Template talk:Politics of Australia

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia: Politics Politics of Australia 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles This template is supported by WikiProject Australian politics. Politics This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles

since this template has become more general, i suggest it be moved to template:Politics australia. clarkk 11:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

please don't make this into a sidebar, it just doesn't work at the bottom of the page and conflicts with the various sideboxes if it's used at the side, it works much better as a footer, i'm going to revert it back. clarkk 05:03, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

you'll also notice that this template is included at the bottom of most pages it's linked on, since it was designed as a footer and looks very strange as a floating sidebar at the end of every article. clarkk 05:14, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This template is now out of whack with all the others Template:Politics of the United States, Template:Politics of the United Kingdom, Template: Politics of New Zealand, Template:Politics of Canada, Template:Politics of South Africa, etc. etc. Can we either restore this one to something like what it was, or retitle it? Slac speak up! 11:16, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am going to change it back to a sidebar. It's just too inconsistent with every other "politics of" template as a bottom-dweller, and it adds to template creep at the bottom of articles. As for appearing in every article it links to: well, we could make it a bit more austere. My suggestion is: Queen of Australia, Governor-General, Senate, House of Representatives, Constitution, Elections, Political parties in Australia, and State and Territory governments. For other uses, we can develop more specific templates. Slac speak up! 07:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

please don't change it to a sidebar! it makes it impossible if an article already has an sidebar infobox already. at least at the bottom they stack, plus it gets it out of the way of more relevant material. also the sidebar in the template:politics of the United Kingdom is not included on all the pages it is linked to such as Scottish Parliament for just the reason i described, because it clashes with the scottish parliament template. clarkk 09:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My idea is to reduce the number of pages where the template actually appears, so as to diminish that problem, at least. Slac speak up! 10:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Should the Progressive Alliance be mentioned in this template? It hasn't won a seat under its banner, and isn't expected to, which would put it on the same level as Australia First Party or Franca Arena Child Safety Alliance (NSW, not federal though). Andjam 05:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it along with PHON. They had already been removed from {{Australian political parties}}. I'm pretty sure APA's defunct anyways.--cj | talk 06:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't all federal elections be included in this footer (or a special election footer be made if it would be messy otherwise)? I know there are no pages on any of the elections between 1901 and 1993, but surely adding them to this footer would draw peoples' attentions to empty articles and they might start writing them? 129.67.53.94 18:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The template "Elections and referendums in Australia" amd "Politics of Australia" both exist on the same page and mention the same electoral date info, so i've removed it from the "Politics..." template as its redundant (also removed the "see also" link on the template" already on one template.(Lihaas (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been discussed before. Politics of Australia is on many pages, one of the most important aspects I think is that there is always a reference to recent federal elections on the pages of recent state elections. It's an easy navigation guide. Without it, going from election to election is harder. I'm reverting it, sorry. Timeshift (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This template was changed to give it the same layout as all the other politics of boxes and moved to the upper right of the articles. Compare User:Electionworld/country_templates. If the template doesn't fit well in an article, one could use template:Politics of Australia (bottom) Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 23:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, when Australian politics articles have by and large been formatted with the footer in mind, with their right-hand sides occupied by images and tables and so on, it is upon you to make sure that it does fit properly - which in almost every instance, it does not. What's more is that many Australian politics articles are considerably shorter than the side-box itself. I don't see any need for this template to be consistent with the others, although I have no problem with the format when it works - hence Template:Politics of Australia sidebar. The point is, however, it is terribly large and causes severe format distortion when placed where it doesn't fit. --cj | talk 00:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might a satisfactory compromise for consistency be to use this template (template:Politics of Australia ) on all the politics articles, but display a smaller series template at the top? This would make Australian articles look like those of other countries and alert the reader instantly to the fact that the article is part of a series without too much clutter. --ThirdEdition 02:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was important that the relevant election to each state also be placed in the politics template. If anyone disagrees or thinks something should be re-worded please let me know. Timeshift 12:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that state elections belong on this template. Previously, there was just one line for the states, which I think was right. If someone wants to know about state elections they can follow the links to the states. Also, it is inconsistent with other politics templates, including the US, Canada and Germany, which have federal systems. Although, this template isn't really consistent with others anyway. --ThirdEdition 03:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ, state elections are fully to do with politics of Australia. I will redesign it however, please let me know what you think - because at the moment, it is hard to find/navigate for information on all of the state elections. I'm not sure when you last looked... Timeshift 08:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the best way to find election information for the states would be to follow a link from this template to a 'Government of ...' article with a template for that state. South Australia and Victoria already have these. State elections are part of the politics of Australia, but I think the expectation with these templates is that they link the articles at the highest level of government. If there was to be a place with all of the elections it might be in Parliaments of the Australian states and territories. --ThirdEdition 03:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ThirdEdition on that point.--cj | talk 03:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can knock up something that is easy to understand and navigate for newcomers, i'd be happy to see it :-) Timeshift 07:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a knock-up mock-up. The formatting might not be to people's liking, but this template links to the main federal government articles (except Government of Australia, which should be fixed) and to the top state government articles, including Parliaments of the Australian states and territories.

I don't see that there's a problem in finding state elections if all the state government articles have templates like this 'Government of South Australia' one, which links to the elections. If I was interested in the SA election I would click on the SA government link in 'Politics of Australia' and it would take me to this.

If Parliaments of the Australian states and territories was to be a place with all of the elections, it could have a template like this on it. This is based on the 'premiers' template on Premiers of the Australian states.

Latest elections in the States and territories of Australia
ACT	NSW	NT	QLD	SA	TAS	VIC	WA
2004	2007	2005	2006	2006	2006	2006	2005

--ThirdEdition 04:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all states have their own government of {state} template. Infact I believe only two do. How about something like this?

Where legislative elections is a link to a list of recent state elections? I still think the way you have planned it is cumbersome. It might be easy for you to navigate because a) you're used to wikipedia and b) you designed it, but to someone who googles something and comes to one of the politics pages and isn't familiar, I do think they could quite easily miss it - and remember not everything people take an interest in reading, they meant to read. Often, people simply stumble across something that is interesting reading that they otherwise would not have known/come across. Timeshift 05:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there was an article on the 'Legislative elections' of the states, then I would see no problem in linking it to this template. Whether or not there should be such an article is another question, but I'm not against it.

Indeed only two states have their own template, but I am proposing that they all should. I can see that there would possibly be a problem in the case of the ACT, which doesn't have a 'Government of ...' article. Maybe a 'Politics/Government of the Australian states' template might be more appropriate.

Perhaps you're right and I'm not seeing this from the point of view of someone unfamiliar with wikipedia. Serendipitous discoveries are an important part of wikipedia and indeed any encyclopedia, but there is a limit to the number of links you should provide. For example, it would be wrong to link to every premier directly from this template, even though they are part of the politics of Australia. --ThirdEdition 02:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to get a concensus on this? Us alone don't constitute the opinion of wikipedia editors and would be good to see what changes or lack of may be recommended by others. I suspect this talk page is pretty secluded... Timeshift 03:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posting something on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics would bring this to the attention of a wider Australian audience. It's the obvious next step. I think all the Australian politics templates need looking at. This might encourage people to look at how all the articles are linked. --ThirdEdition 08:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the revert by the anonymous user, I prefer the old version of the template as opposed to the new one. The old one is easier to read/understand IMHO. And btw, the coalition is not a party. Timeshift 00:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The previous version contained inaccuracies, such as the suggestion that the Queen isn't part of the parliament. [1] The new version contains more useful links (such as to the courts and the PM). Although the coalition is not a party, it belongs in a list of parties, since in many contexts it acts as a party. Finally, the table is not about politics so much as government. Now there are links to both. Joestella 01:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns have been addressed which could have easily been done, there was no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Finally, it does NOT belong in the list of the parties, as it is not a party. Should one wish to click on the Lib or Nat link, they will read about the coalition and can read the link. But they are NOT a party. Timeshift 02:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In all locations except New South Wales, Queensland and the federal level (which is really just NSW+QLD+VIC anyway), the Liberals and Nationals are not in a coalition and saying or implying they are in articles which are not limited to the above contexts is highly misleading. DanielT5 15:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the template more toward the subject of politics of australia, all fed/state/territory elections are now listed, and Local government has been removed as I don't believe they are worthy of inclusion as politics and political parties etc arent really involved in local govt like they are in state/fed. Comments welcome. Timeshift 06:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If the current content is accepted, I'd say the template would benefit from redesign, as nearly half its space is presently unused (is "whitespace"). I reckon this would mean switching from a {{Navbox generic}} format to (one of) the {{Navigation}}(-based) formats. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 08:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think individual election templates would be far more navigable then this.--cj | talk 08:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting out of hand regards the number of elections added. Have (at the most) the five latest federal elections listed and none of the state ones. Make separate templates for all the elections of the fed and state parliaments. michael ^talk 10:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it was quite messy. I've more or less reverted, but left the fed elections there. I don't think it's messy including them all. Timeshift 14:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template {{Australian elections}} severely overlaps with this template, and having both together - as is currently the case with Australian federal election, 2004 - is redundant. The senate elections and referendums should be placed into this template, and the other template scrapped. - 52 Pickup 12:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merged. Better? Timeshift 05:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. See discussion at Template talk:Australian elections. Number 57 18:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Democrats, as unlike the rest of the parties in the list, they do not hold federal representation as of mid-2008 when the new senate sits. Timeshift (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timeshift - i don't think this is an NPOV issue. They are members of federal parliament until July 2008. Separate to that, it may be worth considering their significance in terms of Australian political history, potentially justifying leaving them in there for a little while yet. But this second argument aside, surely they should not be removed until July. Cheers hamiltonstone (talk) 01:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Hamiltonstone on first point, but I think they should be removed after July. Defining the section of the template as one for parties with Federal representation is a good barometer.Australian Matt (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point for leaving them until the end of their term. Timeshift (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get a consensus for this? Both parties are statistically insignificant now. Michael ^talk 08:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FF has federal representation, Democrats will lose their four senators at July 2008 which at that point I support the Dems removal. Considering the FF member also shares the balance of power in the Senate, there is nothing insignificant about FF during this term of parliament and should stay. Timeshift (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we shouldn't remove the democrats. They had a huge power for a long time, and while they may not have any federal representation I still do think we should keep them because of their past. Guy0307 (talk) 10:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So we should keep the Democratic Labor Party? As of July 1 they will have no federal representatives. Timeshift (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They've been removed. Do not re-add without consensus discussion. Timeshift (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CLP has a single federal member. FF have a single federal member. FF is in the list. CLP is not.118.208.165.210 (talk) 09:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The CLP is in caucus with the Nationals. Timeshift (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the barometer is all parties with federal representation, which are not in caucus with another party, it would be time to add DLP. (As much as I dislike that party it would be fair) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.68.252 (talk) 03:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FFP remains and DLP stays out until the changeover of parliamentary representation occurs in the Senate from 1 July 2011. Timeshift (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to list the most recent and next elections for each state. In addition to being helpful to the user, this makes things simpler for editors as we would not need to worry about switching between the most recent and next election as the one listed. Here's what I've come up with:

The relevant parameter is |group4, but it might be better below local government. Are there any objections to the change? -Rrius (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Timeshift (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this looks good to me. I made some minor changes to convert the bullets to WP:HLIST, but otherwise it looks fine. Nice work. 174.56.57.138 (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this template displays very bad on a mobile device - especially in portrait. The left most column seems to not collapse. The right columns collapse to extremes like 1 character per line. I can't see that this been discussed before. Can someone else try fixing it or else I will have a go at making it display better on a mobile device. Philiashasspots (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

are you sure that this problem only exists with this template? there is really nothing non-standard about the formatting, so you should probably bring this up at Template talk:navbox and MediaWiki talk:common.css. otherwise, you are not really addressing the source of the problem. also, make sure this is not a transient problem, since there were some recent updates to the backend software. Frietjes (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]