Talk:Results of the 2010 Australian federal election (House of Representatives)

Adam Carr

I don't recall giving anyone permission to reproduce maps from my website. Dr Adam Carr

Hi - your website has no mention of copyright, and you used to be an active image contributor to wikipedia. If you wish for them to be removed then we must respect that, but I did not believe that to be the case. Timeshift (talk) 06:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and you're one of the reasons I left Wikipedia. However, I won't object provided to them being used provided they are credited to my website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.14.81.49 (talk) 06:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll point out that in terms of article content i've given to wikipedia so many more times than you have... oh, how's Citizendium going? I will also point out that on this page I was nice to you and you returned vitriol to me, when it's well known that your pattern of behaviour was far worse - but this is all beside the point, I couldn't let your comment stand. The images on both 2007 and 2010 are all credited to Adam Carr with a link to your website. Thankyou for letting wikipedia continue to use your very useful maps for the good of it's readers. Timeshift (talk) 06:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Adam. We'll ensure credit is given. –Moondyne 06:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you have become more useful and less obnoxious than you used to be. I hope so. Citizendium was a complete failure, thanks to Larry Sanger's authoritarian behaviour. I'm not sure which is worse now, Wikipedian anarchy or Sangerian dictatorship. Anyway I don't contribute to either anymore. Thanks for crediting the use of my maps. AC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.14.81.49 (talk) 06:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Pot kettle yada yada. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Adam Carr! If you're still out there, may I just say I love your psephology page. I'm a political geographer, and it's great to see someone else into the things I like to study, and in that depth. Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Credit for pictures to Dr. Carr

Timeshift has now deleted my attempts to provide Dr. Carr with credit on the page itself for the extensive use of his maps. I don't know why someone would think it's appropriate to use someone else work all the way up and down the page and hide the credit for that work, making it so you have to click on the pictures in order to see who made them. The "external link" credit for Dr. Carr's archive, from whence all the maps were taken, is I think the least we can do to ensure people know who made these maps - as well as point out that he doesn't only do those maps for Australia, but to generally to represent election results all over the world. I knew who Adam Carr was long before I got involved with editing Wikipedia because I'm a political geographer. His maps are major resources in my field of study, and editing out a link to his terrific and informative archive because a Wikipedia editor doesn't get on with him is reprehensible, in my view. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds very POVish. The wikipedia standard is to give credit in image pages, not captions of those images on various pages. Timeshift (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Right now we are talking about the external link you just deleted. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that will teach me to jump the gun. I have no issue with displaying Adam Carr's psephos link as an external link at the bottom of the page. My issue was the same thing repeated on every single map image when wikipedia image captions are not supposed to work that way. Consensus!!! Agreement!!! *takes a photo for the rare occasion* Timeshift (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Splendid! Glad we managed that once!  :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Change to new election results reporting format

We're in the process of changing over the format for the reporting of the results of Australian elections. We had originally made a decision on the Australian federal election, 2010 page to change the format to provide clearer information about which parties were in the Coalition and to make clearer the voting relationships generally. However, at the urging (I use that word guardedly) of Timeshift, we are now in the process of changing over the other Australian election pages in order to ensure a standardised presentation across all Australian elections.

The new format is now shown on this page. Probably there will be some tweaking necessary - mostly in terms of how we want to represent states where there was only one Coalition party running, and in terms of whether we should relegate strong "third party" forces (I'm thinking of the Greens here) to the "Other" column; I followed the previous tables for the norm for this, but perhaps that's not reasonable. If we can't show the Greens in states where they got no seats, how can we show the state and territory where the Coalition got no seats? Also, we may want to order these in the direction of which party got the most votes in the state. This was the way it was previously on the page, but for simplicity's sake I presented the parties in the order on which they appeared in the pan-Australia table. It doesn't necessarily have to stay that way, it just made it easier for me to transfer the information. Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Pretty easy answers to both of those, I think. Since these are full results pages, no parties should be relegated to the "other" group; we should be showing the results in full, with everyone down to the Communist Alliance. I also agree that we should be ordering the parties in order of most votes per state rather than the national figures. Frickeg (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Those both sound like fine objectives to me. We should probably make sure everyone's weighed in on this stuff, though - just so we don't have another big "consensus" battle.  :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought this would be pretty obvious? The parties that get listed are those who won seats. Once results are final, all parties will be added and there will be no other. Timeshift (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I copied what was already on the page for seat totals, and in Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory, where the Coalition won no seats, the Liberal Party was listed in both cases as having won 0 seats rather than dropped into "Other" because they won no seats. I don't see why the Coalition gets special treatment when the Greens won a seat this year. Why shouldn't the Greens be listed in states they won no seats in on this basis? Anyway, it will be a moot point if we are indeed going to list everyone when the results are finalised. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Because they are one of the major parties. It is not unusual for a minor party not to hold a lower house seat in a state, infact it is rather rare. But for a major party it is a different story. Timeshift (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a possible argument, but I'm not convinced everyone else will necessarily agree. Perhaps they will, but I'd like to hear from others on the subject as well. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it really worth it? Jeez. Just let things be until the results are final and then everything gets added. Discuss and form consensus if you feel you need to... but... jeez. Timeshift (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems fairly pointless not to list the Greens at least. I'm fine with waiting for the full results, but I think the Greens' vote is significant enough for a listing even at this early stage. What's the point of having the page if we don't use it to show more information? Frickeg (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What's the point of listing the Greens with 0 seats for all except Victoria? Primary votes aren't listed yet as results aren't final. The Greens won their first seat ever, the conservative major party/ies have been winning seats since 1901, seems silly to be listing the Greens on all of them, then you could argue why can't others have a listing, why not independents 0, etc etc. The point of it is to have only parties that won seats listed, with the exception of the major parties because 0 seats for a major party/ies in a state is quite uncommon. It is vastly common for non-major parties, such as the Greens. Timeshift (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

So it's not a huge issue because when they are we'll be listing all the parties, right? The point would be to see if the Greens had any appreciable voting strength outside of Victoria. More than 1 out of every 10 Australian voters voted for a Green as the first preference. That's not just a Victorian phenomenon. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I fail to see what point you're trying to make. The Greens won a lower house seat at a general election for the first time ever. Minor parties very rarely win lower house seats. They did this time, and like any other lower house MP, their affiliation gets added in the results table for their state. But only for those that won a seat. A major party, one that is feasibly capable of forming government, should be listed for the sheer fact they didn't win a seat. This is simply common sense. And only applies until results are final at which point all parties get added. Just like the upper house... only parties where seats came in to play. Would you argue we should have 0 for Family First and the DLP in all states just because Victoria has them because seats were in play? Timeshift (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think if a party is shut out entirely in a state or territory, then it's not a "major party" in that state or territory. But as we've been saying, the whole issue is moot because when the votes are all in, we're listing all parties. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)