Talk:2005 Western Australian state election
This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.
 | Australia: Western Australia / Politics Stub‑class High‑importance   | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
POV issues
This article essentially comes from a strong POV that the Liberals were in any way placed to win the last election at any time during or before the election campaign started. This was most definitely not the case and needs to be addressed if the article is to factually represent the state of affairs DanielT5 13:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have addressed this I believe with recent edits. It's not even close to getting up there but at least it's on the right track now :) DanielT5 16:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- It needs to focus a bit more on Perth and less on rural, although everything there now is good in my opinion (I can see you were doing what you could and leaving others to do the rest, which IMO is a good approach as we work with the best of everyone's stored knowledge). When I get to it in about a month's time I'll see how I can improve it and bring in some references as well (I'm ultimately hoping to go back as far as the 1959 election - I have sources at Battye on nearly all of them). Orderinchaos78 03:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The idea that the Liberals were well-placed ahead of the 2005 election didn't come from me - it came from news articles from that time. From my reading, the basic story of the election is that Barnett squandered an early lead on his canal proposal. Joestella 06:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think what an eastern states newspaper thinks of our political scene is pretty well irrelevant. It'd be like reading Queensland publications to determine WA population trends (the work I'm doing elsewhere atm). Orderinchaos78 10:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, not a single reliable commentator was predicting a Liberal victory. The Australian doesnt report reliably on WA politics (if it ever does...) and the West Australian is all but owned by Brian Burke who their current editor is an old mate of, and the Liberal Party. They published blatantly biased surveys they had conducted in some electorates for example and were directly criticised for barracking by many independnet observers. DanielT5 11:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, looks like I was wrong because the Fairfax-News-West Australian-Brian Burke-Liberal Party conspiracy had me fooled. Apologies. Joestella 19:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I understand it is hard to believe from over there but yes, our media sucks. Read this and this and this and then any of these and you'll get the general idea which is what anyone who is everyone in western australia has known pretty much ever since the West lost Paul Murray as editor. He was pretty conservative too but he was NOTHING on this guy. By biased surveys I mean doing surveys in marginal seats and then your polling company reveals it cant trust its own results because it was told by the paper to only survey Liberal suburbs and... you get the idea. And they ignored the bush, which is where some of the real contests took place. DanielT5 20:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge proposal
I removed the merge tags, since no-one seems to be making the case for a merge. For the record, recent (and future) elections in other states get separate campaign articles, with the election article focussing more on the electoral process. Joestella 06:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- The WA articles have taken a different path to the NSW ones, and I'm seeing all 3 of the people who have edited the articles broadly agreeing on the construction of the articles. They are still in their infancy and breaking them up at this stage appears pointless. Orderinchaos78 10:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Requested move
- Western Australian general election, 2005 → Western Australian state election, 2005
- Western Australian general election, 2001 → Western Australian state election, 2001
- Western Australian general election, 1996 → Western Australian state election, 1996
- Western Australian general election, 1993 → Western Australian state election, 1993
The moves above would if accepted reverse non-consensus moves made by User:Joestella on 10 March 2007. While efforts to bring in a national system are to be commended, I'd much rather see a national system brought in by discussion and consensus, such as was undertaken at Infobox Australian Place and related forums during its development, than a unilateral imposition of a "one size fits all" format which seems to have met some opposition in its place of origin and is bulky and awkward in its present state. All of these articles are very small at the present time but are being worked on in the background, and the WA politics editors had come to an agreement in terms of how to lay these out for now (things are always open to review though if we can hear solid arguments for proposed alternatives) — Orderinchaos78 10:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Survey
- Add # '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
Survey - in support of the original move to "Western Australian election, (year)"
SupportOrderinchaos78 10:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC) (more agreeable option raised)SupportI agree with all of the reasons above. The naming system was in place before we even got here and I actually fixed any other articles so they agreed with the new naming. DanielT5 11:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC) (go with second option)SupportSatuSuro 11:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)(more agreeable option raised)
Survey - in support of the move to "Western Australian state election, (year)"
- Support I believe elections should either be Australian federal election, 2000; or Western Australian state election, 2000 as examples. I don't like general, nor nothing. State and federal should be used IMHO. Timeshift 11:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support My previous grounds apply, but Timeshift's reasoning meets the logic test - i.e. if I knew nothing about WA politics or Australian politics would the title tell me what it is? Orderinchaos78 11:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support per Orderinchaos and Timeshift. I slightly prefer the original request but would not at all object to this one DanielT5 11:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support per above - it is that no-one in Western Australia would even recognisel it as a general election - the state election seems appropriate to accomodate SatuSuro 11:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Survey - in opposition to the move
- Oppose Creating a national standard is important. So is using the correct terminology. WA's Electoral Act 1907 uses the term "general election" and not legislative, state or WA election. General elections are distinct from elections to one seat or one house. Sorry to be pedantic, but this is an encyclopaedia. Joestella 19:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Of course the Electoral Act doesn't call it a state election! It's a state piece of legislation. No state legislation ever calls anything "state". I know that legislation well as I do some organising for one of the other parties and we have to know what we can and can't do. And the official printup of the results says "2005 STATE ELECTION" in bold letters on its front cover. The pdf for Merredin I got emailed back whenever for scrutiny is entitled "Western Australia - State Election (2005) - Statistical Returns - Legislative Assembly - Merredin". Creating a national standard is important but that doesnt mean one person creates it, its supposed to be created by a consensus of anyone reasonably expected to edit election articles, and on looking at the talk page on the politics project it seems that is not what has happened. DanielT5 20:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hence the words "Western Australian" before "general" in the article title. Despite your status as a person who does "some organising for one of the other parties and we have to know what we can and can't do", the reality is that legislation defines and describes the electoral process more authoritatively than this PDF you're talking about. And, as I recall, the move to "general" was discussed at the Australian politics talk page. Joestella 01:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Of course the Electoral Act doesn't call it a state election! It's a state piece of legislation. No state legislation ever calls anything "state". I know that legislation well as I do some organising for one of the other parties and we have to know what we can and can't do. And the official printup of the results says "2005 STATE ELECTION" in bold letters on its front cover. The pdf for Merredin I got emailed back whenever for scrutiny is entitled "Western Australia - State Election (2005) - Statistical Returns - Legislative Assembly - Merredin". Creating a national standard is important but that doesnt mean one person creates it, its supposed to be created by a consensus of anyone reasonably expected to edit election articles, and on looking at the talk page on the politics project it seems that is not what has happened. DanielT5 20:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- oppose per User:Joestella ... also, discuss this stuff at the Aust politics Wikiproject. 125.255.9.231 01:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Discussion
- Add any additional comments:
- I don't think this poll is at all useful if it is only been used to determine whether a handful of Western Australian election articles should be moved. The issue is bigger than that. Consistency is required across all Australian election articles. Therefore, either this poll should be refactored, or a new one commenced at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics.--cj | talk 01:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Infoboxes
The infoboxes have been up for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics for some time. Better to make your objections known there, so that all election articles can enjoy the benefit of any changes. Joestella 01:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)