Talk:Victorian legislative election, 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Flag Victorian legislative election, 2006 is part 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.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
WikiProject Australia To-do:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Victorian legislative election, 2006 article.

Contents

[edit] Article created

Started this article as a skeleton for the upcoming Victorian State Election, based on a similar article for the New South Wales legislative election, 2007. Peter C Talk! 12:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title?

In Australia, isn't "legislative election" a tautology? Wouldn't Victorian state election, 2006 suffice? Artemus Jones 10:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The naming is in line with the vast majority of Australian federal and state elections, so it has become a defacto convention. Now this article has been redirected to a name that no longer fits with this, which I am not sure is a good thing. Peter C Talk! 04:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Someone redirected this article to 2006 Victorian state election but this is inconsistent with all other Australian elections so I have put it back. -- Barrylb 12:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the first comment. No where in the media or among politicians do you hear "legislative election", it's either "state election" or "federal election". Considering an encyclopedia is all about ease of understanding, doesn't "state election" sum it up and is what most people will understand. I think the heading should be "Victorian state election, 2006". I don't think uniformity with past articles should trump calling a spade a spade.
Can you please sign your postings on talk pages by adding for tildes (4 x ~)at the end of them? Peter C Talk! 07:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marginal seats

The new table of seats looks snazzy, but I don't think their updated status is accurate. I don't think that seats with greater than a 3% swing can really be regarded as marginal - e.g. Albert Park and Benambra. What do other people think about this? Peter C Talk! 06:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah the table looks great. What do you mean by "updated status"? I guess marginal status is an arbitrary concept. Some people think it's as high as five per cent. Artemus Jones 09:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
In a State where the previous election recorded a uniform swing of about 4.8%[1]. I would suggest that erring on the side of defining 'marginal' as a big number would be appropriate. Some seats swung more than 10%.

[edit] Article length

This article is already very long, and the election is still 6 months. It needs to contain less detail, particularly in the Campaign section. JPD (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to remove things that don't realy need to be there. But I don't know enough to cut down the rest. Xtra 13:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I think we should keep the electoral maps in the main article, and shift the full district list to the results article. This seemed to work OK for the Tasmanian legislative election, 2006. I think the campaign section is key to the article - and is the main area of interest - other than the outcome.Peter C Talk! 13:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The full district list definitely doesn't need to be there. I don't quite see the need for big maps, either. The polls look like taking up too much space, too. Either some should be left out, or they should be presented in graphical form. The Campaign section is of course the most important part, but there's another 6 months worth of campaigning to go in there, so the current level of detail is probably too much. We must remember that Wikipedia isn't meant to be a news service. The article is already 47kB - a lot bigger than recommended. JPD (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
47kb is fine for an article in this day and age - you'd struggle to get an article featured that wasn't pushing that length. The full district list gives important information, and makes no sense being split out until at least after the election. The campaign section can be successively rewritten as new events happen - it's fantastic to have such a good section so far out from the election. This is one of the best election articles I've ever seen, and I really must object to tearing it to pieces on length grounds. Ambi 01:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd have no problem with the length if it were the finshed article after the elction, but at the moment it is so filled with small details that it doesn't read well. The fact that it's better than other articles isn't a reason not to improve it. The district list is definitely important information, but until there are results in it, all the information in it should probably already be somewhere like Electoral districts of Victoria. The current table doesn't have adequate space for the results, either, so it's going to have to change at some point. JPD (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Small details to you. Pre-election articles are always full of this sort of stuff, precisely because it's relevant. The district list shows the margins needed to win the seat, which is the most pertinent information before the election, and this can be switched to a candidates list when that information starts to come out. There really is no excuse for taking an axe to a perfectly good article. Ambi 09:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to take an axe to anything - I just find the information not particularly accessible in its current format, and think it could be improved. You can ignore my thoughts - I'm not that bothered. I guess it's sort of inevitable that articles on current events end up like this. JPD (talk) 09:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the content but as someone just coming to the page it's too long. Too much scrolling to get to what I'm looking for. Some of it needs to be summarised & moved to subarticles. An important note though, Electoral districts of Victoria is probably dynamic so it would be worth having an article for Electoral districts of Victoria - 2006 election. As well stated already this article will change over time - if some of this stuff is reworked now and moved to sub-articles it will be kept as "forever relevant" but if it stays in the "Victorian legislative election, 2006" main article it will become irrelevant after the election and probably dissapear into the History tab forever more. PS, all the best to your part of choice! from a New South Welshman. Garrie 04:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reaching consensus on the district table

I think the district table should stay because, as Ambi points out, it's the very basis of the election. However, I agree that the list will become redundant if there is no space for updating results. I have a few suggestions to counter this:

  • Keep the 55th assembly list as a matter of record. Plus it shows which districts belong to which new upper house regions.
  • Post detailed results on Xtra's results article.
  • When the time comes, include in this article a table outlining seats which have changed hands or that are tightly fought, that is, those really affecting the outcome. No one needs to read in the main article who won a seat by a 25 per cent margin. Stuff like that can go into the detailed results page. Artemus Jones 05:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Having a seperate results article is silly six months out from the election. The table makes sense for now; when this gets converted into a candidates table closer to the election, we can make the call whether it takes up too much space then. Ambi 05:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you. I have no problem with this article as it stands. I am trying to address concerns expressed above. Artemus Jones 07:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The 55th assembly list and the correspondence between districts and regions are or should be elsewhere on Wikipedia whether or not they are also here. (thanks to Ambi for all the lists that are already there!)
  • To me, it seems slightly redundant have the correspondence between districts and regions in the table as well as the big maps. It would be better to have a separate section on the LC - is it possible to get figures on how people voted in those areas in the last election, even though the system has changed?
  • I agree that it is too early for a results article.
  • It seems to me that in the context of the election, the important part of the table is the margin/swing needed. I'd rather see a pendulum or a reordered table than an alphabetical listing, but maybe that's jsut my way of looking at things. JPD (talk) 11:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
There's some good ideas. I agree on the correspondence between districts and regions in the table - that information isn't quite so relevant, and I think sorting it into a pendulum would be more effective - reorganising it in a table like that in 40th Canadian federal election might be an alternative. I'd also like to see a seperate Legislative Council section - I mentioned that to Peter on his talk page a couple of days ago. Ambi 11:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the separate section for the Leglislative Council (and preselections for it) is a good idea. I haven't been able to find a swing table yet. This article appears to be the first substantive one on the election (according to Google). There is nothing yet from Antony Green or mumble.com etc that I can find. Another "associated article" I have been considering - perhaps down the track - is shifting the "election campaign" content into a specific articlePeter C Talk! 10:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I think a swing table or "pendulum" is the way to go. I've got a pendulum from the 2002 election and it can be converted into a table pretty easily. I'm thinking two columns with district name, incumbent, swing/margin and status - essentially what we've got but not alphabetically. Artemus Jones 12:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've mocked up this table pretending to be a pendulum. So you would have Labor seats marginal to safe in one column and then a non-Labor one alongside. Different shades represent strength of seat. I've included the "ALP" and "LIB" just to be precise I guess. You could turn this upside down as well so you get the marginals first and the safe seats last.

LABOR SEATS
Australian Labor Party
Unionville Geoff Watkins ALP 32%
Unionville Geoff Watkins ALP 22%
Unionville Geoff Watkins ALP 12%
Unionville Geoff Watkins ALP 2%
NON-LABOR SEATS
Liberal/National Coalition
Newtown Bruce Wildeson LIB 32%
Newtown Bruce Wildeson LIB 22%
Newtown Bruce Wildeson LIB 12%
Newtown Bruce Wildeson LIB 2%



Something like this to replace the district table. Yes? Artemus Jones 13:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks great to me. Ambi 22:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
It's great, although the some of the colours are a bit dark to easily read the text on them. JPD (talk) 08:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I like the use of extensive tables in this article, but the colours seem far too strong. I would personally prefer a more subtle colour coding of the various parties. Remy B 11:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The table needs a "Change of Government" line added, between Rippon and Ballarat East. (When the ALP would have less than 44 seats, and lose government.) PfkaH 04:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leader

Even though it is highly likely Ted will be leader, the vote isn't till Monday. Xtra 06:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Of the four, Baillieu is the only one that could make me vote Labor in November. Ambi 10:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of leaders, could someone create Peter Ryan? It's a fairly large hole in our coverage. Ambi 04:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff's return to politics - what about it?

I would have thought that the discussion of Jeff possibly returning to politics would have rated more than a mention in passing - it was even newsworthy in other states, isn't there enough material for it to make a section / subarticle? Yeah this goes directly against my comments re this article being too long but as a NSW resident this is the only issue of the Victorian election I have heard about and I had to look hard to find mention of it. Garrie 04:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

In the context of the overall election Jeff's surprise appearance is only a flash in the plan. There was some speculation running prior to his expression of interest in Victoria that he may be considering a federal gig - maybe even PM. I think this should be expanded on in the Jeff Kennett article, or if someone is keen, as a subarticle under this one.Peter C Talk! 04:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
It deserves mentioning briefly here and in Jeff Kennett in more detail, but it was largely inconsequential to the larger campaign. Apart from entertaining the papers for a day and ending Terry Mulder's leadership bid, it had no major event on the campaign, and is essentially forgotten already. A subarticle on the leadership transition could be interesting (Baillieu-Mulder-Kennett-Asher speculation), though, but I've no idea what we'd call it, and I don't know that it's strictly necessary. Rebecca 08:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preselection challenges and retirements

I'd like to do a section on these, but this article is so long already that I don't know that there's room for it in this article. Any suggestions where it could go? Rebecca 04:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Campaign information split to separate article

The information on the campaign has been split out to this article: 2006 Victorian election campaign. If you have any feedback on this, please comment here or on the article's talk page. Peter Campbell 04:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parties Section

The parties section seems to list a number of random points, rather than have a defined purpose. Now that the campaign has moved, can I suggest that we can cover "pre-election challenges and retirements" as a subheading to each party. And that under each party's title we give a brief summary of the parties leadership, recent history and platform(very brief). This article currently gives some details of internal happenings in parties, but little overview.

[edit] Preferences

Hi,

I voted early for the state election and saw what i guess would be the labor how to vote card. For the electorate of williamstown for the lower house it was

1. labor 2. greens 3. Wajde Assaf (an independent) 4. family first 5. liberal

Just wondering if that should be incorporated into the article somewhere. I'd do it, but i'm scared that i'll screw it up. :)

[edit] Poll Bludger

There seems to be some copy and paste from Poll Bludger to this article. The tone is less than ideal, but what is the status copyright-wise? Andjam 08:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It would only be temporary, however if people feel that it shouldnt be there then it can be removed. I personally am somewhat disappointed with the level of inactivity by wikipedians with over a quarter of the vote already counted. Timeshift 08:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not for displaying constantly changing results. There is no point updating it when it is changing by the minute, thats what the sites like tallyroom.vic.gov.au are for. --Crazycrazyduck 09:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Have already removed Poll Bludger. Have left changing results, wikipedia australian election pages do that on election night (tonight is a bit dead...) Timeshift 09:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming convention

I would like to resurrect my previous idea to change the current naming convention for elections. The current convention is:

Use the format "Demonym type election, date", for example "Canadian federal election, 1867"... (WP:NAME#Elections}

I propose this is changed to allow two alternatives, as follows:

Use either this form: political division type election, date, or this form: political division election of date. For example, Canadian federal election, 1867 or Canadian federal election of 1867. Where an article has been created using one form, do not move the article to the other form.

This new option would make linking more natural and make the article names more encyclopedic.

Please comment on this proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#New elections proposal

Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 23:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update

Can someone please update the details of this page?Wai Hong 05:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/i/c/Talk%7EVictorian_legislative_election%2C_2006_bd09.html"