Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics/Archive 10) (bot |
Find bruce (talk | contribs) →Results of the 2019 Australian federal election (House of Representatives): Any issues for review |
||
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
::::Great stuff. I'm quite excited about this, to be honest. Some may not agree but I think it will be incredible to have regularly and frequently updated results in over 300 article pages throughout the count (while actually only updating eight pages). I plan to include the usual notes for each division about the results not being final, seats in doubt and so on, and date last updated, so it should be clear the count is ongoing wherever you look. --[[User:Canley|Canley]] ([[User talk:Canley|talk]]) 02:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC) |
::::Great stuff. I'm quite excited about this, to be honest. Some may not agree but I think it will be incredible to have regularly and frequently updated results in over 300 article pages throughout the count (while actually only updating eight pages). I plan to include the usual notes for each division about the results not being final, seats in doubt and so on, and date last updated, so it should be clear the count is ongoing wherever you look. --[[User:Canley|Canley]] ([[User talk:Canley|talk]]) 02:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::Great work. Doing something like this will help prevent potential errors in future elections. It's a pain editing multiple infoboxes to put in the exact same bit of information. [[User:Catiline52|Catiline52]] ([[User talk:Catiline52|talk]]) 06:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC) |
::::Great work. Doing something like this will help prevent potential errors in future elections. It's a pain editing multiple infoboxes to put in the exact same bit of information. [[User:Catiline52|Catiline52]] ([[User talk:Catiline52|talk]]) 06:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC) |
||
{{outdent|4}} Thank you for your kind words. The AWB run went smoothly & I think it should now be good to go. {{ping|Catiline52}} infoboxes can be transcluded, but because they are not a section they need to be done slightly differently. On the source page start the infobox with <code><nowiki><section begin=infobox />{{Infobox ...</nowiki></code> and finish with <code><nowiki>}}<section end=infobox /></nowiki></code>. I have marked up the infobox on [[2016 Australian federal election]] as an example. I removed the map from the transclusion using <code><nowiki><noinclude></noinclude></nowiki></code>. Where you want to include the infobox use <code><nowiki>{{#section:2016 Australian federal election|infobox}}</nowiki></code> I haven't done so on the 2016 pages because none of the infoboxes appear to be duplicates. {{ping|Canley}} I am hoping it goes as smoothly as it seems in testing. I won't be around during the day but will log in after dinner, so ping me if anything odd crops up. |
{{outdent|4}} Thank you for your kind words. The AWB run went smoothly & I think it should now be good to go. {{ping|Catiline52}} infoboxes can be transcluded, but because they are not a section they need to be done slightly differently. On the source page start the infobox with <code><nowiki><section begin=infobox />{{Infobox ...</nowiki></code> and finish with <code><nowiki>}}<section end=infobox /></nowiki></code>. I have marked up the infobox on [[2016 Australian federal election]] as an example. I removed the map from the transclusion using <code><nowiki><noinclude></noinclude></nowiki></code>. Where you want to include the infobox use <code><nowiki>{{#section:2016 Australian federal election|infobox}}</nowiki></code> I haven't done so on the 2016 pages because none of the infoboxes appear to be duplicates. '''<edit>'''I should have added that the easier way for an infobox is to to do it as a template, eg [[:Template:2019 Australian federal election sidebar|sidebar]].'''</edit>''' {{ping|Canley}} I am hoping it goes as smoothly as it seems in testing. I won't be around during the day but will log in after dinner, so ping me if anything odd crops up.[[User:Find bruce|Find bruce]] ([[User talk:Find bruce|talk]]) 13:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC) |
||
:{{Qmark}} Were there any issues that arose ? As far as I can tell it has all gone swimmingly, with the only hiccup I have seen is 1 editor deciding to remove the results for [[Division of Mallee|Mallee]] because the result was still in doubt despite a 16.6% margin 24 days after the election. Let me know if there is anything you think we should do differently & if not I will do the same set up for the next elections - no hurry, unless Cth or Tas go early, the next elections won't be until NT, ACT and Qld in August & October 2020. [[User:Find bruce|Find bruce]] ([[User talk:Find bruce|talk]]) 21:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC) |
|||
==Advance Australia== |
==Advance Australia== |
Revision as of 21:46, 14 June 2019
Australia: Politics Project‑class | ||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used
Candidates pages - columns for minor parties
Discussion regarding whether UAP (and potentially others) should be separated from the "Other candidates" column here - input appreciated. Frickeg (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Again please regarding whether the three Centre Alliance candidates should have their own column in SA. Frickeg (talk) 02:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Results of the 2019 Australian federal election (House of Representatives)
With the 2019 federal election almost upon us, I thought I would make a suggestion to reduce the triplication of effort in maintaining the results tables & to ensure we present consistent information. For example the 2016 results for the district of Adelaide are reproduced in Results of the 2016 Australian federal election in South Australia § Adelaide, Electoral results for the Division of Adelaide and Division of Adelaide § Election results. In that case the numbers are the same, but there are some subtle differences in formatting. What I am suggesting is that we create a main results page, eg Results of the 2019 Australian federal election in South Australia, with each division in a separate section, just as it is for 2016, but transclude the results for each division into the electoral results and division pages, using the code such as {{trim|{{#section-h:Results of the 2016 Australian federal election in South Australia|Adelaide}}}}
The #section-h
is what transcludes the section rather than the whole page. The {{trim|
just gets rid of surplus line breaks above or below). You can also tag text that will only be included <includeonly></includeonly>
& text that will not be included in the transclusion <noinclude></noinclude>
. To give you an idea of how it works, I have set it up for the Electoral district of Newtown & Electoral results for the district of Newtown, the later of which is entirely transcluded.
Like anything there are advantages & disadvantages - the main advantage is that you get a single source of data & references. Update one page & it flows through to the other 2. The software automatically takes care of some issues, such as circular links. Moving the main page makes no difference, eg {{trim|{{#section-h: Australian federal election, 2016 (South Australia)|Adelaide}}}}
gives the same results as the code above. If the district is abolished, accidentally transcluding it gives no result, eg {{trim|{{#section-h:Results of the 2016 Australian federal election in South Australia|Come By Chance}}}}
results in . An incorrect article name gives the usual red-link.
The main disadvantage is that what will break the transclusion is if someone re-names the section, without leaving a trace - there is no warning on the result page and the results simply disappear from the page on which they are transcluded. I would suggest including a comment along the lines of <!-- The results from this page are transcluded onto the pages for each district and the electoral results for those districts, using the section headings. If you change any of the section headings, please update the other pages to match. -->
While it looks like a good idea to me, there may be some downside that I have missed & its a change that should only be implemented if there is consensus support. Find bruce (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Seems like a good suggestion. One advantage is that it would be much easier to globally change the results reference URL which often is moved from a VTR (virtual tally room) to a results archive at some point. As an editor who updates a lot of election results it will make thing a lot more easy and consistent. I generally wouldn't link to the division/district on a results page for that electorate, and I think that would happen here as it is a different page, but it doesn't really matter I suppose if there are multiple links. --Canley (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think it’s a good idea for the reasons you give. It might be possible to make some error checking in the template so broken ones provide an error message with a link to how to fix it. I say all this without being a great expert with the template system. Kerry (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
As there is consensus support, updated to 17 May this is where I am up to in implementing this
Done
- set up the articles for Results of the 2016 Australian federal election in XXXX so they are suitable for transclusion
- Results of the 2016 Australian federal election (House of Representatives) transcludes the state & territory results from the pages above
- In WA, SA, Tas, Qld, Vic, NSW & territories the pages for "Division of XXXX" now transclude the results from the "Results of the 2016 Australian federal election in XXXX". When the state result page is ready, its a simple matter of changing 2016 to 2019
- In WA, SA, Tas, Qld, Vic, NSW & territories the "Electoral results for the Division of XXXX" transclude the results from 2010, 2013, 2016. The code is there for 2019 but commented out until its ready to go
- Created template:transcluded section2 to make entry simpler
{{transcluded section2|source=SOURCE|section=SECTION}}
which takes care of both the section hatnote with the edit & history links & transclusion. I have a few ideas to refine the template but it is fit for purpose now. Find bruce (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC) - updated "Division of XXXX" & "Electoral results for the Division of XXXX" to transclude 2019 results
- Create pages for Results of the XXXX Australian federal election in XXXX transcluding results from the "Electoral results for the Division of XXXX" articles like Results of the 2007 Australian federal election in Western Australia
Not done
- In some states, such as Vic the "Electoral results for the Division of XXXX" does not transclude the list of members from "Division of XXXX". The list includes images & line breaks. Its no big deal in that whilst it is possible to code these elements as
<noinclude>
, eg Division of Aston & results it would be more effort than adding one line to the table.
If you come across any issues, ping me & we will figure it out. Find bruce (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing this, from what I have seen it works really well. For example, I added the two-party vote for the NSW seat of Newtown and it transcluded properly to the other pages. Sorry, I have been meaning to help you but I've been busy setting up the election output for Saturday—looks like this will enable regular updates more easily. For instance, if I generate (and update) the seven state/territory pages with the summary and each division table, I gather the national summary and the results in each division article will update (if the transclusion code is there), which will save hours if not days of work. --Canley (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Glad you like it. You are correct, the way I have set it up is so that the summary and each division table from the seven state/territory pages are the key. The national table for the 2016 House of Representatives is more detailed than the table on the 2016 Australian federal election, but I think I have captured all the data that is duplicated. The other thing I need to do is figure out the AWB settings so I can quickly make the changes to the divisions & electoral results pages. If I did that Friday afternoon, we might have redlinks for a day or so if that is acceptable. Find bruce (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Think I have AWB sorted to run Friday night to change 2016 to 2019 in "Division of XXXX § Results" & remove comment marks from 2019 in "Electoral results for the Division of XXXX" so that they will show up as soon as the 2019 state result pages are created.
- Great stuff. I'm quite excited about this, to be honest. Some may not agree but I think it will be incredible to have regularly and frequently updated results in over 300 article pages throughout the count (while actually only updating eight pages). I plan to include the usual notes for each division about the results not being final, seats in doubt and so on, and date last updated, so it should be clear the count is ongoing wherever you look. --Canley (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Great work. Doing something like this will help prevent potential errors in future elections. It's a pain editing multiple infoboxes to put in the exact same bit of information. Catiline52 (talk) 06:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Think I have AWB sorted to run Friday night to change 2016 to 2019 in "Division of XXXX § Results" & remove comment marks from 2019 in "Electoral results for the Division of XXXX" so that they will show up as soon as the 2019 state result pages are created.
- Glad you like it. You are correct, the way I have set it up is so that the summary and each division table from the seven state/territory pages are the key. The national table for the 2016 House of Representatives is more detailed than the table on the 2016 Australian federal election, but I think I have captured all the data that is duplicated. The other thing I need to do is figure out the AWB settings so I can quickly make the changes to the divisions & electoral results pages. If I did that Friday afternoon, we might have redlinks for a day or so if that is acceptable. Find bruce (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. The AWB run went smoothly & I think it should now be good to go. @Catiline52: infoboxes can be transcluded, but because they are not a section they need to be done slightly differently. On the source page start the infobox with <section begin=infobox />{{Infobox ...
and finish with }}<section end=infobox />
. I have marked up the infobox on 2016 Australian federal election as an example. I removed the map from the transclusion using <noinclude></noinclude>
. Where you want to include the infobox use {{#section:2016 Australian federal election|infobox}}
I haven't done so on the 2016 pages because none of the infoboxes appear to be duplicates. <edit>I should have added that the easier way for an infobox is to to do it as a template, eg sidebar.</edit> @Canley: I am hoping it goes as smoothly as it seems in testing. I won't be around during the day but will log in after dinner, so ping me if anything odd crops up.Find bruce (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Were there any issues that arose ? As far as I can tell it has all gone swimmingly, with the only hiccup I have seen is 1 editor deciding to remove the results for Mallee because the result was still in doubt despite a 16.6% margin 24 days after the election. Let me know if there is anything you think we should do differently & if not I will do the same set up for the next elections - no hurry, unless Cth or Tas go early, the next elections won't be until NT, ACT and Qld in August & October 2020. Find bruce (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Advance Australia
I've created the page Advance Australia (lobby group) after reading a news story which mentioned them and realising they lacked an article on Wikipedia. If more experienced editors such as JarrahTree and Frickeg have time, I'd appreciate their running an eye over it for bias, errors and omissions, given that the Federal campaign is upon us. (I also created a disambiguation page for Advance Australia). Thanks, Meticulo (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Good on you for creating this - a great start on a much-needed topic. Looks good to me - my only question would be the "centre-right" designation: have they explicitly claimed this position? It probably needs sourcing. Frickeg (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- agree with all that F says JarrahTree 09:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
colour check please
Could someone who knows about the party colour templates please check/fix {{Australian party shading/Centre Alliance}}? I made it last night but it looks like too intense a colour in Candidates of the 2019 Australian federal election#South Australia. I just noticed there is a list at {{Australian party shading}} but it looks incomplete too... Thanks. --Scott Davis Talk 23:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- OK, done, the shading colours are a lighter tint so I dialled it down to 60% (any further and it looks really yellow). --Canley (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Canley: Thank you. --Scott Davis Talk 11:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)