Jump to content

User talk:Frickeg: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Pappubahry (talk | contribs)
Party affiliations: new section
Line 242: Line 242:


[[Helen Westwood]] is last on the upper house Labor ticket in the article, however in her article it says she's retiring at the election, which btw I only came across because I wanted to know why a current MLC would be last on an upper house ticket. The Antony ref appears to have a lower house candidate listing only. Where did you source it from? [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 20:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
[[Helen Westwood]] is last on the upper house Labor ticket in the article, however in her article it says she's retiring at the election, which btw I only came across because I wanted to know why a current MLC would be last on an upper house ticket. The Antony ref appears to have a lower house candidate listing only. Where did you source it from? [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 20:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

== Party affiliations ==

Thank ''you'' for having done so much of the work in setting up all these articles and tables. I'm trying to create a federal election dataset (it'll be online and interactive when it gets finished... which could be a while), and the Wikipedia pages have made that task a lot easier. I think I'm done with party affiliations for now -- there's more that could be done with 1901 especially, but it'd be a bit of work checking for endorsements, and I want to move on to something else at least for a couple of weeks! [[User:Pappubahry|Pappubahry]] ([[User talk:Pappubahry|talk]]) 03:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:39, 7 March 2015

All federal by-election articles done

Well done, I didn't realise they were all done! Quite a while ago too! I don't suppose you want to weave links to them in to MP articles? :) Timeshift (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to what i've done here and here as examples. Weave the by-election article link in to the text of MP articles. Timeshift (talk) 05:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't want to? Ok. :) Timeshift (talk) 05:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote an email to this site, which is Christine's website (I think), and requested an image of Christine for the article. Hoping to get a response soon. Thanks, Acalycine(talk/contribs) 11:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, noticed this discussion while stalking your contributions as usual - where do you find out about these people? I love reading these articles and I'd be interested to do a bit more work in this area. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, thanks a ton! This'll be interesting to pick away at. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charmaine

Does being interviewed by CNN Espanola and having her song that she was featured with Jonathan Thulin chart on two billboard charts and at No. 1 on one of those count and serve the purpose for notability?HotHat (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know i've asked this before, but where do you get middle names and DOB from?

I've made a revert at David Speirs due to addition of info from a new user with no cites, such as middle name and DOB. Where do you get these from? Timeshift (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keating

God, thanks for that. I fell down some stairs earlier in the week and did my back in, so I'm a bit crabbier than usual, and that discussion got my goat worse than it normally would. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not thrilled by the situation, but it's much more logical/sensible/etc. than throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Activist candidates

Glad to see you back writing these articles. I always find them really interesting reading. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! Particularly today, you've hit a few that have been on my to-do list for ages like Gleeson and Roper (and a bunch of people I was never interested enough to write about but am glad we now have for completeness sake), so the least I can do is run through and copyedit as I go. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised at how little I could find about Gleeson, and that's one of the reasons I think I never wrote the article - I'd read a couple of tangential things that made her sound interesting, but when it came down to good sources about here there was a big load of nada. However, as for her death - I'm pretty sure I'm the one who wrote that note in the member list. Having two female Labor MPs in Toner and Gleeson die of cancer in the space of eleven months sparked quite a bit of media attention at the time; unfortunately, as neither of them were the subject of much work post their deaths, we're reliant on sources from that era. I got the details from Factiva, which is unfortunately the only online news source that covers the 1985-1991 period, and as I'm a deferred student, I no longer have access. If all else fails, I'll go re-source the thing in January! The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wimmera 1996

It turns out that I accidentally used the 2pp vote as the primary vote when I did that, it's fixed now. Also, in regards to Doutta Galla, it says on Antony Green's election summary that the election of Tayfun Eren occurred as a by-election despite it happening on election day. Hopefully one day I'll get around to making election result pages for the old legislative council regions to get the LC by-election results a place too. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. It seemed like a common thing in Victoria for MLC's to retire around election time if they didn't want to serve their full 2 terms. I'll put the polling day by elections for the Victorian LC results pages in sections below the main results. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 08:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Sorry, got too many "balls in the air" at the moment.

Nevertheless, it's my experience that when you give advice, it would be VERY foolish of me to ignore it. So
a) Thanks. (Thank you very much.)
b) When I've got a few things under control, I'll get back to you for some clarifications, etc.
(In case there was any ambiguity), I VERY much appreciate and respect your opinion/advice. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

all MLAs belong in the MLA category ...

Re this - I've done this. Possibly {{All included}} should be added to other similar cats, and possibly {{Non-diffusing subcategory}} should be added to the sub-cats. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should start mentioning WP:SUBCAT explicitly in my edit summaries, that being the policy that says "A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category (unless the child category is non-diffusing – see below.". Mitch Ames (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Moxham

Hello, having just read Tom Moxham, I'm wondering how you arrived at the title Tom Moxham, instead of Thomas Moxham, since nowhere in the source is the nickname of Tom ever mentioned.- Gilliam (talk) 07:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for taking the time to clear that up.- Gilliam (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kon Vatskalis

September 18, says the Labor Party. NT Government website has always been useless as hell.

Which would seem hasn't actually resigned yet, to my surprise (which explains the lack of a date/writ after all this time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vaiben Louis Solomon

Good morning Frickeg. You ask why I've changed some instances of "Vaiben Solomon" to "Vaiben Louis Solomon". It's because during his lifetime that was how he was referred to, to differentiate between him and his uncle, Vaiben Solomon (no middle name). Most WP references to him already use the full version of his name. Here's the message I left for another admin:

The politician usually referred to as Vaiben Louis Solomon is at present on a page Vaiben Solomon and Vaiben Louis Solomon is a redirect page. The only problem is that he had an uncle Vaiben Solomon (no middle name) who, though probably not needing his own article, does get a few mentions in Wikipedia. Assuming you agree, could you please swap the page and redirect for me? (I could do it by cutting and pasting but not sure that's kosher.) I can do the appropriate hatnote. I think I've ensured that all relevant articles use the full length version of his name. Doug butler (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But was his uncle really at all a notable person? Most of the modern sources I see simply refer to "Vaiben Solomon" meaning the Premier/MP, in much the same way we now refer to Stanley Bruce rather than S. M. Bruce, as he was at the time. Clearly this is the Vaiben Solomon that history remembers. Having said all that, I freely admit that my familiarity with early SA politics is sketchy at best. How do the modern sources you've read stack up on the issue? Frickeg (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, contemporary references used full name, as does ADB. Vaiben Solomon, for whom VLS was named, was transported to Sydney with brother Emanuel (definitely notable) and crops up occasionally in his brother's land deals and establishment of Queen's Theatre, Adelaide. Hardly notable but worth a bit of trouble to avoid confusion. [[Vaiben Solomon]] would still redirect to [[Vaiben Louis Solomon]] and there would be a hatnote mentioning the uncle's existence elsewhere. Doug butler (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carr

Your exchange about the links to Jeff Carr reminded me that I really should write that article. Somehow I stumbled across his autobiography in a book sale years ago, and it's an area of history I'm so interested in, but he comes across as so spectacularly full of himself that I've never actually read the thing. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hughes

The Fairfax news search gives 56 hits, and it looks like there's some stuff that might be useful in there. Crikey has 176 hits, but anything prior to Mayne selling it to Beecher in 2005 should probably be taken with a grain of salt because Mayne and Hughes were in bed together politically for a while. I'd imagine the News Ltd papers would have a bit but you'd need Factiva for that and I don't currently have access. I'd help you out more but Hughes is the rare modern Australian political figure who does not interest me one iota... The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Women and government in Australia

Hi, thanks for your message regarding the right to stand for election. Apparently the United States was the first country to allow women to do so: http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/suffrage.htm Ben Dawid (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I think that if the USA doesn't count because of other restrictions then Australia wouldn't either (Australian restrictions are indicated on the website I linked to). It seems that Finland actually comes first, ahead of both those English-speaking countries:
"In 1906 Finland’s national assembly, Eduskunta in Finnish, became the first parliament in the world to adopt full gender equality. It earned that distinction by granting equally to men and women the right not only to vote but also to stand for election." http://finland.fi/Public/default.aspx?contentid=160111&nodeid=37598&culture=en-US
Ben Dawid (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not all Australian women had the right to stand in the 1903 election, so it seems that in 1906 Finland became the first country to remove all restrictions. Ben Dawid (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The second sentence of the article in question states that "most women" were allowed "to both vote and stand in the federal election of 1903". I would have thought that was easily sufficient, given the lack of clarity surrounding the issue. My opinion is that Australia's indigenous population would be incorrectly ignored if the blanket statement about electoral rights were reinserted without footnotes, but adding a footnote would unnecessarily bring up Australia's dubious record on indigenous rights. Cheers, Ben Dawid (talk) 06:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Adye Smith

Hi Frickeg (talk) - thanks for the feedback. I'll seek to obtain some verifiable information that I can post for my Great Grandfather. I admire your work sourcing all the interesting information you've posted here on Wikipedia.

A.

By-the-way

Some WP editors might interpret some of my recent responses to your postings as negative. I hope you're not one of them, because I highly value your work and our relationship. If something I've said offends you, please tell me and I'll reword it - I have no intention nor desire to offend you - I value your work more highly than my poor communication skills. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feleppa

Geez, that's a strange one. There's a bucketload of sources, albeit not great quality, stating that a Mario Feleppa died in 2011 and was buried at Cheltenham Cemetery, but none of them give a middle name, none of Feleppa's other sources give a birthdate that might allow a crosscheck, and there's no record of it being recorded in Hansard. It's strange with some of these SA MPs - there's just nothing, even though sources record Feleppa's vote as having been crucial on a couple of major issues. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Victoria censorship

Hi Frickeg,

Please refrain from censoring WP with verified and important information regarding a subject, like you recently did on the Heidi_Victoria page. WP is not a place for personal preference or opinion, only important facts that have a contributing factor on the topic.

Bignold Team

It turns out it was an error on my part, my source did list Alicia Bignold as the leading candidate for that group after all. I've corrected it on the page. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

City councillors

The wording of it is a little bit more general than what I stated in that discussion, but WP:POLOUTCOMES specifies that "precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo or London". (The original establishment of that consensus happened longer ago in more separate discussions than I could ever realistically hope to dig out now.)

That wording has occasionally been misinterpreted to suggest that only those four cities qualify, but that's not the case at all — it's indeed always been meant to apply to all cities of their world city class. That said, though, it's also meant to exclude people who serve only as borough councillors in a division below the level of the citywide government. (And even outside that class, a city councillor can still qualify for inclusion if you can source them well enough to pass WP:GNG — what they're not allowed to do is claim an entitlement under WP:NPOL to keep an unsourced or minimally sourced article.)

I do recognize that the wording might be less than helpful in an Australian context, but I'm not familiar enough with the structure of Australian municipal politics to change it arbitrarily — do the big Australian cities even have "citywide" governments besides the individual local government areas? So if you have any input on how we can improve it, feel free to post it to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes for discussion. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Nolte one went the way it did, at least in part because it was written in the context of his independent candidacy, he's an otherwise boring case, and there's really nothing Australian Wikipedians like to vote delete on more than failed election candidates, even if they've got other potential claims to notability. I think if we went some more obvious councillors, such as Milton Dick and Shayne Sutton (Brisbane), Eva Ruzicka (Hobart), Irene Doutney (Sydney) or Ken Ong (Melbourne), we might set a very different precedent.
As to the boundaries issue and that guideline: I would class Brisbane as being at least as expansive as Hobart, considering that the City of Hobart doesn't extend to their metro limits, and Brisbane City Council is a much more North American-style mini-parliament.
I suggested those five cities because I think I could source information about them: Melbourne and Sydney because of their prominence (even if they cover small areas), and Brisbane and Hobart because of their larger size. It's funny that I could tell you a lot more about the Hobart councillors (or really any of the others) than I could about the City of Perth, even though I live in Perth, and a year ago could have voted in the City. It's a point I'd like to push anyway, between GNG and the guideline Bearcat cited. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hollins

Too small a point to argue, but I don't think it was much of a stretch to call him a conservative independent: he was a supporter of Liberal Premier Macfarlan and served as a minister in his government! The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond

I would have done the same with Richmond, but I was making the list as Antony was making the call of the card, and he said on the air that Wynne had definitively won Richmond. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was pretty clear about it, and I don't think it was a slip - it's a seat they'd been discussing throughout the night, and the figures support that conclusion. I think Richmond's one of the seats where the ABC computers have been having a bit of trouble - Maltzahn hasn't come within 600 votes of Wynne at any point, and has progressively gotten further behind with nearly every booth, but for most of the night that algorithm, bizarrely, had her winning in a landslide. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to blank out Wynne until it's called, I won't object, though I don't think it's in doubt. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the ABC computer is completely on the fritz tonight. Their "changing seats" is missing a bunch of actually changing seats, and their "seats in doubt" has two that haven't been in doubt for a while now and not actually-in-doubt Morwell or the-closest-of-the-others-to-in-doubt Richmond. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's definitely true - I had trouble accessing their main results page for a good bit of the night. I'm inclined to go with Antony's calls unless there he or anyone else calls otherwise, though - some of the hits the computer is churning out (i.e. Melbourne being in doubt) are absurd. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ballotpedia has a page for an American candidate called Tim Richardson, so I erred on the side of caution with that one. Not fussed either way though. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. It was OpenCongress. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Doesn't look like a serious contender (lost 71-25) so I'm thinking we can probably discount him. Frickeg (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching those last few redistribution MPs - I'd been working through them but conked out before I could do the last few! The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me about it! I'm pretty stoked. Bizarrely enough, the one call from last night that I'm a bit nervous about is actually now Melbourne, which wasn't on anyone's radar and was being mass-reported in the press as a win at the time I added it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was much thinking the same thing. I've erred on the side of doubt this time and removed any mention of a win in Bentleigh, Frankston and Melbourne in the Assembly until those are certain, as well as the fifth seat in East Metro and the fourth seat in Northern Victoria in the Council. There's nothing else that I can see that seems to have any real uncertainty with today's results sealing Morwell, Shepparton and South Barwon. I think the pundits' calls haven't been too brilliant this time around! The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, of all the MPs to miss when I put that list together, I apparently missed the incoming Opposition Leader... The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can I use a BOT called TW, when I do not know what i is ?

How can I use a BOT called TW, when I do not know what i is ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BT80 (talkcontribs) 10:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ACT

Oh, oh dear. We clearly weren't paying attention that election night! Good catch. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. I think the Victorian election was a good reminder of how much there is to do these days, and just how much important it is to jump on it and do it en masse when everyone's still interested in late counting. I think the Americans solve that problem by having coverage of state politics that is ratshit. It's improved a bit the last couple of years, but there's plenty of US states where their coverage is in the same position as ours was ten years ago. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Queensland election 2015

Hi Frickeg,
I assumed that it was going to be "LNP returned with reduced majority", so I turned the TV off after Australia won the soccer association football non-eggball what ever we're supposed to call it now. Technically speaking, all those new MPs-to-be haven't been officially elected yet, so someone could go round marking them for deletion. Certainly won't be me though!
Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. If Antony says they're elected, they get an article. Timeshift (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it was a lovely night, wasn't it? As Timeshift says, the new MPs began their terms yesterday, so they couldn't be nominated for deletion. Frickeg (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed a very lovely night :) Timeshift (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot Gaven altogether, as you picked up last night. I'd err on the side of caution after the experience with the Victorian election, where we didn't get any calls wrong but could really easily have. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ya know, I could be all "according the the Constitution of Queensland Act 2001 ss 42-43 the Premier is not actually elected but is appointed by the Governor (the current one swore me in a lawyer, btw), but this still relies on convention that predated the Constitution Act 1867 (Qld) and along with the formal reception of English common law, etc, etc." But I'd be an idiot to do that. Premiers get elected. It says so in the newspapers.
PS: can someone tell Timeshift I'm not speaking to him until he pays me the money I won fair and square in this wager? --Shirt58 (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the Premier. Newman is still the Premier, and the ministers are all still ministers. But the changes in MPs took effect yesterday. Frickeg (talk) 07:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work on creating those new articles! I was going to do them but you're way ahead of me hehe. Dengero (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that William Bowe has a late counting post up, I've dropped Gaven and Redlands off the list - Gaven because no one apart from us nerds seems to see it as a real prospect and it would require things to go ridiculously well for Labor, and Redlands in the wake of Bowe's comments about yesterday's prepolls. I expect Mount Ommaney and Mansfield will be more solid in the obvious conclusions in a couple days, that Ferny Grove will follow a bit later, and that it'll only be Maryborough hanging on until really late counting. Thoughts?

Dengero's comment also reminded me of something I've been thinking about with these post-election situations: while we seem to be getting it down to an art in getting so many articles necessarily updated with the basic facts of who lost and who won, I always notice when we do that this leaves the vast majority of MP articles as a) basically left as one-line stubs for eternity (see Queensland's class of 2012) or poorly cobbled-together larger articles which don't get thoroughly updated when they lose beyond mentioning the fact of their defeat (usually your Cabinet ministers). I'd really love to go through and do a cleanup audit of the last couple parliaments in most places, but it's such a big job to take on it'd be great if I wasn't the only one. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think you're largely right about Mount Ommaney, Mansfield and Ferny Grove: I don't personally think any of them will change, but it'd be good to leave for a couple of days just in case anything drastic happens in late counting.
Glad to hear that - it would be great to have some help if we decided to do this as a thing! I think going back to about 2005 would be ideal, because anything previous was written from the start as a historical piece, and I seem to recall having some articles from that era that could well be ten years out of date by now if no one else got to them. I don't have too many plans for this week (finished an intensive uni unit yesterday and am completely stuffed) so I might start trying to get onto it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help audit the MP lists and articles for a state or three, I've seen some shockers recently: cabinet ministers with a one line stub after 5 years. I generally do what I can when I stumble across them, but an organised audit to determine the scope of the issue sounds like a great idea. I can make a start on Victoria and Tasmania during the week. --Canley (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be fantastic. I'm thinking I'll have a go at the 2012-2015 Queensland parliament and see if I can knock those ones into shape; there's just not enough info to do a really decent job on the new MPs at least until their parliamentary bios go up. I think we particularly need to watch out for BLP issues - a lot of the longer articles in these areas have lots of unsourced content and, where there has been any controversy, it's often poorly sourced and potentially undue weight. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, a timely case in point – Willem Westra van Holthe rolled Adam Giles last night and will become NT Chief Minister soon, his article was a one paragraph stub! I've done some expansion this morning, but I'll have a look at the Northern Territory parliament too, which is often rather neglected. --Canley (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following from Frickeg's comment on my talk, it would be great if people went at the electorate articles too - if they have a history section at all, they're overwhelmingly out of date in a great many cases, they're usually unsourced and suffer severely from recentism, and they also need to be watched to make sure they've actually been updated since the last redistribution and aren't showing the wrong boundaries. I had a solid go at this after the Victorian election, but only got up to about "C" before getting sick of it, and I should pick up where I left off sometime. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's awkward! It wouldn't be the first time (cf Carol Adams in Kwinana, WA in 2009). Gaven still looks unlikely for Labor to get over the line, and I'll sure be crossing my fingers about bloody Lockyer. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also amazed at how little is available online about some of these outgoing LNP MPs. I could write long and detailed articles about the conservative one-termers after the Bjelke-Petersen landslide of 1974 because most of them had done interesting things both in and after politics, but there's plenty of these people (Seath Holswich was one that I just had a look around for) that I'm going to have to do a good bit of research to scrape together a solitary paragraph. Even Factiva turns up extremely little apart from "local MP says that his electorate should have more stuff and goes along with government policy". The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update

It's summer, so there should be cricket on TV, all through late January and early February, yeah? No such luck. There is a boring fortnight between the end of meaningless ODIs in late January 2015 and the start the real deal at the 2015 Cricket World Cup. Oh, but sports fans, there was he brief NT T20, there's the ongoing Queensland Tri-Series, and then there is the 2015 Canberra Test match. It's all happening here! Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Top of the polls ...
For your great work on Queensland politics articles in the wake of the 2015 Queensland state election! Kerry (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson and Lee

Thanks for catching those late changes while I was unavailable and updating the articles. What a ridiculous day - at a time when Delia Lawrie's leadership was under significant pressure, that was a biblical own goal for the CLP... The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Ralph Reply Comment

Dear Frickeg, Thank you for your thought and input on the page Doug Ralph. I see your expertise is in parliamentarians and politics. However I don't believe his page should be deleted on the grounds that he was an unsuccessful candidate in elections and standing for a party, the Greens, who garnered only a small percentage of votes. Doug was more than a would-be politician. He was an activist at the grass-roots level, and an effective advocate for the remnant Box-Ironbark forests of the Central Goldfields of Victoria. He has a place in Wikipedia due to the influence he had in life in Central Victoria, his publications and his radio presentations; he is a person of greater value than others populating this online encyclopaedia, which tends to be US-centric. Obituaries and eulogies are still to come (he died only yesterday) and these will add further verifcation of his worthiness. Best Regards, James sinarau (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Westwood is last on the upper house Labor ticket in the article, however in her article it says she's retiring at the election, which btw I only came across because I wanted to know why a current MLC would be last on an upper house ticket. The Antony ref appears to have a lower house candidate listing only. Where did you source it from? Timeshift (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Party affiliations

Thank you for having done so much of the work in setting up all these articles and tables. I'm trying to create a federal election dataset (it'll be online and interactive when it gets finished... which could be a while), and the Wikipedia pages have made that task a lot easier. I think I'm done with party affiliations for now -- there's more that could be done with 1901 especially, but it'd be a bit of work checking for endorsements, and I want to move on to something else at least for a couple of weeks! Pappubahry (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]