Talk:Australian House of Representatives: Difference between revisions

I noticed that the image in the infobox had 73 Labor dots including speaker. This obviously misrepresents the current composition. The uploader's account appears to have been used once only and i'm unable to locate an active talkpage for them. I took the 150px reduction image and did a quick fix on the dots, and i'm not sure if the temporary corrected layout is the best, it is inferior but it is a factual fix until someone can fix it properly. Timeshift (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone does make a new version of this, the colours for the Greens, Katter and the CLP could use some differentiation from the Nationals, Labor and the Liberals respectively. Frickeg (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But can I ask, if people have issues with either colour or parliamentary catagorisation of political affiliation, that they either discuss it here, or fix the image/infobox? Taking down the image does nobody, especially the article, any good. I've spent a little bit of time fixing up the infoboxes of both houses and for the whole Parliament. Timeshift (talk) 08:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Katter's dot also needs to be changed back to independent. The Australian Party is not registered, indeed it was refused registration by the AEC and is not recognised by the parliament. He still sits as an independent. All parliamentary material still refers to him as an independent. Jmount (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops... I'm sure I double checked the number of dots - must have forgotten about the speaker when I added them up. I've tried editing the SVG to fix these concerns - . While I was initially trying to keep to the 'registered' colours, the only way I can think of disambiguating the Greens and Nationals, etc, is by using their secondary colours. In this case, the National's Gold from their logo, the Brownish-orange from the Country Liberals logo and nudging Katter back to a grey dot. As for the LNP, I think it's the best we can do. I resampled the LNP website for appropriate colours, but only got ones that were an even closer blue. --GoForMoe (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've also tried a Senate version at --GoForMoe (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better than the temps at Parliament of Australia... a couple of small niggles though... can we get a better differentiation for the WA Nat? A darker/lighter hue? Also, the removal of the Labor dot on the far right, the Liberal opposite doesn't have one, at a quick glance it looks like they have an equal number... can the placement be improved at all? And I just realised that I didn't notice the difference in the number of Labor/Coalition Senator dots lol... Timeshift (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The graphs in general are a bit more difficult than they need be, there's some tools to make them, but they focus on the European style semi-circle parliament layout, which isn't really in line with an Australian article. The difficulty with the senate one was trying to make a defined cross bench - all the other tries I did made it look too much like a Labor-Green coalition in the senate. I'm not sure about needing to differentiate the WA Nats by colour, they still claim to be the same federal party with one Nationals party room. Not sure what you mean about the far right Labor dot. --GoForMoe (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the right hand side, the Coalition ends with two dots, Labor only one dot, and it's a little hard to spot... Timeshift (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's because Labor's second dot is the speaker --GoForMoe (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that, there's just something about the one less dot being hard to notice... Timeshift (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Katter's Australian Party is registered with the AEC, can we get a second image uploaded with a Katter-specific dot? The reason i'd like a second one is that the first one should remain as is for Australian federal election, 2010. Timeshift (talk) 06:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Also, I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with using different colours for the Nationals and the CLP - it's confusing and contrary to what we do everywhere else. Can we not use different shades of green and blue? In shading the candidate tables I used a darker green for the Nats and a kind of fluoro for the Greens; the CLP have generally been given a deeper shade of blue than the Libs. The LNP looks fine. Also - not sure if this is possible - but could the diagram be tweaked to make it clear how many seats are required for a majority? It would be helpful if one could draw a line across the middle and say "that's the votes you need to win a motion", if you get what I mean. Frickeg (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't much consistency across the site for colour usage, mostly it is just blue = coalition, occasionally breaking that into dark green for the Nationals. I'm certainly not a fan of using the colours I did use in the end, but considering we have two different sets of parties doubling up on official colours (Labor/KAP and Greens/Nats), there's little you can do to differentiate. I thought the Greens green and Nationals green in the original image were fairly clear. Most of the other problems are because of wanting to use a Westminster style chamber graphic, the European ones use semi-circles, allowing for a simple line of majority down the middle - but equally not demonstrating much of the make up of the parliament like the opposition, government and crossbench that this image displays. I don't know how to solve both those issues at once. I really suggest someone goes over to the relevant wikiproject and comes up with consistent hex codes for party colours and implements them across all the Aus politics articles, and chamber images. I'm happy to do the SVG editing once consensus is made, but it probably wastes everyone's time to fuddle about and change it without getting a solution to the problem of how we represent each party on graphics like this, and what design to use for them. --GoForMoe (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Labor and the coalition being at 71 seats with 8 crossbenchers, the image requires updating. The problem is, Thomson's membership with the ALP is suspended but will sit on the crossbenches as an independent MP, while Slipper no longer has LNP membership, is an independent, and also remains speaker with Labor's Anna Burke remaining deputy speaker but acting speaker. How should it be done? Timeshift (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slipper can't enter parliament without taking up the speakership, which means he still on paper controls the speakership. The only suggestion I have for demonstrating that would be to put two blocks in the speaker slot. As for Thompson, with his pledge to support the Government's agenda fully and not vote as an independent, I'd think making his dot grey but showing him as if in Coalition with Labor would best demonstrate his quite different position in Parliament. Two ideas for representation [1][2]--GoForMoe (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definately Australian_House_of_Reps_April_2012_Rect.svg... Slipper on paper remains the speaker, so until the day he is no longer the speaker, he should remain as a grey speaker dot. Anna Burke remains deputy speaker. As for Thompson, he's on the crossbench, that appears to have been the only qualification used so far. I'll use that... thanks! One thing though... any reason the 72nd dot for each party aren't both on the inner or the outer? Timeshift (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quirk with the auto-align function I was using in Inkscape. I've moved the last Nat manually to line things up. I've also tried to align the crossbench to vaguely indicate the confidence/supply agreement. --GoForMoe (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure why some editors had changed independents to three and Labor to 70, but i've correctly changed it back. Feel free to comment why you believe this may be wrong. Timeshift (talk) 08:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WA Nat colour is minimally different from the Nationals' colour right now. You'd need to be Carson Kressley to spot the difference. Any objection to giving WA Nat a more distinct hue? Ordinary Person (talk) 09:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've agreed with this for a long time. Timeshift (talk) 09:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I suppose now he is caucusing with the Coalition it is probably irrelevant ... Ordinary Person (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WA Nats are now a part of the Coalition. See here: [3] Jmount (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The chamber graphic needs to be edited to include WA Nats with the rest of the Nats. WA Nats should no longer be treated as a distinct entity (except in reference to the last election) 175.39.17.144 (talk) 09:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to gain WP:CONSENSUS for that. Timeshift (talk) 10:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? Are you saying that Crook is not part of the Nats? He is now, that's just a factual change i've made. (WP:Bold)There's no reason the WA Nats should be now separate. Otherwise you'd break it down to state divisions of all parties. Why is the NSW Nats not separate? Why not the Vic ALP? Why isn't it broken down to states in the senate either? Do we really have to go through getting consensus in advance of every factual change that needs to be made? That's not how wikipedia works. 175.39.17.144 (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming it is a factual change does not make it a factual change. The CLP caucus with the Nats, should we roll them in too? The LNP while we're here? Timeshift (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to think this may eventually be a reasonable change, but I'd wait a bit first. In my view we'd need the Parliament to be listing Crook simply as "Nationals" rather than "The Nationals WA", which isn't happening yet. It is worth noting, though, that the AEC made no distinction between the two parties at the last election. (On a side note: does Natasha Griggs really caucus with the Nats? I know Scullion does, but Dave Tollner used to sit with the Libs and I would've thought the member for a largely urban seat like Solomon would tend to do that.) Interestingly, LNP members are listed by the parliament as belonging either to the Liberal or National parties, depending on with whom they caucus. Frickeg (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it's something well represented on the chart but perhaps the identification of the party of caucus for the LNP might be worth going on the Members of the Australian House of Representatives, 2010–2013 page and its Senate counterpart. --GoForMoe (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and done. Frickeg (talk) 06:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Frickeg for advising on the Parliament reference. Timeshift (talk) 08:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to suggest that while Crook has joined the Nationals party room, he hasn't joined the Coalition one. Thoughts? Frickeg (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back in July, this was moved from Australian House of Representatives to House of Representatives (Australia), with the edit summary correct name, without adjective. Same for the Senate.

Looking at the list at House of Representatives, the usual format is

• House of Representatives of <country>.

The sole exception is United States House of Representatives, which is the format we used to have.

No country except Australia has the format:

• House of Representatives (<country>),

So, I don’t really see what's "correct" about this format. Can we not be an outlier here? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I now see that on 20 July, straight after the move, User:Frickeg queried the moves directly with the removalist but has not yet had the courtesy of a reply. (Interesting to note that User:Gryffindor is an administrator who advocates kindness, etiquette, good behaviour and respect etc.).

Given this void, I'm rather inclined to move it to the standard format House of Representatives of Australia. Any comments before I do so? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. My apologies to Gryffindor. He/she did respond promptly to Frickeg, on Frickeg's talk page.

But I still don't accept their reasons. Readers will not know that one legislature is officially called the "Balzanian House of Representatives" but another is officially the "House of Representatives of Slobovia". There is a standard WP format for all these articles. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike the disambiguation within brackets as fairly untidy, but I'd really prefer it if someone more well-versed in the constitutional issues could discover if there is an official way of referring to it. I believe at the time Gryffindor was making some other changes along these lines in other polities (e.g. National Council (Monaco), Council of States (Switzerland), Federal Council (Switzerland), Federation Council (Russia)). A similar move was made to Senate (Australia), which should be kept in mind here. Frickeg (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents - Australian House of Representatives is what it has been on wikipedia from day dot. If it's not broken, don't fix it. I wonder how many pages will now redirect when linked to it? If it needs fixing, it needs to be done on a much more planned consensual and a less ad-hoc basis. Timeshift (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good point, and also brings to mind the many related pages like all the many "Members of the Australian House of Representatives ...". Do they need changing too? I'm not rigidly opposed to any change, but it really needed to happen in a much more organised way than it did, if it is indeed necessary. Frickeg (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The most "official" title is that given in the document that created it, the Constitution. Section 1 says "The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate and a House of Representatives …". I’ve never known it to be referred to by any other title, e.g. House of Representatives Practice.

The disambiguatory model that seems to have been chosen for all the others except the USA is the "House of Representatives of Australia" version, and that's the one I prefer at this stage. The "House of Representatives (Australia)" version is OK in itself, but it lacks commonality with the titles of any other similar articles. Our original title format was common with only one other article.

The "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" argument doesn't apply just because something on Wikipedia's been a certain way since the day it was created. Otherwise, nothing would ever change here, and that's not exactly our experience of this project. ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is to gain vs the redirects, and if the gain is worth more, then it needs to be done in a planned consensual non ad-hoc basis. If it ain't broke don't fix it does apply in a balanced considered discussion. Timeshift (talk) 06:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it certainly was broke. So it was fixed. There is no "of Australia" in the name of the body, it is simply called the "House of Representatives". Now there are multiple ones in this world, therefore the disambiguation is in brackets. If the country's name was part of the official and proper name, that would be a whole different matter of course. Gryffindor (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't a single one of the 28 chambers listed at House of Representatives have the name of the country in brackets? I can't believe the official name of all 27 others includes the name of the country. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 18:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And why is it Parliament of Australia and not, as the Constitution has it, Federal Parliament (Australia)? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 18:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack of Oz: I just followed some of the links in this list and approx. half of them redirected to different names; I think two others also were in the brackets-version.

I think, a planned edit that follows a uniform naming convention for all of the entries respecting

1. the official title of that specific house and - if this is ambiguous -
2. uses the normal wikipedia standards for disambiguation

would be the right thing. However, as should be normal for moves, the mover should correct the links using the "what links here"-feature (I know, that is plenty of work for a popular article). Best wishes, --Arno Nymus (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be of the opinion that until such discussion takes place to get a consensus on what to change it to, that we keep the status quo, the Australian House of Representatives, to preserve linkings. Timeshift (talk) 07:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parliament of Australia needs to be moved as well, what would be the correct title? There are many cases already where the proper title is used, such as National People's Congress (and not National People's Congress of China, or Parliament of China (PRC), Central Legislative Assembly (and not Central Legislative Assembly of India), even Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, etc. The overriding factor is the correct name and not some Wiki format that is factually wrong. The name "House of Representatives (Australia)" is correct. The name United States House of Representatives is correct (see seal) however that format does not apply to the Australian one. Gryffindor (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you would know if you went to the front page of the website, Parliament of Australia is correct. Frickeg (talk) 06:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which re-raises the question I half-alluded to above: Who is the horse's mouth about the names of our legislative entities: The Constitution, or their own websites? The House of Reps has that title in both places. But the Parliament as a whole is called "Parliament of Australia" on its letterhead and website, but "Federal Parliament" in the Constitution. So, who do we take our marching orders from, and why? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 07:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would normally tend towards the constitution, but what is mostly used, "Parliament of Australia" or "Federal Parliament"? or "Australian Parliament" even? Gryffindor (talk) 07:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has many names in many contexts:

• the Parliament
• the Parliament of Australia
• the Australian Parliament
• the Commonwealth Parliament
• the Federal Parliament
• the Australian Federal Parliament
• the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia
• maybe more. -- Jack of Oz (Talk) 07:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give us the number of Google hits for each term? Gryffindor (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with the current name? It's by far the most concise and removes the need for bracketed disambiguation. We should not be deciding the name based on a Google search anyway. Frickeg (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Australian House of Representatives - Parliament of Australia.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 26, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-01-26. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image Australian House of Representatives, 44th Parliament.svg should not be used to depict the Members of the House of Representatives because 1. It does not portray the true shape of the Parliament, and two, it is messy and untidy. The photo Australian House of Reps 2013.png is neater and provides a clear example of the true shape of the Parliament. Most other pages on wikipedia have this format representing the seats of the government.

Please sign your posts.

Neither portrays the true shape of the Parliament

it is messy and untidy is an opinion, not a fact.

is neater is an opinion, not a fact.

provides a clear example of the true shape of the Parliament. - No, it doesn't. It's not a semi-circle, and where's the speaker's chair? Also, doesn't the government sit to the right of the speaker, in which case it's back-to-front. Further, the chamber has 4 rows of seats, not 5.

Most other pages on wikipedia have this format representing the seats of the government. - Do they? Could we have some examples please? And anyway, are they relevant to the shape and layout of the Australian chamber?

Personally, I don't like either, but until something better comes along, the "rectangular" layout is more accurate. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, current image thanks. Timeshift (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

44th Parliament of Australia.svg should be used because, almost all other wikipedia pages use this format. Examples? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundestag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Assembly_of_South_Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_National_Assembly_of_Turkey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_People%27s_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Duma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_Parliament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Representatives_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Representatives_(Japan) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_of_Albania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Assembly_(Angola) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_Chamber_of_Deputies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Council_of_Austria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamber_of_Representatives_of_Belarus

I can't be bothered listing 95% of Parliaments, but this is what basically all other Parliament's do, so so should this one. Andreas11213 (talk) 05:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have progress. You're nearing WP:BRD. You're discussing. It's a start. We've got the B, we've got the D, now we just need you to understand the R. You are advocating a change away from the status quo so you are the one required to gain consensus on talk, not the other way around. Do you understand this simple and fundamental concept yet? Another thing you struggle with is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Stop listing other articles and say "so should this one", because it doesn't work that way. Timeshift (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. 2) and 4) are functionally identical and just plain inaccurate. If 3) used the correct colours, I might be interested, but 1) still remains more accurate than the others. Pdfpdf (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually quite like 3), although as Pdfpdf says the colours need adjusting before it would be acceptable. I think it gives an easier view of what constitutes a majority than 1). 2) and 4) are, as previously pointed out, not suitable. Frickeg (talk) 06:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Pdfpdf. 1 over 2, 3 or 4. Also, Andreas11213 this discussion ain't over till the fat lady sings, so be patient until we get consensus before changing the image. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]