Talk:2008 Gippsland by-election

Darren McCubbin and the blow-up doll
Noteworthy? Timeshift (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's directly responsible for him pulling out/not getting elected etc. etc. and their is a source that says it is directly responsible...then yes. Otherwise, not really.  Probably enough to summarise the article and reference it.  Shot info (talk) 06:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I dunno that a Glenn Milne hatchet job really needs to be reproduced in wikipedia. If it belongs anywhere it should be in an article about Darren McCubbin himself. IMHO. Bush shep (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Per http://news.google.com.au/news?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&tab=wn&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1215915755 is it a Glenn Milne hatchet job? Sorry if I happened to link the article that was written by Milne. And Darren McCubbin issues would appear on this page anyway until he is established as noteworthy for his own wikipedia page (ie: become an MP). Timeshift (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it's still political muckracking no matter how many articles it appears in. But I'm not too fussed either way. Perhaps shot info's test is a good one: if it has a substantial impact on the campaign then include it. Bush shep (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would argue there is no way to tell if it is a vote-changing issue. If we set the standard at commentators declaring their opinion in news articles post-election, then they're already there now, pre-election, saying 'Labor's chances have been dealt a devastating blow' etc. Timeshift (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You can tell by waiting for the third party sources - which will probably be after the election. Until then, it's largely OR to make or state various claims.  Probably just best to state the obvious (ie/ the candidate is involved in difficulties...etc. etc.).  FWIW that link just seems to be by an author intend on predicting the result rather than engaging in substantive investigative journalism (which alas seems all too common world wide...sighh).  Shot info (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

64%?
I don't think we should use this figure. At least not as suggestive of the number of votes remaining to be counted. The only votes still remaining in the count are the hospital booths (usually quite small), and the postals, pre-polls and provisionals. That is not going to account for 36% of the total figure. In any case, the AEC only says that's a "turnout" figure. We know not all voters vote, especially at by-elections (and despite compulsory voting). Bush shep (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "The only votes still remaining in the count are the hospital booths (usually quite small), and the postals, pre-polls and provisionals." - what do you base this on? Timeshift (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The booth breakdown is here. For comparison the 2007 breakdown is here. Bush shep (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok i've looked at them. Now please cease your WP:OR, the booth counts are not complete. Timeshift (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Please assume good faith. The count hasn't been updated for two hours, so we can safely assume the hospital votes (they are not regular 'booths') and declaration votes are not going to be counted until at least tomorrow. Bush shep (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am AGF. Your 'ordinary votes have been counted' stuff is WP:OR, that is not arguable. The count hasn't been updated as they've stopped counting for the night. I'm sorry, have you actually been around wiki and AEC results during previous elections? Timeshift (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I said the vast majority of ordinary votes had been counted. That is plainly obvious. Bush shep (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "The only votes still remaining in the count are the hospital booths (usually quite small), and the postals, pre-polls and provisionals." - and that is plainly WP:OR. For those who are experienced in wiki/AEC results at elections, they would be aware that Turnout is how many have been counted, and gets really slow above 90 percent as it's where all the questionable votes are examined, and tends to stop at around 95, which is the turnout percentage. Timeshift (talk) 12:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not OR when it's backed that up with evidence. And I did exactly that. I never claimed the current figures would not be revised. They probably will. But that's tinkering at the edges stuff; the figures for the booths in are not going to change greatly. Finally, turnout is lower for by-elections. Werriwa was 85%. link. Bush shep (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "The only votes still remaining in the count are the hospital booths (usually quite small), and the postals, pre-polls and provisionals." You clearly stated that all ordinary votes bar hospital booths had been counted. This is what you claimed, and is what is incorrect. Oh, "The Nationals retained the seat with a swing of 7.25 per cent, with 65 per cent of the votes counted by late Saturday night.". Fascinating. Timeshift (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am dismayed that this conversation has turned so nasty. What do you find so controversial about what I stated? 87 booths are in. 5 hospital booths remain. And just because the AAP says something, doesn't make it gospel. Even you concede that 65% is of a ceiling of about 95%. Bush shep (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The booth counts are not complete. Timeshift (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They are not complete only in the sense that they are not final. However, every single vote lodged tonight in one of the 87 booths has been looked at and recorded for one of the five candidates or informal. My point in its original context was simply this: if there is another 35% of the vote to come it is not going to come from the 87 booths. Bush shep (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "They are not complete only in the sense that they are not final. However, every single vote lodged tonight in one of the 87 booths has been looked at and recorded for one of the five candidates or informal." - What do you base your ideas on exactly? Do you have a source stating this? The booths have not had their counting finished. And you didn't answer earlier - were you around for the 2007 AEC results? Is this your first time? It certainly sounds like it. Timeshift (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have followed results online before, but this is the first time I've added them to wikipedia. I base it on basic common knowledge. The officials count all the votes and then they phone them through. This is the reason why smaller booths come in before larger booths. The booths have had their votes counted, subject to revision. Are you seriously suggesting that they count only a fraction of the votes before they get too tired and decide to call it a night? I don't think so. Antony Green states that "On Sunday, all booths votes will be re-counted, and about 3,000 pre-poll votes counted." Bush shep (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

News Report
We are writing an encyclopedia, not a news report. The details of an election count on the night are not notable. It will all be clear during the next few days.--Bduke (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that. As the AEC updates its figures, so will wikipedia. Bush shep (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The details of an election count on the night AND as it updates IS noteable, per the 2007 election page with many many reviewing eyes. Your opinion does not automatically = correct Bduke. Timeshift (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Update as the AEC does, fine, but there is no reason to get all worked up about it. We are not WikeNews. We are an encyclopedia. I do not go to WP to find out the result on the night. As a political junky after an evening with other things, I went to the AEC site. Just calm down. --Bduke (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry but i'm having trouble finding the point you're making. Your first and second posts seem very different in what they want to convey. Timeshift (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My point last night was that wikipedia does not need to report the news as it happens. What matters is that the article is correct when the count is completed. It would indeed be better not to add intermediate results on the night, but to wait. Certainly there is no point in a long discussion on what has been added, along the lines of the discussion above. I note, BTW, that there was much less activity on the article for the other election in Victoria yesterday. Arguably that election is more interesting with the conclusion that the independent candidate may be second in a strong ALP seat. --Bduke (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Both seats have effectively elected their new members. I think it's important that the articles state that. The figures reinforce the point; even though they are necessarily preliminary. Bush shep (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gippsland by-election, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://news.theage.com.au/gippsland-byelection-due-on-june-28/20080505-2b2r.html
 * Added tag to http://latrobevalley.yourguide.com.au/news/local/general/candidate-for-greens/1237397.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080416125556/http://news.theage.com.au:80/liberals-select-gippsland-candidate/20080415-26dy.html to http://news.theage.com.au/liberals-select-gippsland-candidate/20080415-26dy.html
 * Added tag to http://latrobevalley.yourguide.com.au/news/local/general/candidates-jostle-for-byelection/1220656.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)