Talk:2015 North Sydney by-election

abc.net.au/elections
Anyone else find it extremely odd that candidate nominations close in just three days, yet Antony Green doesn't even have a page for the by-election yet? Timeshift (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's there now: http://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/north-sydney-by-election-2015/ --Canley (talk) 07:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Candidate order updated to reflect, and replaced candidate refs with, Antony's page to remove any appearance of intentional/unintentional POV/bias. Timeshift (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have changed the candidates back to alphabetical by surname - no reason to change. Putting the Libs at the top is introducing POV. They are just one of many candidates and we can't forsee who will win. – Hshook (talk) 09:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Using Antony's order is standard practise. He orders them by order of announcement. This is how we've done it before. Please don't revert again. Timeshift (talk) 09:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to be rude. – Hshook (talk) 09:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Where was I rude? I even said please! Four more days and it won't matter anyway. Timeshift (talk) 09:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Since when has "order of announcement" been a thing? We've been doing alphabetical before the ballot-paper-order comes out for as long as I can remember. E.g. South West Coast, Newcastle, Bradfield. Alphabetical seems much simpler and more intuitive than by order of announcement, especially since that's kind of hard to tell with some of the more minor candidates. No reason we should necessarily follow Antony on this; it's presumably easier for him to code them in as he becomes aware of them, but we don't have any corresponding issues. Frickeg (talk) 10:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Frickeg, for putting my exact thoughts into words. But like Timeshift says it's only four days until we have ballot paper order, so i wouldn't be inclined to fight this – Hshook (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Cherry picked examples and I could do the same, but with less than 48 hours until the ballot paper order is known i'm not going to bother. Timeshift (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right that there's no point arguing this, but my point was that even those diffs prove that it's not "standard practice", and I would disagree with it if it was. Frickeg (talk) 07:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said you cherry picked, and as I said I could do the same. I don't see why we would choose to order the candidates in surname alphabetical order, this seems to almost be a WP:OR arbitrary choice... why not party alphabetical order or declaration order? Something that is undeniable is that Antony's Australian by-election coverage articles are the most detailed, reliable, comprehensive and authoritative available on the internet by a long shot. The AEC are way too brief and don't list candidates until after the ballot order is drawn, and The Tally Room and Poll Bludger don't even compare in overall reliability or detail, or listing of candidates. We only have Antony to provide an up-to-date and as-complete-as-possible list of by-election candidates. Why wouldn't we list them the same way he does considering there's no other lists ever available, pre-ballot draw? Listing them any other way can easily be argued as a WP:OR arbitrary choice. Timeshift (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest we discuss this somewhere else since it's not really relevant to this article anymore - WT:AUP maybe? Frickeg (talk) 08:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Until the next by-election, i've said my piece :P Timeshift (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Bring on Warringah! Frickeg (talk) 09:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Pffft, he's not going anywhere, he delusionally thinks he could pull a Rudd. Unlike Rudd, nobody wants him, and i'm not sure how long it will take for him to accept that... if ever. No policies have changed and people should vote for Turnbull through gritted teeth... so much for not sniping. Meanwhile, Bronnie can't help but sleep during QT... someone should find a nice retirement home for her. Timeshift (talk) 10:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be with you, but literally every politician says they're going to serve out their full term, and then a whole heap of them don't. He'll probably stick around till the election now it's getting close-ish, though. I can't imagine Bishop will be allowed to re-contest. Frickeg (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Australian Cyclists Party colour
Can we get a colour assigned for them rather than independent grey? Timeshift (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep. Any preferences? They don't seem to have a main colour. Frickeg (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I set the colour coding up originally, and sampled the colour of the text and the cyclist in their logo, which happened to be the same as our "independent grey". However, I didn't notice it was the same until they appeared next to each other in this table! Happy to change if any suggestions, but wasn't sure what to pick from that four colour strip. --Canley (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on the colour that comes first in their logo, how about yellow? Or, based on their only large image, how about blue? I'm leaning toward yellow. Timeshift (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's a table of some of the colours in the logo (and the Independent one). There's also the dark grey on the word CYCLISTS which is quite prominent. --Canley (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * {| class="wikitable"

! colspan=2 | Party
 * bgcolor="#888888"|
 * Independent
 * bgcolor="#939598"|
 * Light grey
 * bgcolor="#3A3A3E"|
 * Dark grey
 * bgcolor="#FFCB0E"|
 * Yellow
 * bgcolor="#ED2329"|
 * Red
 * bgcolor="#0597DB"|
 * Blue
 * bgcolor="#6ABB49"|
 * Green
 * }
 * bgcolor="#0597DB"|
 * Blue
 * bgcolor="#6ABB49"|
 * Green
 * }
 * Green
 * }

I'm liking dark grey actually. It also happens to be the colour of a tyre :) I've test-changed it, how does it look in this article? Timeshift (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Also liking the grey. Yellow is already being used for the LDP, the Sex Party and the Democrats - the dark grey is unique. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree, the dark grey looks good. Good point about being a tyre colour, well-spotted Timeshift! --Canley (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

'attempt to'
Such a little thing but I though here is a better place to discuss rather than the edit summaries.

"Candidate volunteers [attempt to] distribute how-to-vote cards to voters at polling booths which show the candidate's suggested preference allocation. Candidates and parties which suggested preferences are shown in each column of the table below. The X Party ran an open card at this by-election."

I don't think it should say 'attempt to' because to me, that seems like the volunteers can't/aren't allowed to do it, or that it's a very difficult task. It's up to the voter whether or not to accept the material. The purpose of this article isn't to specify who takes the leaflets, but that they are distributed at polling places. It's less wordy, and so less confusing, with my suggestion. – Hshook (talk) 11:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The primary reason I wanted to mildly change the sentence was because of *attempt to*. To readers unfamiliar with the subject, one would get the impression all voters are given HTV cards. I think adding "attempt to" is a very important distinction as both familiar and unfamiliar readers would understand what is being said here - that while volunteers attempt to distribute HTVs to everyone who walks past them, many decline or ignore them, and the way to say this with brevity is "attempt to". I'm not sure how it could be misunderstood. Timeshift (talk) 11:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure, but I would think the more important thing is to show that these are the suggested allocations, rather than the percentage of people who actually receive the material - and it says that, twice. Nowhere does it say that every booth has vollies from every party giving leaflets to every voter.


 * "Although voters are free to allocate their own preferences, candidate volunteers distribute how-to-vote cards to voters at polling booths which show to promote the candidate's suggested preference allocation. Candidates and parties which suggested preferences are shown in each column of the table below. The X Party ran an open card at this by-election."


 * or


 * "To attempt to influence voters, candidate volunteers distribute how-to-vote cards to voters at polling booths which show the candidate's suggested preference allocation. Candidates and parties which suggested preferences are shown in each column of the table below. The X Party ran an open card at this by-election."


 * Compromise options? – Hshook (talk) 12:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Malcolm Turnbull posters at polling places
According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the ALP are suggesting to the Electoral Commission that posters of PM Malcolm Turnbull might have been illegal for missing / inadequate notification of the individual who authorized them. The Liberals could face fines of up to $5000 per poster. Details here: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/labor-calls-for-investigation-into-potentially-illegal-malcolm-turnbull-posters-20151205-glgak9.html Is this worth including? EdChem (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Does anyone have an opinion? EdChem (talk) 07:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This kind of story pops up a lot at every election, as parties report their opponents to the respective electoral commissions for possible breaches of electoral law, with possible dire consequences. Lots of possibles and it usually results in a slap on the wrist or warning not to do it again, if anything at all—nothing of consequence anyway. If the Liberals do get fined $5000 each for that extraordinary number of posters (and we find out about it), it's probably worth mentioning. But I'll bet we never hear anything about it again, so I wouldn't mention it based on just this one story. --Canley (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Placement of References
I am concerned by edits like these which move references away from the sentences which they reference to the end of the paragraph. A great list of references at the end of a paragraph is unhelpful to readers in that it is unclear which parts of the paragraph come from which source. This is especially problematic when direct quotes are involved. I have no issue with your re-arranging sentences for better flow or redrafting, but separating the references is concerning. I recognise that references at the end make editing easier, but ultimately believe that the needs of readers should come first. What do you think? EdChem (talk) 06:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The issue is when a reasonably sized paragraph wraps up something that could be much larger, I tend to add the collection of refs at the end of the para, because contribs often easily and can quite a few times swap back and forth between refs which if added in-line would get quite messy. When another editor comes along and wants to add to it, rather than make it non-chronological and sorry to use the word but "lazily" adds an extra appendage to the paragraph and looks ad-hoc and not integrated. I attempted to integrate it for you. I don't think the section contains enough text yet to justify the need to start splitting up refs. Getting close but still feels OK for now. If others wants to expand or add sections or attempt in-line refs, please go ahead, but please don't CN anything, everything there is in the refs provided. And please don't let what is there drift in to new contribs, ie: Before "Prominent local reform activist and former Liberal party member John Ruddick", there should be a ref(s) at the end of the sentence before if we're going in-line. Timeshift (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC) Timeshift (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * We really should reference at the end of the paragraph only if all the references apply to all of the paragraph. Otherwise we reference at the end of each sentence (although not, EdChem, within the sentence itself). If that requires some references to be repeated, that's what is for. Frickeg (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If you wish to do that you can. I was just integrating an ad-hoc, unintegrated addition at the end of a paragraph which failed to take in to account how the para was ref'd (not in-line), which looked out of place. Timeshift (talk) 07:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Timeshift, you might want to try reading this. Hint: I thought where I put the addition was reasonable, but am also fine with where you moved it.  As for not-in-line referencing on content about BLPs including direct quotations, I could drop the word "lazy" but will settle for describing my in-line references as policy compliant.  EdChem (talk) 07:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Openly gay
I notice that you have been changing the wording I used, "first openly gay man elected to the HoR", to saying that he is the first openly LGBTI member. I used the wording that Gatrell and the SSO reference used. Yours is fine so long as it is true, but are you sure it is true? I don't know of any, but could there have been an elected member of the HoR who subsequently came out? I think that was the situation with Penny Wong, for example - elected then came out. EdChem (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yep. Yep, yep, yep, yep. All previous LGBT HoR MPs came out after they left Parliament - for a complete list of Australian LGBTI politicians (not just those elected to a parliament however) and their articles with info/dates etc, see wikipedia category: LGBT politicians from Australia. Timeshift (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

MP and WP:ACRONYM
"MP" is used to abbreviate Member of Parliament all over wikipedia, including the HoR article, election articles, individual MP biography articles, even previous by-election articles. It's also been in this article for ages, so to dispute it and find resistance to the change, should gain consensus here. WP:ACRONYM also states "If there is an article about the subject of an acronym (i.e. NATO), then other articles referring to or using the acronym should use the same style (capitalisation and punctuation) that has been used within the main article" which would seem to support using MP. Either way, please discuss here first if the change to no acronym is still desired. However, i'm leaning toward it being something that would have to be raised more centrally, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics considering how widespread the usage is. It couldn't just be changed here in isolation. Timeshift (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "MP" is pretty well understood in Commonwealth countries to mean "Member of Parliament", but American readers are accustomed to Mp being used to refer to a Military Police office. Readers from other countries, especially those reading English as a second language, may not understand it at all. We can make those people click on the link in order to understand the acronym, or we could just spell it out for them. I am all in favour of brevity, but in this case it would cause many readers to lose comprehension.
 * What is gained gained here by not spelling it out?
 * I don't agree that the portion of WP:ACRONYM you quoted supports not spelling it out as it specifies "spelling and punctuation". In fact, WP:ACRONYM says: "Unless specified in the "Exceptions" section below, an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses, e.g. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)." "MP" is not one of the eight listed exceptions. This part of WP:ACRONYM clearly supports spelling out MP. Ground Zero &#124; t 13:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * All well and good, but please refer to my last two sentences. This is not the place to discuss it. Timeshift (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I will move the discussion, but I will also point out that the Australian_House_of_Representatives article spells out "Member of Parliament" in the very first paragraph, which supports my argument. Ground Zero &#124; t 13:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I made the edit suggested by another edit after there had been no further discussion for five days. It is hardly "jumping the gun as it is still being discussed with no consensus formed". Timeshift9 hasn't bothered to respond to any points raised in the discussion at since 22 December 2015. This is a minor matter, and needed be dragged out this long. The version s/he has restored violates Wikipedia style. Let's change it to something that is useful for the readers. Ground Zero &#124; t 03:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)