Talk:2011 New South Wales state election

Party Policy comparison
I'm of the opinion that a comparison of policies and campaign promises in a good start. I suggest that there should be detail on the parties which earnt 10%+ of the votes in the last election, meaning the Greens, Labor, Liberal and National parties. Liberalcynic (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

By-election swings
the swing for cabramatta is for the last state election there was a large change in the current by-election, as the by-election was more recent i think that it would be a more accurate representation of the margin within the seat. Digmores (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Seats/swing
Can someone have a look at the infobox... did someone leave the coalition? They held 35 seats coming out of the 2007 election. Also, 50 seats are needed for a majority so the seat swing looks out of whack too unless there's been a redistribution. The swing required may also need adjusting. Timeshift (talk) 07:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

See also section
Why is the the links to both Nathan Rees and Barry O'Farrell's articles "uh no" please use basic English language in your reverts section and provide a relevant reason for you adjustments. Thanks Watchover
 * I presume that it's because they're already linked in the article's second sentence. As per WP:SEEALSO, if something is linked in the body of an article it shouldn't be included again in a 'see also' section. Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Watchover, based on practically all your edits, it seems you need to familiarise yourself a lot more with what to add and what not to add, not to mention how to keep WP:NPOV. Timeshift (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What is a marginal seat?
In response to the budding edit-war about this, according to the AEC, status of seats is based on the two part preferred vote as follows:
 * Marginal - <56%
 * Fairly safe - 56-60%
 * Safe - >60%

I can't find a contrary definition on the New South Wales Electoral Commission website. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Until we have evidence available to the contrary, we can only assume fairly safe is 56-60%. Timeshift (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the terminology and cutoffs are arbitrary. But if we're going to use it (and the consensus appears to be to do so), the Australian definition is as above and we can at least cite an RS for it, unlike arbitrary definitions we come up with ourselves. There is certainly nothing on any site which contradicts it. Orderinchaos 14:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitely. I've never seen anything that used 55-60 as fairly safe. Frickeg (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Why have them at all? The classifications are pretty meaningless. Digestible (talk) 05:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Because the AEC specifically has thresholds for what is considered marginal. It helps, somewhat, in determining what seats are more likely to fall. Of course there's not much difference between 5.9% and 6.1% in terms of retaining a seat, but it is a guide. If the AEC does it, it's good enough for us. Consensus was also formed in the above posts a month ago. Timeshift (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There's every likelihood that seats of 10+% will fall at this election. Ryde, for instance, 10.1% in 2007, has already fallen. It's potentially misleading to declare these seats "safe". I just don't see what value it adds when we know how arbitrary these definitions are. Digestible (talk) 06:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Why don't you write a sternly worded letter to the AEC deploring their arbitrary definition of what constitutes a safe seat. :) Timeshift (talk) 06:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The AEC can do what it likes. It doesn't mean wikipedia should follow like sheep. Digestible (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering you're the only one who disagrees, I disagree with you. Timeshift (talk) 10:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, seats of 10+% will most likely fall. It makes it more extraordinary that safe seats will be in jeopardy. The AEC has defined Australian usage of the terms as regards to percentages, not actual likelihood of changing hands. Safe seats change hands all the time. Independents come into play. Theoretically, every seat could change hands, and it's original research of us to declare which ones. So we follow the AEC designations. Frickeg (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Safe seats change hands all the time." I rest my case. This sentence is completely at odds with the widely understood use of the term "safe seat". And I'm not saying we should invent our own definition; just dispense with this useless definition. Digestible (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well you're the only one Digestible. :) Timeshift (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Timeshift. How typically constructive and inclusive of you. Digestible (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but there's no compromise here, it's a black/white yes/no issue. Should we have the AEC margin definitions there or shouldn't we. There's near unanimous agreement that we should. If you can't accept this, my deepest and sincerest condolences. Timeshift (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Consensus will decide what stays and what doesn't. And previous consensus doesn't remain etched in stone. If you're so certain that this discussion won't change the content of the artice then why waste time making nasty interjections? My last substantive reply was to Frickeg's response and you responded not to the substance of that comment but with an irrelevant gibe; one which you'd already made previously. Let the discussion run its course. Digestible (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Will do :) Timeshift (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting no divisions? Most sources use these designations with some regularity. They might say something along the lines of - say for the 2007 election - "In Queensland the swing was even larger, with Labor gaining some "safe" seats with swings of over 10%". They still counted as safe before the election. "Safe" doesn't mean "impossible to change hands". It means "will need a pretty huge swing to change hands". I think this definition is pretty widely understood. Frickeg (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think safe is synonymous with unloseable, or virtually unloseable. Otherwise what's it "safe" from? Digestible (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Safe from all but really big swings, and unusual situations (Independents, etc.). It's worth remembering that safe seats only fall in big swing elections. 2007 was a big swing election, and even then only three "safe" seats (Leichhardt, Dawson, Forde) fell. Frickeg (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And then there's "very safe" ;) Timeshift (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess my concern this: a reader comes to the page and views the infobox which tells them that the Coalition needs a further 18 seats for a majority. They then look at the pendulum and see there are only nine "marginal" seats on the Labor side. (N.B. I'm excluding the ALP v GRN/IND seats) If they go further down the pendulum and add in all the "fairly safe" seats, that comes to 16. Said reader might conclude that the Coalition faces an impossible task of winning this election. Yes, they will have to generate very large swings in some seats; but I think labeling them "safe" conveys a false impression.

P.S. Doing this exercise has raised another concern. See below. Digestible (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Independent seats
Why are they all on the Labor side of the pendulum? Four are IND v NAT. Two are IND v ALP. Yet all six are placed in the "LABOR SEATS" column. How come? Digestible (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you 100% on this one. Personally I prefer them grouped at the bottom of the opposition column under a heading saying "Independent Seats" (such as here). The alternative is that the vs ALP Ind seats should be moved to the Coalition side. Having all six in the ALP column is definitely wrong. Frickeg (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the editor may have done it by basing his edits on the SA pendulums. For NSW, I agree it's definately wrong. I did it for SA because 2002 was unique in that one ind sided with Labor to give them a majority and is represented in the pendulum. The rest of the inds were kept in the Lib column. In 1997 they were all considered more friendly to the Libs so were again on that side, but by 2006 they had secured each and every ind and nat's support in one form or another by way of minister, speaker, or former ALP member. Timeshift (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Now moved to the bottom of the right hand side per Victorian state election, 2006. There is a slight parallel to SA with Torbay as the speaker, but I don't think he should be considered Labor. Digestible (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Minister resignations
What are other editors opinions on adding ministers resignations including the subsquent changes of Premiers since 2007 being added to the bottom of this article? The fact that there has been over seven reshuffles since 07' clearly makes it an electoral issue. Possibly brief background information regarding each event will be beneficial, this also includes Opposition members. GJGardner (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

removed party logos from pendulum
The party logos are copyrighted and used under fair use. Part of this is that we must demonstrate the article's understanding is improved by their addition. They are obviously of benefit to Australian Labor Party and Liberal Party of Australia articles. But adding the party logos to an election pendulum adds nothing to the article, there are multiple links to the parties' pages. Therefore I have removed them. Timeshift (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Exchange of writs
I understand the Governor signed the document on Friday 4th March. Their will soon be a nomination day for the candidates to complete their nomination and be declared candidates (by 15 nominators). Previous advice was the day would be the 10th for Nomination day, but the writs were supposed to be signed on the 7th. Has nomination day also been moved forward? DDB (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit notice
Please remove the edit notice. O'Farrell has been sworn-in. WWGB (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Removed by Mattinbgn. Feezo (Talk) 02:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Greens in Balance of Power
The Greens will still hold shared balance of power in LC, even if they will be in less of a position to use it than in the past. It cannot be guaranteed that the Coalition will always secure the CDP & Shooters vote over every piece of legislation, where the ALP is opposed, and that the Greens will never be in a position to influence the legislative agenda over the whole of the next four years. --Mrodowicz (talk) 05:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Saturday's state election has markedly changed the situation in the Legislative Council though, with the balance of power shifting from the Greens to two right-wing parties."
 * The Coalition can use Labor's vote as much as the Greens. But the two minor right-wing parties hold the BOP per the reference. Changed back. Timeshift (talk) 06:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The Coalition has 19 seats. The Greens have 3 - the Coalition only needs 3 votes extra (say 2 CDP and 1 S&F, for example) for a majority. The Greens aren't in a balance of power situation at all - Labor would need all of their 14 seats, plus the Greens, plus 3 from the minority parties to vote down any legislation. The minority parties are conservative and don't vote with Labor.LudBob (talk) 07:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The Greens will have 5 after winning 3, and the SFP/CDP sided with NSW Labor regularly. I suggest you research a bit more thoroughly... Timeshift (talk) 10:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Balmain
The ABC tally since yesterday has listed the Greens with not just a likely or predict, but also a win. And there's nothing on seats in doubt. The seat is as decided as other seats were when they were added to the table, in some cases more decided than others (were they added on election night?) so until we find out otherwise then for consistency Balmain should be there. And all Balmain primaries have been counted. Timeshift (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Balmain should be listed as "in doubt", not as a Greens gain. The NSW EC website says "The Electoral Commissioner has determined that there is no reliable method to decide the two TCP candidates for the district of Balmain and therefore the Returning Officer for Balmain is not undertaking a TCP count. The final result will be determined by a full distribution of preferences to be commenced after the 31st March 2011"
 * That said, it's not worth edit-warring over it, since the outcome will most likely be apparent within a week. If it is incorrectly labelled as a Greens win for a week, it's not the end of the world (and at the moment a Greens win is more likely). --Surturz (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It also needs to be kept in mind that Wikipedia reports fact. The election is conducted by the NSWEC, not the ABC. As shown at, no candidates have been declared elected yet. WWGB (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We have always added them to seats changing hands when it seems quite likely. If you don't want any listed until they are declared then fine, but puh-lease, CONSISTENCY!!! Timeshift (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The point here is that Balmain is not "likely" for anyone - it's still in doubt, whatever the ABC's computer says. Antony says so, Poll Bludger says so, Greens/Libs/Labor say so. We should know later today when the preferences of the minor groups are distributed, but NOT until then. Frickeg (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please guys, stop edit-warring over this, it just isn't worth it. At some point in the near future the NSWEC will declare a result and then the matter will be settled. What this article says in the meantime doesn't really matter. --Surturz (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All I want is the consistent application of 'seats changing hands' additions. Timeshift (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware Balmain and possibly Toongabbie (and the last LC seat, of course) are the only seats remaining in doubt. As the latter has Labor leading, Balmain is the only one it affects. Frickeg (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the very early stages where the rest of the seats had already been added as seats changing hands. Timeshift (talk) 05:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, that was clearly not the best idea. Where there's still doubt about the result a seat shouldn't be listed. Doubt, though, is different from "not declared" or something similar. Frickeg (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

New maps (with up to date boundaries)
Anyone doing them? Timeshift (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, I could do them. I have the NSW boundaries in a GIS database somewhere. When was the last NSW state redistribution? I just want to make sure they are current, I think they are from 2007, anything changed since then? --Canley (talk) 10:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I've uploaded a file to Commons. This was based on the Post-election pendulum for the New South Wales state election, 2011 article. Very easy for me to change so any corrections or suggestions to improve the layout or colours please let me know—also if there are any changes in the count. Might be worth splitting into two files or laying out horizontally, what do people think? I can upload an SVG version when it's finalised. Also note Commons thumbnails are slow or non-existent these days, so you may not see the map... —Canley (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe there was a redistribution... also not sure if all your seats are the right colour - link. Timeshift (talk) 07:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I can determine there was a redistribution in 2004 which came into effect for the 2007 election, and the NSWEC seems to indicate they haven't changed since then, so I think these are the latest boundaries. I checked against the SMH map, can't see any wrong though—let me know if you know any specific ones that are wrong or have changed in the count. Some are different (Balmain, East Hills, Toongabbie) but I've checked them against the latest NSWEC count. Also they've marked the Coalition seats the same colour. --Canley (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Added, thanks :) Timeshift (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Where did you get the data for the electoral boundaries and what are the license terms? The only data I have found is copyrighted and not compatible with Wikipedia licensing. Barrylb (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The data was a couple of years old (2005?) and I had it in a folder of free/open licence data which is why I thought it was OK, however I would normally have a file with a screenshot or text of the licence, terms or copyright with the data or image, and I can't find it in this case so I may have mis-filed it. I've removed the map and requested it be deleted on Commons while I have a look around and see if it really was licensed properly or mis-filed and re-instate if OK. --Canley (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Statewide results - where to find?
The ABC's most complete results seem to be here, and NSWEC doesn't even have statewide results as far as I can see. Does anyone know where to find full statewide results including things like turnout and informal? Timeshift (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The comments in Antony Green's blog post implies numbers like that and the state-wide TPP will not be available for a few weeks. --Surturz (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

MP versus MLA
Retiring members of the Legislative Assembly are described in this article by the post-nominal letters MLA. The website of the Parliament of New South Wales explains the correct acronym thus: "Members of the Legislative Assembly have the acronym MP after their names. Members of the Legislative Council have the acronym MLC after their names." There is no wriggle room here; the Parliament has determined unequivocally that MP is the correct form of post-nominal letters. I have attempted to correct the acronym "MLA" on several occasions, only to be reversed. I seek the opinion of other interested editors on this matter. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A Member of Parliament (MP) could by it's definition mean they come from either house. Therefore it's much more accurate (and accepted) to refer to them as MLAs and MLCs. Just because PoNSW says MP is correct, does not make MLA less correct. MP is ambiguous. If a lower house politician is an MP, then by all word definition rights, so is an upper house politician. Do you actually have an issue with MLA/MLC? Timeshift (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is it "accepted" to use MLA? This is not about personal preference or style preferred by Wikipedia editors, it is about fact. Parliament has declared that members of the Legislative Assembly are to be referred to as MPs. I do not understand how this determination can be overlooked. You cannot just decide that you prefer another acronym to the official one. I have provided an "official" reference to the correct acronym; there has been nothing in rebuttal but a personal opinion. Even O'Farrell describes himself as "Barry O’Farrell MP", not Barry O'Farrell MLA . Please show me if I am wrong, with relevant sources. Otherwise, please do not be stubborn, and allow the correct terminology to be applied. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is actually a lot less black-and-white than one would think. Firstly, WWGB is of course correct when saying that "MP" is the postnominal for members of the Legislative Assembly, and in general across Wikipedia we should use this. However, I believe this instance may be a special case. The primary purpose of "MLA/MP" appearing in this list is to distinguish between MLAs and MLCs. Therefore it makes more sense to retain "MLA" in these lists. Frickeg (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That might be a better idea. When including both lower and upper, refer to as MLA and MLC, not MP and MLC (as an MLC could be both an MLC and an MP by the technical wording definition :) Timeshift (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If MLA and MLC creates a differential in a shared list, then so does MP and MLC. Wherein lies the difference? WWGB (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is an MLC a member of parliament? Is an MLC an MLA? Question answered. Timeshift (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In essence I agree with both arguments - how diplomatic. Most MLCs refer to themselves as such and, though they are obviously "Members" of the "Parliament", they themselves understand the distinction between the two and I've never seen an MLC refer to themselves (in any context) as an MP. While I understand the want of some editors to be clear and concise, the reality is that it is neither socially or technically correct to suggest that "MP" could mean a member from either house. MPs are from the Lower House while MLCs are from the Upper House, in the same way MHRs are "MPs" and Members of the Senate are "Senators". Of course Senators are members of "the Parliament" but they are never referred to as "MP". Irrespective of someone's interpretation of a "technical wording definition", that is the distinction used by the Parliament, the media and the public. I would venture to suggest that except for Wikipedia, it might be a struggle to find a citable source that uses MLA over MP. There are plenty of reputable sources that use MP - probably multiple sources for each MP. There really has to be some 'public service' thought given to this - those who use Wikipedia as a resource see their local MP referred to as X X MP in every other context except Wikipedia. It might be "easier" for us to differentiate between the two but we are going in a direction that puts Wikipedia at odds with every other source of information, just for our benefit. Stalwart 111  (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Really...? 646,000 results for "MLA" within only .gov.au domains. And that doesn't even count MHAs for those who have a "House of Assembly" rather than a "Legislative Assembly" :) Timeshift (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is beside the point. We are not discussing any LA, we are discussing the NSW LA, who have determined that they are to be called MPs . Who are we to know better and go against their decision? WWGB (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That is quite correct. I think people are confusing 2 things here: (a) the common abbreviation for their "job title", and (b) the approved post-nominal letters they may use. The short-hand way of saying "Member of the Legislative Assembly" is "MLA". Nothing wrong with that. But when it comes to their postnominal letters, the parliament/government get to say what's OK and what's not. MLAs have the postnominal letters MP, because the parliament said so. They have no more right to use "MLA" as a postnominal than Knight Commanders of the Order of the British Empire can make up "KCOBE" rather than the approved "KBE". And neither should Wikipedia be using non-approved postnoms. We see this confusion in the federal sphere, where many Members of the House of Representatives (referred to quite reasonably as MHRs for short) have letterheads proudly proclaiming them as "Joe Bloggs MHR", when the only correct form is "Joe Bloggs MP". Why? Because an early Australian government (Fisher, I think) made this decision, and it has never been changed. Postnominals are not the stuff of general linguistic common consent by the masses, the way most words are, including abbreviations such as MHR or MLA; no matter how many websites give MLAs or MHRs or anybody else the wrong postnominals, we should not copy them. --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  01:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just to make it clear, I had nothing to do with the reversion that occurred this morning . (I would never get up that early on Sunday anyway.) It seems to have been made by an ISP from Comcast Cable Communications (USA?). Given that I started this discussion thread, I was quite happy to see it take its course. I would never make a provocative edit while a discussion is underway. Regards, WWGB (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've made a bold edit and removed the post-nominals altogether, replacing them with subheadings to indicate which house the member is retiring from (which seems to be the only reason they were included). --Canley (talk) 01:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well done for solving the problem in this article in a way that should satisfy everyone. Until another time and another page...! (I can't see why we'd base our decision for MP or MLA/MHA based on whichever state's parliamentary website just to achieve a consistent inconsistency...) Timeshift (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What decision?  We  don't get to decide which postnominals are appropriate. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  05:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a very black and white view. Just because one parliamentary website decides to use MP and another MLA/MHA, doesn't make one or the other incorrect - they are both correct and i'm undoubtedly sure they would agree. It is up to us to form consensus as to what we want to do when we have multiple correct options at hand. So yes, we do get to decide thankyou. Timeshift (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What are these websites you refer to that seem to be in conflict? --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  06:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll re-post what I posed above... Really...? 646,000 results for "MLA" within only .gov.au domains. And that doesn't even count MHAs for those who have a "House of Assembly" rather than a "Legislative Assembly". Example 1. Example 2. Timeshift (talk) 00:41, 9 Apri l 2011 (UTC)
 * None of those have any relevance to the NSW Parliament. The first search has results from various parliaments but not the NSW.  See also this search, which reveals not one single current or recent NSW MLA with the postnominal "MLA", and only a couple of old ex-members, which are no doubt errors.  WWGB has already said that it's inappropriate to be comparing postnominals across different parliaments.  Each parliament has its own rules, procedures and practices, and decides its own postnoms.  If your aim is to come up with some generic postnom that applies to all lower house members in Australia, forget it.  I go back to what you said above: Just because PoNSW says MP is correct, does not make MLA less correct.  Well, I completely disagree with that.  Sorry if I'm not understanding your position clearly.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  08:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Seats changing hands - not a great sub-section heading?
It's followed by just a table and a few footnotes. No explanation. I'm guessing it's meant to be seats that changed from one party to another. Does it/could it include seats that changed from (say) one Lib to another? If not, why not. It's not clear from the name.

And "changing" is present tense. The election is over. How about a past tense form of the name? HiLo48 (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. My main issue with it is that I think the lower and upper house tables tend to look better together, and with a generic "seats" changing hands, could make it a bit ambiguous to an uninformed reader. If a succinct descriptive heading can be thought of i'd be up for it. Timeshift (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible for someone to get a replacment map up?
Thanks to anyone who can. Timeshift (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Unlikely due to the license terms under which the NSW electoral commission publish their map data. Barrylb (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So even if someone creates maps from scratch, the boundaries themselves are copyrighted? So what about previous NSW maps? Timeshift (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We need to know how they have derived the boundaries. I can't see any way to do it other than by using electoral commission maps and whether using GIS data or images they are copyrighted so derived works aren't permitted. The images on the page at the moment don't have any information about how they are derived and hence, unfortunately, need to be deleted too.
 * I have put in a request via data.gov.au asking for the GIS data to be released under Creative Commons license. Not sure if anything will come of it, so it might be useful if others could contact the NSWEC to ask the same. Barrylb (talk) 01:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you the Barry who made the comment on data.gov.au about the AEC boundaries, which they've now said are not CC-BY 2.5? It's very frustrating, I went through the same thing when Metlink in Victoria released all their "public" transport data on the data.vic.gov.au site as CC-BY 2.5 – I was going to import it into OpenStreetMap and three days later they realised it was a mistake and changed it to restrictive terms. Now CC licenses are technically irrevocable, but there seems to be a loophole that if the rights holder honestly did not intend to release the data under that licence (i.e. the data portal stuffed up and listed it under the wrong licence), then they can change it. Does this put in jeopardy the federal boundary maps on Wikipedia though? --Canley (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It was me and regrettably, yes, the federal boundary maps are in jeopardy. Though since data.gov.au said in response that the AEC are working on changing to CC, that situation may change. Barrylb (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Results Map
Something which is really irritating me is a mistake in the map of the District Winners. There are three errors; 1. Kiama; a Liberal Seat, is depicted as being a Labor seat 2. Bathurst; a National Seat, is depicted as being a Liberal seat 3. Kiera; a Labor Seat, is depicted as being a Liberal seat

Can someone please fix this up? I'm new to wiki and don't have the expertise to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tegoldie (talk • contribs) 04:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics
A RfC has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics which may affect the infobox of this article. ColonialGrid (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New South Wales state election, 2011. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321021509/http://www.newspoll.com.au/cgi-bin/polling//display_poll_data.pl?mode=trend&page=continue_results&question_id=2426&url_caller= to http://www.newspoll.com.au/cgi-bin/polling/display_poll_data.pl?mode=trend&page=continue_results&question_id=2426&url_caller=
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320173612/http://www.newspoll.com.au/cgi-bin/polling/display_poll_data.pl?url_caller=&mode=trend&page=show_polls&question_set_id=11 to http://www.newspoll.com.au/cgi-bin/polling/display_poll_data.pl?url_caller=&mode=trend&page=show_polls&question_set_id=11

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) 09:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Why Labor lost
Could the Background and Campaign sections possibly go deeper into why Labor lost in a land slide? Jordf32123 (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)