Talk:Victorian general election campaign, 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on February 17, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Victorian general election campaign, 2006 article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Portal	Victorian general election campaign, 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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments This 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 subarticle is kept separate from the main article, Victorian legislative election, 2006, due to size or style considerations.

[edit] Creation of this article

This article was forked from its parent without any discussion. I was considering doing this, but thought a discussion on the talk page would have been a good idea first. Any comments? Peter Campbell 04:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that it would be best if after the election a shorter summary of the campaign was written into the main article, and this one deleted. Xtra 05:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This article needs to be more succinct, but there is so much information here that I don't see why it should be deleted after the election. Maybe if it does get heavily edited it will look silly by itself, but I don't think that is possible given the volume of content. Obviously there should be a multi-paragraph summary in the parent article. Grumpyyoungman01 09:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the article should be deleted or ignored until the end of the campaign. The language (and in particular the headings) used throughout is terribly point-of-view and sounds very sensationalised. If there is to be any article on the campaign at all (personally, I'm completely opposed) it needs to avoid even a scrap of bias or sensationalism—which is a very difficult task. michael ^talk 05:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I also don't think this article is nessecary. It might be difficult but trim this down significantly and put it back into the parent article. I am just thinking that in five years time if we need this much detail on campaining over an entire year. Condense everything that happened from April to October into a couple of paragraphs (that's all it needs really) and have a bit more detail for the last four to six weeks, and return it to the main article. It may prove difficult to do before the election, I am not opposed to leaving this article as it is until after the election then cleaning it up, but it will need to be done at some point. Teiresias84 06:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am in favour of letting the article run until after the election, then doing some major edits to clean it up. Deciding what will matter at the end of the election is impossible at this stage, so allowing the information to gather will make for a much stronger historical article when the time comes. Also, seeing as we can't know what will matter, I think it is important to make NPOV edits now, but leave the details in. The last Victorian election was affected by mistaken (or otherwise) electoral enrolment, so any detail could end up being the most important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PfkaH (talk • contribs) 16:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organisation of headings

There appear to be two types of sections in this article, chronological ones and thematic ones. There is of course a fair bit of crossover. I have reorganised the headings to make it easier to whittle down the information, the heading set up now is tentative, maybe people might like to discuss whether it should be more chronological or more thematic. Grumpyyoungman01 10:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Having just now read the chronological stuff, I think the components would be more effectively placed in their thematic categories. I think that the polling stuff doesn't really belong in this article, especially as it is well covered in the parent article. Grumpyyoungman01 10:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your restructure of the article as the entire campaign content was chronological and does not read well grouped under topics, so I am reverting it. Please start a discussion about significant changes prior to wholesale restructuring. Peter Campbell 12:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, chronological ordering is much easier to follow. PfkaH 13:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It never did have a proper chronological order. 90% of it was thematic and not ordered properly, 10% was chronological, but badly written and hard to follow. PC reverted my thematic ordering (where I kept the chronological stuff down the bottom unaltered), but hasn't then gone on to give it a proper chronological order. If that is what you want to do, you should do it properly. That is each heading should be a date or a week in the extended campaign and what happened written below. The article is unstructured and if it isn't ordered chronologically (assuming that that represents consensus) then I will have to revert you revert which took a well structured article and made it into an unstructured article. Grumpyyoungman01 23:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If you read the reference list for the current article you will see that the entire content is in chronological order, but it is not denoted by date diary entries in the body text. I think these could be added if they don't look too odd. More opinions on this please, I don't think an edit war (or threatening one) is a good move. Peter Campbell 23:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this article is suffering from too few editors. I think we need some new editors to have a look at the article and reach a consensus about its state. I have given my opinions and three other editors have given theirs and it looks like a stalemate. I'll message a few talk pages to see if I can get some fresh talent to cast an eye over it and I suggest that PC and others do the same.Grumpyyoungman01 00:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have left messages on several talk pages of editors previously active on the article at some point. I think a full rewrite should be done after the election to summarise and remove any superfluous content. More contributions are welcome in the meantime - not many have been adding content lately. --Peter Campbell 12:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I was one of those people who had a message left on my talk page, but my contributions to the 2006 vic election haven't been much at all in the way of commentary/issues sorry. I concentrate on my home state of SA and it's election, and only contribute little bits here and there for Vic/NSW/Qld. I will add however that I didn't mind the way the layout had been presented. I do however believe it should, and would expect it to change after the election to a much more summarised and chronological format. Timeshift 08:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)