Elections and Referendums Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Australia: Politics Template‑class

Australian elections 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 Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.

The discussion of the naming for the senate-only elections (whether to use "Senate-only elections", "half-Senate elections" or "Senate elections") is happening at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#Senate-only or half-senate?, since it affects several articles. Rocksong 10:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The template ((Politics of Australia)) 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 that template, and this template scrapped. - 52 Pickup 12:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With the exception of the last couple, the elections should be removed from the Politics of Australia template rather than them merged. This is standard practise throughout the Politics and Elections series in Wikipedia. Number 57 12:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair enough. Whatever is standard, so long as it's one way or the other. - 52 Pickup 13:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about this? Template:Politics of Australia and remove this template. Timeshift 05:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still disagree - it doesn't list half Senate elections. Plus this template is used on List of election results by country. Do not blank this again before you have consensus. Why doesn't Australia have a sidebar politics template like everywhere else? Number 57 10:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I actually prefer this template. It sets the federal elections out as a series, and covers all of them - it's a really handy feature for the bottom of an article. The Politics of Australia template, on the other hand, I think tries to cover too much - I don't really see a need for all the non-electoral content in these articles, and I don't really see a need for every election to be linked in non-electoral political articles. Rebecca 11:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Rebecca - they both serve a purpose, and it's the politics of Australia one that should be cut down, not the Australian elections one. Leave this one as it is, or better still, as they were in the first place. JRG 12:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Number57, leave this template in peace, it's part of a very sensible series. —Nightstallion 18:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd also prefer if the elections template remained. Remove all the election content from the politics of Australia template to the elections template, and beef up the politics template with any additional relevant links. Recurring dreams 23:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've amended the other template. Timeshift 15:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What are the stylistically reasons for including the Aussie flag in all 5 headers of the list subcategories? We know the list is Australian because it says so. The repeated flags look cluttered. --Brendan [ contribs ] 13:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed two of the lists - they were the main reason for cluttering rather than the flagicon. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The removal of relevant meaningful content cannot be justified on the basis that it makes the flag look cluttered. The flag icon is superfluous and secondary to the informative content. --Brendan [ contribs ] 13:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have not removed meaningful content, I have merely used a footnote to highlight it instead of two extra lists. Also, the Senate links are not repeats, as they are not included in the federal elections row. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right you are. I would have been responding to your initial removal while, unbeknownst to me, you were performing the secondary edit to add the footnoting. Good job too. That looks much better yet preserves the relevant information. Cool :) --Brendan [ contribs ] 14:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The original question remains, though, of the stylistic value of repeating a miniature Aussie flag on small-font list like this? --Brendan [ contribs ] 14:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was discussed several months ago, and there was no consensus to remove the flags. To be honest, I think it makes the template look better. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When the template is viewed in situ on an article, the flag repetition doesn't appear to add much stylistic or content value. For example, see List of election results by country#Australia (where a single flagicon can easily be added next to the section title for improved stylistic effect). --Brendan [ contribs ] 14:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That list needs changing, as more than half the templates don't show up (there must be some kind of limit to how many templates a single page can show) - perhaps a return to links to Elections in XX below each heading would be better. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{ec} So it does, and I agree: that page should be simplified. Maybe just list each country's name, sectioned alphabetically per current, with each name being the hyperlink to their respective individual Elections template? --Brendan [ contribs ] 14:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've taken it back to just being links to the Elections in XX articles, though perhaps it would look better without the headings, just:

A

• Elections in Abkhazia
• Elections in Afghanistan
• Elections in Åland

B

• Elections in the Bahamas
• Elections in Bahrain

etc. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to me that the flags are in breach of the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags)#Help the reader rather than decorate. I suggest they be removed. --Bduke (talk) 11:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I wrote above, it has been discussed before, and there was no consensus to remove them. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe, but I do see anyone mentioning this guideline from the manual of style. That seriously discourages having the flags next to the name of the country. Anyway, it is too close to Christmas to argue. Seasonal greetings to all. --Bduke (talk) 11:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Anyone else find the superscripts in this template to be miniscule? I'm tempted to amend them and also replace the vertical-lines with the more discreet dot-dividers and place the flag icons on the lefthand side of the headings (since English read from left to right). Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The vertical dividers and flagicons are standard for 200+ elections templates, so I wouldn't advise changing them (the flag one can't be changed without changing the metatemplate anyway). The superscript displays fine for me on two different resolutions. Which one are you using? пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Number 57, I'm not fussed by removing the superscript numbers, but I need so discuss the order of the States and Territories. I've been reviewing a lot of the Australian navigation templates and articles and noted a convention of the order NSW, Vic, Qld, WA, SA, Tas, ACT, NT. Where this convention has not been used I have been changing it to this order. Can you please point me to some sort of authority on how the states should be ordered. If you look on my user page I have displayed the different Australian navigation templates I have found and made consistent. If the order I am setting is wrong and the "law" is they must be alphabetical, then I have a lot of articles and templates to change again. Let me know or else I will put the order back to how I had it. Philiashasspots (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can point you to the alphabet, which the Australian government seem to use. What is the logic of the above order? Number 57 12:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The logic is sorted by population, largest first. I started this a couple of days ago here [1], when I noticed the order. I found about half the current Wikipedia articles I looked at had this order for Australian states and territories and the other half were random order. I think it makes good sense to Australians. I think a good example to demonstrate my theory is [2]. The Government weather website uses this order, and Australians are very used to this order every night on the weather forecasts. Philiashasspots (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So it seems the government uses both. In this case, I think we should defer to another denominator, which is alphabetical order. Number 57 12:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you look on my user page at the bottom, all the navigation templates have the order I had. See this one, with graphics as well. Is their any real problem with Australians listing their states and territories in the order they are used to? Philiashasspots (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should plebiscites like the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey be included in this template under the Referendum section, under a new section, or not in the template at all (like here). // GMH Melbourne (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Aréat, @Number 57, @Chrisclear, @Moondragon21. // GMH Melbourne (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think they should be included in the template but under a plebiscites section as per this revision. Having plebicites with the referendums directly contradicts the first paragraph of Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey: "Unlike voting in elections and referendums, which is compulsory in Australia, responding to the survey was voluntary." Steelkamp (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I too agree that the distinction is important to be made as per the revision. // GMH Melbourne (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We've got many different country templates. All of them mix election and referendum whether they're compulsory or not. Why would it be different for Australia? Why make a different section on this basis when the election section itself isn't divided between election before and after 1924, when voting was made compulsory? Besides, The turnout isn't that different. The 2017 one had a 80 % turnout, way above most countries and even above some in which elections are compulsory (for example Brazil). I don't think this is a good enough reason to make such a split. Do notice that the page Referendums in Australia includes these plebiscites, so there would be two sections linking to the same thing.
If you go through many countries election templates, you will notice that over the centuries a lot of them had referendum which sometimes were named differently than referendum (for example Russia, or sometimes weren't binding (for example Moldova), or switched between mandatory and non mandatory voting, and yet we don't split the elections templates into as many sections.--Aréat (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think they should be included, but in the same line as referendums. We wouldn't separate out (for example) binding and non-binding referendums in other countries. Number 57 17:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Aréat: How many countries have compulsory referendums like Australia. It's not very many. Steelkamp (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In Australia a referendum is the only instrument that can change the Constitution, where as a plebiscite is essentially a survey of public opinion in relation to policy, I therefore think that the distinction is important.

To provide an example from another country, a referendum is the US equivalent to a constitutional amendment, whereas a plebiscite would just be a national survey on opinions. That being said I don't think we should mirror the practices of another country a) because Australia has different frameworks and mechanisms and b) because WP:WHATABOUT. // GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Steelkamp: You can see a list of countries with compulsory voting here. A very recent example of such a difference would be Chile. The 2020 Chilean national plebiscite was non compulsory, while the 2022 Chilean national plebiscite was compulsory (and the one later this very year will also be compulsory, but it doesn't have a page yet). Notice how all three of them are grouped together on the Template:Chilean elections with others such as 1989 Chilean constitutional referendum, regardless of name, effect or compulsory voting.--Aréat (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Aréat: I think we should avoid comparing Australia to other countries because the term 'Referendum' has a different meaning than that of other countries. The difference between referendums vs plebiscites isn't compulsory vs voluntary, rather a referendum changes the constitution whereas plebiscites (1916 • 1917 • 1977 • 2017) are a national poll that determine public opinion on a particular issue (and don't amend the constitution) as stated in the lead of Referendums in Australia. // GMH Melbourne (talk) 05:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe we shouldn't split sections upon such internal difference, otherwise we go down an endless path of splitting. With some countries we would have five different subestions. Even there, one could argue about making one more different section about "Survey". It's not unusual at all for a country to have had referendum about changing the constitution as a whole, or a part of it, or just a law, binding or not, with compulsory voting or not. It's not like it's a monolyth of one single type except in Australia. In the end, they're all about asking the voter their opinion as direct democracy tools. Just like we have one section for election, and not different ones split along whether First past the post or Preferential voting was used.--Aréat (talk) 05:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Aréat: But in Australia a referendum is explicitly a binding vote to amend the constitution and a plebiscite is essentially a survey. A plebiscite is not a referendum and I personally would rather not to include (1916 • 1917 • 1977 • 2017) than to have it in the same section as "Referendums" because they are very different things. // GMH Melbourne (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can see your point. Wouldn't it be enough, though, to have the header be Referendums and Plebiscites? As well as renaming that page to "Referendums and plebiscites in Australia"--Aréat (talk) 07:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think that is necessary. The discussion seems to going round in circles so I've requested a fresh set of eyes here. // GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not a WP:DRN matter, and it will be rejected; DRN is for intractable disputes (usually ones that have turned antagonistic). This is simply a matter for which there is no consensus (which regularly happens). Number 57 18:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries, I withdrew the DRN request. They have suggested a RfC. // GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The note included in the template currently states that the 2023 constitutional referendum should not be added until it is "confirmed". I take a few issues with this:

Firstly, how are we defining "confirmed"? The Bill for the referendum has now been tabled in Parliament. We have multiple sources stating that the referendum will be held this year including statements from relevant Ministers and from the Electoral Commission. What more confirmation do we require?

Secondly, why do we need to wait until it is "confirmed"? It has already met the notability requirements for its own article, why is there a higher threshold for inclusion of a link on this obscure template than for its own article? Does anyone seriously think that the referendum be cancelled? There is no evidence that the idea is being considered. (User:Number 57), -DilatoryRevolution (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Standard practice is to only link to referendums once they are officially scheduled. Until the bill is passed in parliament, the referendum in question isn't. Cheers, Number 57 15:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where is this standard practice stated? It's not what we did last time there was a proposed referendum. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The referendum is 99% going to happen. I think it is safe to add it in. If it ever becomes that case that it's not happening then I won't be the end of the world and we can simply remove the link. In the meantime I think it will be useful to readers to include the link. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 00:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]