to every seat page, with the data from the latest election, possibly via a bot since I'm not going to do it 151 times lol.
References
MarkiPoli ( talk) 10:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I would much appreciate it if anyone who is more in the habit of writing content about politics than me could look over the section City of Brisbane#Wards which contains the results of the recent 2024 Brisbane City Council election. I stumbled onto it this afternoon and it was in a mess. Names of the elected people were in the article but supported by citations from 2020, parties and the colours didn't match, counts of members of parties were wrong, etc. I find it was too much of a mess to just walk away, so I did my best to clean it up, but it involves use of tables and the diagrams that I am not familiar with, so I hope I have brought it up to date, but would welcome a second set of eyes. I don't know where to find the salary data, so I didn't touch that. Thanks if you can help! Free free to change anything I got wrong! Kerry ( talk) 07:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Some photos of election campagin posters I have taken over the past year has been deleted or nominated to be deleted because "Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Australia". Just want to know everyone's thoughts on this.
Currently this photo File:Aston by-election poster Bayswater West Shops April 2023.jpg is nominated to be deleted. Marcnut1996 ( talk) 11:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi all. A fellow Australian contributor (@ DeadlyRampage2) had a discussion with me today on page Talk:Fatima Payman regarding the exact placement of foreign-origin names not written in a Latin script. He objected to my usage of the "native_name" parameter of Template:Infobox officeholder for including the Persian name. He says that it is not conventional for articles included in WikiProject Australian politics to use that infobox parameter. Hence we agreed to move the name out of the infobox to the lead section.
Is this indeed a convention specific to Australia-related biographies? The "native_name" parameter is used quite widely across infoboxes on the site. After I concurred with his suggestion of moving Payman's secondary name out of the infobox, that fellow contributor has removed the parameter from infoboxes of other people (e.g. edits [1], [2]), claiming "consensus on Australian politician pages".
I have not been involved in Wikiproject Australia discussions (or with Australian editors in general) and would appreciate some insight. I am of the view that an indiscriminate pursuit of removing usages of the parameter could contribute to Wikipedia:Systemic bias along cultural lines, as such infoboxes illuminate significant cultural heritage and are also useful to certain multi-lingual readers like myself. I write here because there is clearly no site-wide rule. I'm curious about whether there has been prior discussion on this specific issue within Wikiproject Australia.
Thanks! Y. Dongchen ( talk) 13:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi all, there is currently a discussion ongoing on Talk:Jillian Segal which relates to Australian politics as it is discussing the merits of including the political leanings of certain organisations, and the recent appointment of Segal as envoy on Antisemitism by the federal gov. Any perspectives people have would be appreciated. Many thanks. /info/en/?search=Talk:Jillian_Segal#Proposed_sentence GraziePrego ( talk) GraziePrego ( talk) 06:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)