Talk:South Australian state election, 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star South Australian state election, 2006 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 15, 2007.
Flag
Portal
 South Australian state election, 2006 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.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject South Australia.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Under Discussion
Version 0.7
 This article has been nominated to be held or failed based on its importance or quality, respectively, and is undergoing discussion at this page Feel free to comment here, but only the Review Team can vote.
Archives

Contents

[edit] eek

That table was not in the WP:LEAD when this article passed review; it's really unsightly and too much detail for the lead, and there are incorrect WP:HYPHENs in the lead where they should be WP:DASHes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What does the 2206-102006-10 in the table in the lead refer to? Is that supposed to be October 2006? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
FA status does not mean the article cannot change. The results table and leaders table are viewable at first click of the page. This is the design for all SA elections, and all federal elections. As for 2006-10, not 2206-10, views of previous elections should give off another clue. Timeshift (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you planning to leave the table in the lead? It's unsightly and a lot of detail for the lead; several of the other tables in the article are distorted on my browser. The 2006-10 is unclear; I have no idea what it's referring to. I fixed several MOS issues, but there is still an inconsistent uses of numbers (see WP:MOSNUM). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Haven't received any other complaints. Timeshift (talk) 09:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
WHat browser is the 2006-10 turning up on? I'm looking in Firefox 2.0 and am not seeing it (unless it's already been rectified). Orderinchaos 10:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, found it. Changed it to "October 2006". Orderinchaos 14:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistent hyphenation of two party, I believe it should be hyphenated, some are, some aren't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

In the "Post-election pendulum" section, there are pictures and charts that are running off the screen; can someone fix the layout? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Strange how only you have issues... Timeshift (talk) 09:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia is the deputy FA coordinator, I think we probably should go with what she says on this one (especially since it's such a minor point). Orderinchaos 10:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Well isn't that fantastic. Fine, rip apart the article, see if I care. Timeshift (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you're overreacting just a tad - she's talking about a hyphenation of one word in a few places, and a picture which needs slimming, both are quite achievable with little consequence to the article except improved readability. The table's more difficult an undertaking - I was addressing my comment to this half of the conversation though. Orderinchaos 11:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't care about dashes, it's the other stuff. But i'm not in a good mood which doesn't help. Timeshift (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just want to place on the record that I take no issues with the changes that have been made up to this point. Timeshift (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverted the edit where the editor decided to non-standardise the table from all SA and federal elections by bolding all parties, not just the winner in the 2PP field, and centre all party names. Timeshift (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 15, 2007

Reversion of vandals appreciated. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 05:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have however unprotected it as per Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection - noting it is a guideline but it does state The Main Page featured article is rarely semi-protected. However, it is recognised that there are some extreme circumstances in which semi-protection can be introduced for a limited amount of time.--Matilda talk 06:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This article was only move protected, which is done for every article that appears on the main page. Woody (talk ยท contribs) has restored the protection. - auburnpilot talk 22:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

Seems awfully biased for a featured article. FenderTeleCriticise 09:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It went through months of reviews during the FA process. Don't dare make such baseless accusations without providing some examples of such. Timeshift (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
If there are allegations, we can hear them and then decide what to do about them. It was something of a landslide election, with the opposition party being reduced to under one quarter of the parliament, so the facts themselves naturally bias towards the victor, but if there's any undue weight issues or whatever we can fix them. Probably best to provide examples and links. Orderinchaos 12:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
FWIW his first userbox is the Liberal Party supporter one. Of course this doesn't mean much, but perhaps those not too familiar with this election and who support the Liberals could see this as an article with some natural bias per OiC comments above. Timeshift (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I had another read of the article, and yes, I guess it is just my support of the Liberal Party that got in the way of my judgements. It was late at night when I posted that comment, and as Orderinchaos said, the facts would obviously sway towars the ALP, and I mistook that for bias. Sorry FenderTeleCriticise 22:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
All good. Thanks for clarifying. Timeshift (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the article is biased but I can't see the merit in having it as a featured article of the day. It's pretty second division subject matter - even in an Australian context. Albatross2147 (talk) 04:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Mind you, many of the featured articles of the day are on very esoteric and narrow subjects. Orderinchaos 06:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
"Was he sacked?" "No, worse, transferred to Adelaide!" (laughter) -- Frontline (Australian TV series). Peter Ballard (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
And John Safran too - "Live in New York once. Live in Northern California once. Never live in Adelaide, it's a hole." :) Orderinchaos 06:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia contradicts itself again

I seem to recall creating the 2010 state election which had a fixed date which was deleted, yet let's take a gander at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian federal election, 2010. Wikipedia contradiction strikes again. Love it. Timeshift (talk) 08:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The lack of any response is damning and an indictment on wikipedia. I will be recreating the page at my next convenient time. Timeshift (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Posting anything on an article talk page hardly anyone watches a week before Christmas is probably the explanation for the trouble in getting a response, let alone within 31 hours. Orderinchaos 19:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes, you have a good point there OiC. However, some admins may have trouble explaining why they deleted the election page. FenderTeleCriticise 20:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
It was, from what I can tell, deleted nearly two years ago after someone placed a proposed deletion tag on it and no-one contested it.[1] Looking at the content of the page, I'm not surprised it went the way of the dodo. Its entire content read as follows: "State elections for both houses of parliament will occur on the 18th of March 2010 which will also coincide with a referendum to abolish or reform the upper house. [2]" Orderinchaos 20:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Hardly the point and you know it. Pages/stubs don't get deleted for lack of content. I recall raising the issue on the SA 2006 talk page (now in the archives) and didn't bother participating in the PROD process once I realised it would be futile. WP contradictions. Timeshift (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
See criteria for speedy deletion A1. Substubs can indeed be deleted under Wikipedia's guidelines without even the need for discussion (stubs are another matter). Orderinchaos 22:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Can't find 'substub' on the page. This btw is the most superficial excuse for a contradiction on wikipedia that i've seen during my time on wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:SUBSTUB for a definition. A1 covers it, though. Orderinchaos 23:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm interested in the claim that you raised it, but am struggling to find it. No user talk page, article talk page or project talk page edited by yourself anywhere in that timeframe even mentions the article or your feelings about it, unless I have missed something that's been posted months after the fact. I even checked deleted contribs. I am quite happy to discuss this in good faith, but I think we can do without the unsubstantiated allegations and epithets about Wikipedia's alleged failings. Orderinchaos 23:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I am also unable to find the discussion, but I do recall that there was one somewhere. I recall the reason not being because it was too short, but because it was too far away from the (fixed date) election and I even recall WP:CRYSTAL thrown at me. That is beside the point anyway. I am also happy to accept good faith individually, but not as a whole. I think it is extremely poor to delete the fixed-date state election but to keep the variable-date federal election, both years away. Any further clarification is just semantics. Timeshift (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally I see nothing stopping you from recreating, so there should be no problem. The one for the next Victorian election (2010) may be of use as we got that one to survive AfD from a near-certain delete consensus. Orderinchaos 00:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Thus the second comment made on this subject on this talk page. I was simply replying. Timeshift (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)