Talk:2016 Australian federal election/Archive 3

Newspoll
This is a really silly question but recently Newspoll's operation has been taken over by Galaxy Research Should we call any future polling from Newspoll as "Newspoll/Galaxy" or "Newspoll-Galaxy" or just keep it as it is? If we do decide to change, what will happen with any future Galaxy polls? DestinationAlan (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Would be good to wait and see what other sites do. Tony   (talk)  04:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Polling dates need fixing
It seems in the past couple of months, those who add polling have ignored how it's added. Polling dates are when it was conducted, not released. Anyone fancy doing a cleanup? Timeshift (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

2PP
Also, i'm pretty sure until now we've added the headline 2PP calc'd from prev-election pref flows rather than resp-alloc pref flows. The Ipsos poll was changed to reflect resp-alloc. I'm not really fussed either way but the one we use should at least be consistent. Timeshift (talk) 10:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ipsos seems to prefers prev-election pref flow: "The national poll of 1,402 respondents, interviewed from 13-15 August 2015, shows Labor with 54% of the two-party preferred vote" (Ipsos). Stickee (talk) 04:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As I've said on my talk page, if we have TPP based on peoples intentions I think we should use them over TPP based on last election flows. People's votes change, and I think it's sensible to assume that peoples preference flows will also change, therefore TPP based on peoples intentions seems more reliable than preference flows assumed by previous trend. However, if consensus is to use TPP based on last elections preference flows over what those being polled state, I will accept that. Also, I wasn't the one that first changed the TPP figures, that was another editor, I just restored them (after changing them to TPP based on last election results the self reverting). ColonialGrid (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Forest of link problems in the ref list
"Missing or empty", and "Check date values". Anyone know what's causing this? Tony  (talk)  11:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The "missing or empty" error comes up because there's nothing in the title field. The "check date values" error comes because the system doesn't like "day/month/year" dates - I changed it to "day month year" and it went away. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll go through them and fix them all up tomorrow. Stickee (talk) 12:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Stickee (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Federation seats

 * As Hunter is a federation seat, first contested at the inaugural 1901 federal election, the name of Hunter is required to be retained.

Where in the law is this requirement specified? --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  07:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not required, and we shouldn't say that it is. The guidelines specify that federation names should be retained where possible, but it is by no means a hard-and-fast rule. Frickeg (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Can we have a link to those guidelines?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  07:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * . Frickeg (talk) 08:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm glad someone caught that. Division of Gwydir is a recent example of why it's not true at all. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. I've made the appropriate change.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  04:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

A note on adding polls
Sigh... as long requested, before an editor adds a poll, if they can ensure they come to grips with: attribute the correct pollster and date of poll conducted and not duplicate polls and notice that some pollsters don't post votings and approval at the same time (essential does voting weekly but approval monthly), wouldn't that sort of rudimentary accuracy be just lovely? Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Unknown Liberal Party history

 * This was only the second time in North Sydney since federation that the successful Liberal candidate did not obtain a majority of the primary vote, and had to rely on preferences.

Except, the Liberal Party did not exist till the late 1940s. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  07:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It's a pretty unimportant point in this particular article, but one easily enough fixed by making it "only the second time in North Sydney since the creation of the Liberal Party in 194x that the successful candidate did not obtain..." The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to be cantankerous, but I'm really not a fan of these seat-specific "records". North Sydney has had widely varying boundaries over that time, so it's a meaningless factoid. It's also, as far as I can tell, uncited - so let's turf it altogether. Frickeg (talk) 08:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No objections here. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Good. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  10:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Moving the polls
I figure that a separate polling page was necessary, but we need a formal "consensus" to remove all those polls from this one (it IS an election year after all). So is it okay? Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is definitely necessary - those tables are getting huge. I think we need some sort of summary still on this page - maybe just the graphs? It would be nice to have some sort of much, much smaller table in the article, but I'm damned if I know how (hopefully someone has some ideas!). Frickeg (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we should keep the graphs and introductory paragraph, but the giant tables should be moved. An additional option could be to keep them, but have them collapsed by default. Stickee (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I support this idea (splitting the polling info off into another article would be consistent with WP:SPLIT's guidelines based on size alone). I reckon we should keep the graphs here and an intro paragraph that outlines major shifts in polling trends. Maybe a much smaller table which shows the most recent polls (say the last month or so) could also be kept in the article (kind of like how the most recent results are shown on articles about electoral divisions)? ColonialGrid (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As it seems that no one has objected to this proposal for over a week, I went ahead and idi as the above people suggested. The graphics remain, and everything else goes to the new article.70.107.133.97 (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Can we move the satisfaction polling table too? Arguably it's less important than the voting intentions polling table, so if the latter got moved the former should too. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's. Frickeg (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

2 July date in infobox
I've removed the 2 July date for a 'tentively scheduled' election, and have been reverted, hence this discussion to determine consensus. I oppose it being included in the infobox as it's purely speculative and primarily based on media reports. Turnbull has asked the GG to recall the Senate to deal with the ABCC bill, and has stated that if that fails, he will call a double dissolution. However, the Senate is yet to be recalled, and they have yet to reject the bill for a second time, and, 2 July is just one of three dates available to Turnbull to hold a double dissolution election (if he doesn't get cold feet and drop the idea that is). Given this, I think having a date, tentative or not, is WP:CRYSTALBALL and something that should be discussed in the article body, rather than stated as fact in the infobox. But, consensus isn't just what I think, so what do other editors reckon? ColonialGrid (talk) 06:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. "Tentatively scheduled for 2 July 2016" is completely wrong.  It's a possibility, that's all - admittedly one that's been given some weight by Turnbull's announcement, but still just a possibility.  A lot of water has to flow under the bridge yet before we have any clear election date. The election has not yet been "scheduled" at all, tentatively or any other way.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  07:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I can't believe ColonialGrid has been forced to raise something as obvious as this. There is no question that it's WP:CRYSTAL. Frickeg (talk) 07:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to pile on, I agree. 2 July looks very likely, but is far from certain. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Does anyone think it'd be mindful to put "Tentatively scheduled for 2 July 2016" (w/ a reference attached to it) in the infobox now, considering that the Senate has blocked the ABCC and Turnbull has said he will be advising the Governor-General to agree to an election on 2 July after the budget? I'd also like to note that if there's any precedent issue, the Next Spanish general election page currently has (Tentatively scheduled for 26 June 2016) w/ a reference attached to it even though Spain technically still has until 2 May to form a government before it's official. Brucejoel99 (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to comment on this issue, since I'm the author of the "tentatively scheduled" expression in the Next Spanish general election: I think there's a strong difference on this, and this is that, for the case of Australia, the election date is still dependant on the PM's will (he may call it, he may not, and even if he calls it, it may not be for 2 July). For the case of Spain that's different. The current acting PM (Mr. Rajoy) cannot decide when to dissolve parliament and call for a new election as he has only caretaker functions. The 26 June date is, rather, established legally: the deadline for the formation of a new government is set for 2 May (two months after the first failed investiture vote, on 2 March); parliament dissolution would be due for 3 May, with a new election being held 54 days later (that is, 26 June). So, we have:
 * a) For the case of Spain, there is only the doubt on whether the election would be held or not. But in the case it is held, its all but assured that it will be held on 26 June, as the date is set legally. That's why it's "tentatively scheduled", as it's part of the government formation procedure, and not dependant on anyone's will. Thus, in the way it is shown now, it does not break WP:CRYSTALBALL, as the date for an election resulting from the end of the 2 May deadline is outside any doubt.
 * b) For the case of Australia, I don't know that much on Australian politics, but it seems like there are several factors deciding on the election date: 1. Whether the PM decides to call for an election or not and 2. Election date itself, which is dependant on the PM's will. Even if he has said it will be held on 2 July, even if it may seem all but obvious that an election will be held on 2 July, that's still up to Mr. Turnbull to decide. He has not dropped the writ yet, and election date in this case would not be the consequence of any legal mechanism. Thus, it's not 100% "tentatively scheduled" for 2 July. Mr. Turnbull may still change his mind, let's say (for example), because of his party's dropping numbers in opinion polls, and not to have any election at all, or to have it for a later date. The final decision is still up to him.
 * Just to comment on this difference, since I don't think those are both the same kind of situation. Impru20 (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Since February 2013, we have a precedent for an Australian Prime Minister (Gillard) announcing an election date 7 months before the event, only to have subsequent events intervene and cause the date to be changed. All current indications are that Turnbull will call a DD, shortly after Shorten's Budget reply on 5 May, for an election on 2 July.  But he might have a change of heart.  Or Tony Abbott might do a Rudd and topple him in a party room coup and decide to go through till November.  Or Kevin Andrews might do the same.  Or Turnbull might drop dead and his replacement has a different view of things.  A week is a long time in politics, and 10 weeks is an eternity.  Until Turnbull actually visits the GG and is actually given approval for an election, no federal election is currently scheduled in Australia, at all.  The 2 July date has less surety than the Gillard Feb 13 announcement of 14 September had, and that proved to have no surety at all.  We must not get caught up in the grand sweep of media reportage.  To follow their lead about the technicalities of the machinery of government would be the greatest folly imagineable. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * That's the point. In Spain, the current 26 June election date is not dependant on anyone's will. Sure, it might or might not happen, but as part of the government formation procedure, we know from 2 March that if it happens it will be on 26 June, as that's established through law and can't be changed by anyone. For this case in Australia, however, it's up to the Prime Minister to decide whether to hold an election and when. Turnbull could have a change of heart and move election day further away or even abort the election altogether.
 * Surely, there's enough proof right now to, at least, note the 2 July date in the article's lead due to its notability, but it's still too soon to add it to the infobox, I think, even with the "tentatively scheduled" scheme used in the Next Spanish general election. Not same situations. Impru20 (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Article name
Given that the election has to be held by 14 January 2017, and with no chance of a summer holiday campaign, is it now time to bite the bullet and rename the article Australian federal election, 2016 to stop links being added to Next Australian federal election that will then need to be amended so as not to link to the page for the following election? 1.144.96.234 (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not so much of an issue ammending links to said article. It takes 10 minutes tops considering we can physically see what links to this article.
 * With regarding to biting the bullet – I believe we should wait – as it could either be 2016 or 2017; Australian political climate is still as unpredicatble as ever. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 03:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Although a 2016 election is an almost certainty, it is still possible to hold an election in 2017. Therefore I reckon moving the article to Australian federal election, 2016 before the dates announce or writs issued would be premature and WP:CRYSTAL. I see no urgency in moving the article, with Australian federal election, 2016 already redirecting here and when we do move the article (most likely to Australian federal election, 2016) all current links can automatically be redirected giving time to manually fix wikilinks. ColonialGrid (talk) 05:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "no chance of a summer holiday campaign" is a subjective assessment (I mean, I agree, but there is some chance), so until it's set in stone it should stay where it is. Frickeg (talk) 07:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Not until the election date is announced, per plenty of wikipedia precedent. The possibility remains, however small, that it could be in 2017. Timeshift (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've slightly modified the statement in the lead paragraph about January being unlikely. It's not very important, but if we say so in the lead we should have some details in the body about this. I'm sure someone has done a bit of analysis of why elections aren't held in January (summer, holidays, campaign period would run over Christmas etc...) and it might be interesting to note the reasons. It would also help to shore up the logic of the statement, which is currently unreferenced For example, if due to a quirk of chance it so happened that no elections have ever been held in May, that would not lead to a conclusion that a future election in May is unlikely. But that's not the case with January, where there are reasons to actively avoid having an election at that time. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Should we use the alternative Katter image for the infobox?
I'm wondering that even though it's a much older image, if we should use the 'alternative' image? The 'current' image is a very poor one. Timeshift (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The alternative photo looks ancient - was he even in federal parliament then? I am kinda not bothered by poor images of current politicians if it's all we have - if they want an especially flattering one rather than whatever a member of the public was able to snap on a phone at a public appearance, then they can release a flattering one under a free license. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree: it's better to show readers a recent photo than an ancient one. Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I just couldn't stand the previous photo anymore. Can editors please look at this revision with later but poor Katter photo in the infobox and then look at the this revision with the earlier but better Katter photo in the infobox? The second link's infobox images actually look decent and consistent, whereas the first link's infobox looks awful. I'm really not sure if we should use the sideways Katter photo at all, it's just such a poor photo. Please see if we can find a way not to use the poor photo... Timeshift (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

More frequent updates of polling graphical summaries?
Hi, thanks to whoever is doing them, but once a month now seems not frequent in an election campaign. Any chance of doing it more often? Tony  (talk)  03:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not only are we approx less than a week from the election officially being called, BludgerTrack has Labor leading the ever-lagging trend for the first time. Definitely need fortnightly or even weekly updates from this point in, monthly is just not sufficient as the current state of the graphs make it look nothing like BludgerTrack, but instead gives the very false impression that the Coalition are set to easily win the election. . Also, copy/pasted this talk from Talk:Opinion polling for the next Australian federal election to here. Timeshift (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'll update them tomorrow. Stickee (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

New poll analyser aggregator thingo
It's all a bit over my head but may be of interest to others. Interview MetaPoll JennyOz (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * So it's a PollBludger BludgerTrack that the media might actually use. However looking at Metapoll, it's only once a fortnight, whereas BludgerTrack is once a week. This is likely to mean that BludgerTrack will have the latest aggregate out rather than Metapoll, and based on as we speak, BludgerTrack is also more reflective of current polling than Metapoll. Eight polls have been conducted in April and not one of them has the Coalition in front - all Labor in front or 50-50. The latest weekly BludgerTrack on 28 April has Labor in front on 50.4-49.6, while the latest fortnightly Metapoll on 19 April somehow manages to have the Coalition in front on 51.1-48.9, despite being based on 5-18 April data, none of which had the Coalition in front. This link explains their "Australian-first methodology" ranging from using betting market data to collating only primary votes to create their own 2PP estimates based on current pref flow estimates instead of last election flows. One of the two co-founders is Osman Faruqi, an Australian Greens campaign strategist and political adviser and relation of Green MP Mehreen Faruqi, so who knows how far off the ground the media let it get and/or if it has any bias slant or give the plausible impression of. My 2c. Timeshift (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Does the moving average on the opinion polling graph constitute original research?
Using a moving average is probably an appropriate routine calculation, but the weighting information should be published in the description of the images. I couldn't find this information, although I may have missed it.

Composing many different polls into one moving average is the sort of synthesis that shouldn't really be in an encyclopedia. How should we weight Newspoll relative to Ipsos? Which polls do we include? How do we account for systematic biases? These are complex questions of synthesis that services like those mentioned above perform using often proprietary methods.

Surely it would be better to differentiate between each poll on the chart, and to overlay an already available composite index (like BludgerTrack) to illustrate the long-term patterns? -- Lear's Fool 18:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sure we've already had this discussion before, but I can't locate it. By all means let's go through all the motions again. I for one don't believe it falls under original research if we're simply averaging each poll equally (though updating it only once a month should be reconsidered). If we started to apply a methodology, like weighting individual polls to give some less and some more influence, that's when the original research line would be crossed IMHO, because there's 1000 ways to methodologise (sic). One thing I would like however... when the opinion poll tables were moved to their own article, I felt the Next Australian federal election article lost something. Can we re-consider this and think of a compromise? I'd think it would be great if we could have the poll tables back but only of the last 30 days, and of course, the previous election result and last pre-election poll. It gives a lot more detail and context than a couple of graphs do. After 30 days the month-old polls at the bottom of the table could be removed as required by any editor, much the same as a new poll is added by any editor. I'd like it during the whole term of parliament, but if it's what makes the compromise, then how about only from around this time of the cycle? Thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it's original research: it's equating things that aren't necessarily equal, and doing so when there's no need for Wikipedia to do its own calculations. There are a whole bunch of people who actually know their stuff publishing their own averages and they're easily enough cited. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Timeshift, I believe you've misunderstood the implications of weighting each poll (as opposed to each firm) equally. Weighing each individual poll equally gives added weight to those firms that publish more often, and less weight to those that don't. Surely this is not what you intend?
 * You've also ignored my first point, which is that whatever the process is for calculating this moving average, it needs to be transparent. Currently (as far as I can tell), there's no explanation of the process.
 * I don't care at all about the location of the polling data, although I'm not sure how it relates to this topic (whether it is original research to compute our own moving average). -- Lear's Fool 16:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm the one who's created the graphics. I've now provided details in the Commons description. I'm unsure of whether the moving average constitutes SYNTH, but I'm open to your suggestion of "overlay[ing] an already available composite index (like BludgerTrack)". No copyright concerns either, since data and results of calculations are not copyrightable. Stickee (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Stickee, excellent work. As frequently as you can manage right now would be a great service to readers (many election-interested people might come to this article first). On this topic, I think the moving average really doesn't represent enough to breach WP:NOR. It's a fairly mechanical, but useful service to readers, again. Tony   (talk)  11:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Quick copy-edit queries

 * "governments and the electorate have long preferred that elections for the two Houses take place simultaneously."—Is a reference needed to support the claim that the electorate has long preferred this?
 * Could we decide on the formatting of "Liberal–National"? It's spaced here, it's slashed there ...
 * "Senate", but "senator"? That dissonance is in the ToC. Increasingly in public text (and unlike legal-eagle knee-jerk upcasing in the 1890s text of the consitution, where capping is like bird-shot) we see a tendency to downcase, which does solve the problem, but needs discussion. ... probably "parliament" would be going too far. "Consitutional" but "constitutional", and they're close by ... . I recall that in parliamentary circles, "Bill" and "Act" must be capped, but here we don't, which is good. I've downcased "Prime Minister" where it's generic.
 * "in the lead-up to a leadership election" -> "in the approach to the leadership election"?
 * "The Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) has listed many candidates throughout Australia for the next election, with further candidate announcements to be made in 2016."—Have they not finished announcing by now? Tony   (talk)  02:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Should Clive be listed as retiring?
Palmer is listed at Next Australian federal election, in both the section and sub-section as 'retiring'. Though Palmer announced on 4 May 2016 that he would not re-contest his seat at the next Australian federal election he is instead considering running as a Senate candidate. I reverted the addition of Clive to the retiring list, but the revert was reverted. I can't recall/not familiar with the last parliamentarian in this situation, and i'm also not concerned whether or not Clive is listed there, but it did seem to make sense not to list Clive there until he made his future parliamentary career intentions clear. All i'm looking for is sense and consistency. Sense in that Clive isn't yet retiring, and consistency in that I would have thought in a previous same situation, the parliamentarian wouldn't have been in the list. Happy to go along with whatever others reckon. Thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As the one who reverted you, let me explain myself further.


 * We know he is retiring from the House of Reps. That is all we need to show him as retiring.  Even if he'd announced his definite intention to run for the Senate, I would still advocate for putting him in the list of retiring pollies.  If he nominates for a Senate seat, we can annotate the list to that effect.


 * We must make distinction between "retiring from the House/Senate" and "retiring from politics". No matter what happens in relation to the Senate, the House of Reps will always regard him as a member who retired (rather than resigned, died, was defeated or was expelled). The Reps has no official interest in the external activities of its former members, and that includes those who go to the other place.


 * The other thing is that, because he's retiring, his term as a MHR comes to an end the day the Parliament is dissolved (presumably some time next week), but his term as a senator would not commence till election day 2 July (because it's a double dissolution). That means there's an almost 8-week period during which he is not a member of either house.  He may be "in politics" the whole time, but he certainly won't be drawing a parliamentary salary for those 8 weeks (not that he'd miss it).  His formal political career would forever show that 8-week gap.  (FWIW, I seriously doubt he will nominate for the Senate, given his notable lack of interest in turning up for Reps sittings; but if he does contest, I seriously doubt he would be elected.) --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  08:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * We have never, ever done this before, and I adamantly disagree with us doing it now. The list is of retiring MPs and I think it's pretty clear what that means: people who are leaving Parliament and not contesting this election. Not people who are switching houses (or attempting to do so). There is a separate section in some of the historical candidates pages listing seat changes, which would be a suitable place for this kind of information. The page should really discuss Palmer in the prose somewhere anyway. But he shouldn't be on the retiring MPs list.


 * I get that there will be a gap in his service regardless, but that is really not what the list is for. This list is not for people who will stop serving in parliament, it is for sitting members at the time of the dissolution who will not contest the election. You talk about what the House thinks above - but the list is not for the House, it is for Parliament. It is, essentially, a list of members who will not be candidates at the election (for either house, because we don't have separate pages for each). If someone is still running for Parliament, and they are a member at the time of the dissolution, they cannot appear on the retiring MPs list. They could, and should, be mentioned elsewhere, of course.


 * On another note - I know you're right about the whole retiring MPs' terms finishing at the dissolution of parliament, but it occurs to me to wonder how on earth that works in practice given that nominations don't close for some time afterwards (this year, likely to be quite some time)? Do they notify the House of their intention to retire or something? What happens if they change their mind in that time and nominate anyway? And - does anyone really draw a parliamentary salary between the dissolution and the election, outside the executive? In some ways the Senate really is simpler! Frickeg (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Frickeg, for what it's worth. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As I stated I was previously neutral but now i'm convinced by Frickeg's comments. I've removed Palmer. Timeshift (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm on the other side, I would list Palmer as having announced that he will be retiring from the HoR, and if necessary footnote if he declares an intent to stand for the senate. There is possibly quite a bit of "mechanics" that could be interesting to document somewhere, if we can find appropriate sources. The difference between both houses being dissolved for a double dissolution, compared to only the lower house for a normal election (and any difference should parliament ever actually be allowed to expire). This could cover parliamentary salaries, entitlements to superannuation, ability for the Government to make decisions, when does the money currently authorised to pay the Public Service run out, and what can be done to replenish it...--Scott Davis Talk 14:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * We don't use this distinction anywhere else though - and nor does anyone else. No one talked about Penny Sharpe, Steve Whan, or David Feeney as 'retiring" just because they contested a seat in a different house of the same parliament. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Any MHR who's already announced their retirement could change their mind and renominate for the Reps; or could decide to have a go at the Senate. Remember when Turnbull announced he was quitting Parliament after he was dumped as Leader of the Opp?  Well, he changed his mind, and now he's Prime Minister.  Sure, Palmer has previously hinted that he might try to get into the Senate.  But when he announced the Palmer candidates the other day, he didn't say he'd be one of them.  It was only after a question from a journo that he said it's still a possibility.  The most that can be said for Palmer's Senate candidacy at this stage is that he has hasn't ruled it out.  But neither have any of the other MHRs who've announced their retirement from the Reps. The only difference is that Palmer has said he might stand, and the others have made no such statement.  But they still could.


 * I see that Timeshift has now reverted my edit based on some of the above arguments. That's as may be.  But when did Wikipedia ever make decisions about stuff based on what we think might happen?  Never.  It's banned outright by WP:CRYSTAL. The article at present, because of the absence of Palmer from the list, strongly and absurdly suggests that he hasn't even announced his retirement from the House of Reps (!), let alone anything else.  It's misleading, it's wrong, and it cannot stand - unless and until he makes a definite statement that he will be standing as a Senate candidate for Queensland.  Or anywhere else.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The other thing that occurs to me is that this article is still called "Next Australian federal election", despite the attempts of some to change it to "Australian federal election, 2016". I agree that such a change would be premature, until the election is actually called.  I adopt exactly the same principle with Palmer.  Assuming he's still an active political player because of something that might happen vis a vis the Senate, is exactly the same as assuming the next election will definitely be in 2016.  Except, the difference is that the election will with 99.99% certainty actually be in 2016, even if it's not in July; whereas Palmer's candidacy for the Senate is at best a 50-50 bet; either he will stand or he won't.  Why does 50% trump 99.99%?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I had to go an look up the people mentioned by . Penny Sharpe is described as resigning from her seat in the NSW legislative council, failing to get elected to the lower house, and being reappointed to the upper house (with a break of service in the reference). Steve Whan was defeated in Monaro then appointed to the LC and our article is not clear how he attempted to get back to the lower house, his membership of the LC in the infobox ends just over 3 weeks before the election, and the navbox only covers the lower house. David Feeney resigned from the Senate to contest Batman. If Palmer announces his candidacy for the Senate, then several articles will need to be updated, but as of this morning, he has announced that he will not contest Fairfax, and that is all. None of those examples are someone who remained in a lower house seat up to an election, while standing as a candidate for the upper house. --Scott Davis Talk 00:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * John Williams, Paul Weller, Mary Wooldridge and Steve Herbert would be the most recent examples of that; I'm not 100% positive but I think John Bradford is the most recent federal example. None have been listed as retiring in the past. (On Whan: TDW would be referring to his run for Monaro in 2015, when he resigned from the LC to contested the LA. Whan and Sharpe did have to resign, but only because they held long-term seats that were not up for election; otherwise they could have just let their terms expire like Matthew Guy did.)


 * Jack makes some good points above about Palmer's vagueness about his future, and I'm actually inclined to agree with that line of reasoning. I was going to make the point that we're not listing Bronwyn Bishop or Dennis Jensen just yet, because neither of them has formally announced that they won't contest the election; they just lost preselection (although Bishop might possibly have confirmed that somewhere in her valedictory, which I haven't yet read thoroughly). However, I think that since Palmer has announced he will not contest the House of Reps, and has just vaguely left open the possibility of running for the Senate, I would not be that opposed to listing him for now on that basis, on the strong proviso that should he decide to run for the Senate he is removed. Frickeg (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Exactly the process we'd adopt if Gary Gray, Bruce Bilson, Mal Brough, or any of the other retirees suddenly announced they were having a crack at the Senate.  Or if Bill Heffernan said he was standing for a Reps seat. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  01:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Mackerras pendulum for the next Australian federal election - updated to reflect redistributions - pls check
I've made all the edits required at Mackerras pendulum for the next Australian federal election based on Antony's Pendulum and prior post-redistribution pendulum article precedent, but it needs more than one pair of eyes to look it over. The issue jumping out at me at the moment is Hunter being abolished and Charlton getting renamed to Hunter and what to do with Joel Fitzgibbon and Pat Conroy. I've listed Fitzgibbon and Conroy is omitted, and i'm not sure whether this is what we've done in the past or not. Thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that, I will have a look at it. --Canley (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Timeshift your question about Fitzgibbon and Conroy raises a broader issue - does the seat belong to the political party only, or does it belong to both the political party and the individual?

On a related note, Joel Fitzgibbon is currently the MP for Hunter, which is being abolished. If you list Fitzgibbon in the pendulum as the MP for Hunter (because he is the ALP candidate for that seat at the next election), then it follows that you should list Conroy as the MP for Shortland, in place of Jill Hall.

Matt O'Sullivan is the Liberal candidate for Burt at the next election. If you list Fitzgibbon as the MP for Hunter, then it follows that you should also list O'Sullivan as the MP for Burt. This is obviously crystal-ball gazing, just as it is to say that Fitzgibbon is the MP for Hunter.

Then there's Mackellar - which is listed as 'belonging' to Bronwyn Bishop, who did not win the Liberal Party preselection. If you're listing Fitzgibbon as the MP for Hunter, then it would follow that you should list Jason Falinski for Mackellar. Then there are all the other seats where the current MPs are not contesting the next election.

I can understand that for a post-election pendulum, that it may be useful to list MP names, but for a pre-election pendulum it may be best to leave them out.

Alternative number 1: write "new seat" for Hunter (just as it has been listed for Burt) and include a footnote explaining the name change.

Alternative number 2: list Conroy (not Fitzgibbon) as the MP for Hunter (because he is currently the MP for Charlton) and include a footnote that states that Charlton is being renamed to Hunter at the next election. I just made some edits to list Conroy as the MP for Hunter.

Suggestion: All MP names should be removed from pre-election pendulums, since the seats belong to the party and not the individual. The only seats that 'belong' to individuals are those held by independents such as McGowan and Wilkie. Gfcvoice (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Except that Hunter being a "new seat" is a pointless fiction created by the AEC for opaque reasons, which we (following Antony Green and virtually every other notable psephologist) have largely ignored. It's Charlton that was abolished, in essence, and there is no reason that we should not follow the simplest course here: list Fitzgibbon for Hunter, leave Hall as the retiring MP for Shortland, and include a note about Conroy. Listing Conroy as an MP for Hunter is an invention - he has not and will not represent a seat of that name (he represents Charlton until it formally ceases to exist). Sitting MPs are clearly useful information for these pendulums, and where seats have changed sides (i.e. Dobell), they are especially important. McGowan and Wilkie's seats "belong" to them in exactly the same way everyone else's do: not at all, but listing them is undeniably helpful information. Frickeg (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If Fitzgibbon is listed as the MP for Hunter, then to be consistent, Andrew Leigh should be listed as the MP for Fraser (not Fenner) and Stephen Jones should be listed as the MP for Throsby (not Whitlam). But if the seat names Fenner and Whitlam remain, there's an inconsistency in stating that Fitzgibbon is the MP for Hunter, when the equivalent seat is now held by Pat Conroy.Gfcvoice (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You've missed my point, which is that psephology at large has largely ignored the AEC's needlessly fussy formulation that Hunter was abolished and Charlton renamed, and gone with the far more sensible and straightforward description: that Charlton was abolished. See, for example, here. This is certainly the practice we've followed in the past - and we will not, for example, be creating a new, separate Hunter page - it will continue at the old one. Frickeg (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Gfcvoice, I agree with Frickeg. Also, have you seen the one and only source pendulum used for this article? Timeshift (talk) 07:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Textbook original research
A appears to be a incident of original research. We cannot use an old court case to make an analysis of whether its precedent applies here. It would be acceptable if a newspaper or scholar published a source saying the HCA 1974 case applied to the CEFC bill. No such source exists, so we cannot make that claim. Stickee (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Tony   (talk)  07:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

For inclusion in a fuller article - GP prescription warning
"DOCTORS are turning prescriptions into an election campaign weapon as they ramp up their opposition to the government’s six year freeze on Medicare rebates. Patients could end up paying between $14 and $38 to see a GP as a result of the freeze announced in last week’s budget and doctors are printing a message about the cuts on every prescription they write. The message: “Danger: You and your family’s health is being targeted” is being printed on the bottom of electronic prescriptions by doctors engaged in the campaign. More than 5.5 million prescriptions are written every week making the printable message a potent campaign weapon." Timeshift (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Much-appreciated curation here
Nice work, editors who've been working on this article. Just so you know, it's geting 3500–4500 views per day (perhaps that might rise as we approach 2 July). The relate Opinion polling for the Australian federal election, 2016 is scoring 550–1050 views per day.

These are important resources for readers. Tony  (talk)  03:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Bronwyn Bishop
It seems to me that she can safely go in the retiring MPs section now, and I would just stick her in with a "lost preselection DATE, delivered valedictory DATE", but I'm not sure how to put that in this table system we have going here. She has certainly confirmed she will be leaving the House in her valedictory, if not before. Frickeg (talk) 10:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps in the date, put in "lost preselection"? 110.22.236.11 (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Nick Xenophon Team
Should Nick Xenophon be added to the infobox seeing that the Nick Xenophon Team is being picked up by polling companies and are polling significantly better than say.. Katter's Australian Parter (included in the infobox) and the Palmer United Party (not included)? 110.22.236.11 (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, as NXT have never elected a parliamentarian. KAP is listed as they hold one lower house seat. PUP removed due to won't have any lower house seats as Palmer is leaving. Looks odd, I know. It's what happens when we go beyond adding just the two parties of government unfortunately. Timeshift (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I completely understand your justification. I noticed that the Greens have a Senate member as a leader, so why not raise the possibility? Perhaps IF the NXT wins a lower house seat in this election, the infobox could have them added. 09:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If they win a lower-house seat, then yes, they'll be added, and Xenophon would be the leader. Frickeg (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like NXT is projected to have at least one seat in the lower house, with Mayo notched up as a very likely win. 110.22.236.11 (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Averages by state on the poll page
Hi all, User:Timeshift9 and I have some differing views about the averages by state table on the Opinion polling for the Australian federal election, 2016. The difference is about whether that table needs an explanation, and if so what. In particular, in my view it is not clear from the source cited what it is an average of - I think it looks like the last week's polls, but this is not clear from the source cited. Timeshift9 seems to think it is an average of all polls from the last election, although I may have misunderstood the contention - but if so I don't think that's correct, based on the numbers. If no-one knows what it is an average of, perhaps it shouldn't be in the article. In any case, the discussion has turned a bit unpleasant so I am bowing out of it, but your attention to the issue would be appreciated. The thread is on the talk page of the opinion polling article, linked above. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment: Order of the list of candidates in the infobox
What should the order of the list of candidates in the infobox be? See Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  11:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

TPP in the Infobox
I want to discuss how/if we should present the two-party preferred polling between ALP and L/NP in the infobox. Options include: My preferred option is to have the aggregate poll, sourced by BludgerTracker. Any thoughts? Stickee (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Latest poll - This is what we're currently doing. However during the campaign, there's pretty much a new poll every single day. Since polls are within the margin of error (3%), there's rapid fluctuation between the two parties.
 * Aggregate poll - Such as BludgerTracker, which is updated often. This has the advantage of smoothing out any of the fluctuations.
 * No TPP - Have the field blank, because there is already the graph below.
 * I'm happy for the status quo to remain as has been the case for a long time. Even if trying to reduce 2PP updates, there's still PPM updates defeating the point. Also updating to latest poll lets users know a new poll is out without having to need Opinion polling for the Australian federal election, 2016 on their watchlist. And anon IPs will always come past and update to the latest anyway. Timeshift (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It makes sense to have TPP, but the polls also show primary votes estimated for each party federally. Would it help to have that included? 110.22.236.11 (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for post-election infobox
Why not include parties/individuals only if they're ALP, LNP, or hold the balance of power? By that standard, there'd be only ALP and LNP in the current infobox. Tony  (talk)  03:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Because we had an extensive RfC on this, and the consensus was for parties with one lower house seat before or after the election (subject to discretion, i.e. PUP here) to be included. This really is not a very low bar at all. Frickeg (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good idea. However, last time it was brought up, it just resulted in people droning "shush, there was a RfC!" rather than discussing whether it has merits. Stickee (talk) 03:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, because we all spent a lot of words and a lot of time on that RfC. If you want to bring it all up again, OK, but you're going to need to respond to the consensus of the RfC and the points raised there. Frickeg (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears you've just demonstrated my point! Anyway, there seems little point in having this discussion until it is actually post-election. Stickee (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the results of the election are relevant. I will launch an RFC at some stage. The current infobox is weirdly assymetrical. Tony   (talk)  08:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record i also agree that only the parties of government - libs or lib/nat coalition and labor - should be in the lead infobox. I can see why Tony also wants to include any party that helped form a parliamentary majority in that election's infobox - I would not be against that. I would support a longer-running more exhaustive RfC. The question should not have multiple choices which would split a vote for change, it should simply begin with should the eligibility for infobox inclusion be tightened, then go from there, otherwise its just the Howard republic vote split all over again. Timeshift (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

First transgender candidate?
It's the first election where both major party candidates in a seat are openly gay - in the Division of Brisbane. As such, i've added this notability to a few articles. However, Bridget Clinch is a minor party candidate in the same seat and theoretically "if elected would be our first transgender parliamentarian". I was wondering if we've even had a transgender candidate before, if not overall, at least on a federal level. Anyone know? Timeshift (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Also Martine Delaney is running for the Greens in Franklin at this election. --Canley (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well before that, Katherine Cummings for the Democrats in Grayndler in 1998, might also be her who ran as an independent in Lowe in 1993. --Canley (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like Tanya Wilde in the Merthyr state by-election, 1989 (Queensland) could be the first in Australia? --Canley (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Clearly i'm not up to speed with the history of transgender Australian federal candidates. Perhaps when a major party candidate in a future contest is transgender... Timeshift (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There have been a whole lot of minor party trans candidates before - this is just the first election where anyone has actually given a damn. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And surprisingly the damn is given by News Ltd, meanwhile, Antony doesn't even mention it. Timeshift (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's such bizarre reporting, because while she technically could, she won't poll remotely nearly as well as what many people have before her, or what Delaney will in Franklin - just Murdoch lazily eating up some smart media-gathering from the ADVP. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Friendly reminder - candidate nominations close today 9 June
Just a heads up - candidate nominations close today 9 June, so Candidates of the Australian federal election, 2016 will need completing. Timeshift (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Candidates download will be available after ballot draws (12pm local time) Friday 10 June 2016 as each state or territory is confirmed in AEC systems." I am nearly done writing a script to output the tables from the AEC data. I will concentrate on the Senate tables first as they are much more complicated—the House ones can probably be done manually and should be fairly comprehensive already. --Canley (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Preferred PM in the infobox
I find the wild gyarations every few days bewildering. Is it useful? I presume the method is to cite the most recent poll on PPM; clearly the polls employ quite different methodologies. Tony  (talk)  11:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Since when have we had polling in the infobox? (Genuine question - I've never noticed, but it's quite possible it's been there all along.) Either way, get it out of there. It has no place in the infobox; polling needs to be seen in context to form any kind of coherent picture. Frickeg (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Pageviews
|Mackerras_pendulum_for_the_Australian_federal_election,_2016|Australian_federal_election,_2016 The tool shows that over the past three weeks this article is on an average of 3290 hits per day; Opinion polling for the Australian federal election, 2016 is on 960; and Mackerras pendulum for the Australian federal election, 2016 is on 102. Tony  (talk)  12:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

New Shorten image found - which to use?
New image. Old image. Both have merit though one isn't teeth-smiling. Which to use? Timeshift (talk) 05:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I prefer the new one. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  05:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The new image of Shorten is miles ahead, definitely support a swap. I don't really like the Turnbull one at the moment (it's out of focus and the lighting's a bit weird), has that been discussed recently at all?  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  07:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the Turnbull image is the best we have so far... is it the image enhancement (see image upload history)? Timeshift (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Intro paragraph
I think we can do better on the introductory paragraph.
 * It should refer to the fact it is a general election, this being its technical name
 * In election articles we have generally been saying the "election" happens on a single day, but what we call the election takes place over 2-3 months – the text should reflect this
 * The introduction emphasises the mechanics (which do not change from election to election) over the specific details – and unique features – of the article's subject.

My suggestion is:


 * A general election for the Parliament of Australia was called on 8 May 2016 by Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, with polling day set for 2 July 2016. Early voting began on 14 June. The election will choose all 150 members of the House of Representatives. As the election was called under the seldom-used double dissolution provisions of the Constitution, all 76 Senate seats will also be contested, instead of the usual 40. Together the elected candidates will make up the 45th Parliament of Australia.


 * Turnbull is leading his Liberal/Nationals Coalition to its first general election since it took power under Tony Abbott in 2013. The Coalition's main opponent is the Opposition Australian Labor Party, led by Bill Shorten. A number of other parties, including the Australian Greens and the new Nick Xenophon Team, are also expected to win multiple seats.


 * In order to deprive the Coalition of its House of Representatives majority, Labor needs to win a net 13 seats from the Government. In order to win a majority in its own right, Labor needs to win a net 19 seats – possible with a uniform two-party swing of 4.0 points.


 * With eight weeks between the calling of the election and polling day, the campaign will be very long by Australian standards.

Mqst north (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * In Australia we don't call them general elections, we call them federal elections. The election does take place on a single day. Pre-polls and postals are splitting hairs. Previous election articles call them federal elections and say they took place on a single day. There have been many editors over these articles for many years. a) If you want to change something systemically, you need to get consensus rather than just update it on one page. b) Many people have got the articles to where they are and we're generally happy with where they are... again, such large changes are best taken to the talkpage first and wait for any potential new consensus before making article changes. Timeshift (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Early voting is a more significant part of the process than in the past, so it is worth looking at this question afresh. And as for what "we" call general elections, while Wikipedia should obviously use the common term in most of the prose (and probably the title), the technical term, from the Constitution and legislation, also has its place at the top of the article. Sort of like the article on dogs generally uses the term dog but, in the intro, also notes its scientific name Canis lupus familiaris. Mqst north (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Then look at the question afresh, but for now we have it as it is with detail on pre-polls and postals in the article. Please don't just go ahead and change such fundamentals without consultation and away from the standard used at previous elections. As for 'general elections' in the lead, it's not so important that it's lead material. Now you've put your opinions out there as have I and we disagree, we can now wait to see what others say and see whether or not you can get sufficient editors support to form a changed consensus. Until then, please keep these types of changes to the talkpage only for the time being. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I suppose we will need to rewrite it anyway at the end of the week. While we're waiting, can I respectfully suggest you read WP:OWNBEHAVIOR? Mqst north (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Can I suggest you don't wikilawyer to a user who has been on here for over a decade? Keeping a well-established article from controversial/disputed extensive single-user changes until they get acceptance through consensus from the article's talk page is not owning the article. Coming along to a well-established article and making controversial/disputed extensive single-user changes and repeatedly ignoring edit summary requests to take desired changes to long-established content to the article's talk page is more like owning the article but from nowhere. Timeshift (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * General election is rather more British. I wouldn't do a double-take if it were used here, but I prefer Timeshift's take on it. Tony   (talk)  04:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding "general election", that term does not cover Senate elections held on the same day, whereas "federal election" (while not mentioned in the Act), does refer to both houses of the parliament. The distinction is specifically defined in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918:
 * General election means a general election of the members of the House of Representatives.
 * Senate election means an election of Senators for a State or Territory.
 * If you want to use the term "general election", you will need to outline that that refers to the house and that eight Senate elections are held on the same day.
 * --Canley (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As per Tony's comment, the reason "general election" sounds more British is because the House of Lords is not elected and the general election (as distinct from a by-election) only applies to the House of Commons, so it is appropriate to use it to refer to a British general election, but only in regards to the House of Reps in Australia. --Canley (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There's also the fact that there are 2 types of federal elections for the lower house: general elections and by-elections. This one is the former.  It's certainly a federal election, but it's not untrue to call it a general election.  I'm not fussed either way.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  07:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You're right, Canley: "general election" is just the Reps. My mistake. Mqst north (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I do maintain though that the "election" does not take place on a single day (2 July is merely "polling day"), and that the election is a process that encompasses everything from the 'calling' of the election (even though this is more a traditional than a legal event) through to the return of the writs. Mqst north (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I hope you can manage to contain yourself if and when you've read Australian federal election, 1901... it's a moot point. Election day is election day (or days in 1901), and we have a whole section dedicated to election milestone dates like writs etc. Timeshift (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

One vote, one value
Australia does not have a provision for one vote, one value. The value of each vote varies by state/territory and house of parliament. Mqst north (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Australia does in general follow one vote one value. We have exceptions like the territories and Tasmania for various reasons, but those aside, in the five other states we have the same number of enrolled voters with a +-10% tolerance, which is what one vote one value in practice is. Timeshift (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * In addition to the exceptions you list, one vote, one value does not apply to the Senate. Not sure why you are pushing this. Mqst north (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The para doesn't say one vote one value applies to the Senate, it says it applies to the HoR!! Re-read please: Elections in Australia use a full-preferential system in one vote, one value single-member seats for the 150-member House of Representatives (lower house) and is changing from full-preferential group voting tickets to an optional-preferential single transferable vote system of proportional representation in the 76-member Senate (upper house). Voting is compulsory. See? Timeshift (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * So we're agreed that one vote, one value does not operate in Australia, but you think we're close enough that it should be a claim made in the intro paragraph? Mqst north (talk) 14:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Why can't you read? I'll re-paste the first half of the para: Elections in Australia use a full-preferential system in one vote, one value single-member seats for the 150-member House of Representatives (lower house) Timeshift (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

How states' seat entitlements are calculated
This is set by the Constitution – not the electoral act. Mqst north (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What is this in reference to? Timeshift (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am beginning to suspect you didn't read my changes – just reflexively reverted them. Mqst north (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, after the first few I was reflexively reverting your edits, as you weren't initially taking the advice. Now we're here lay out the changes you want to make and get consensus agreement for them. Timeshift (talk) 14:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I trust you don't plan to make a habit of reverting without reading. Assume good faith. Mqst north (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * After the first few revert edit summaries get ignored, AGF goes out the window. But why dwell on the past? You're here now. Timeshift (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Mqst north, the passage you deleted about the determination of seat allocation to states in the lower house was directly cited to the AEC media release which states: "A redistribution of federal electoral boundaries will be required in New South Wales and Western Australia following a determination under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 of the number of members of the House of Representatives each state and territory will be entitled to at the next federal election." Section 24 of the Constitution does outline the composition of the House, but it does contain a clause that the Parliament can "otherwise provide", and Part IV of the Electoral Act outlines in greater detail the quota calculation, the redistribution process, and includes the territories. --Canley (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

RFC preparatory query
I wasn't happy with the outcome that saw single lower-house members such as Katter and Palmer take up half of a large, cluttered infobox; probably a lot of other contributors weren't comfortable with it either. I'm thinking of launching another RFC to arrive at a better outcome.

Since it's cumbersome to make a one-size-fits-all decision for the various voting systems for lower houses in states and territories, I suggest a proposition that would apply only to pages related to federal elections, and to launch an RFC here, with notification on the Wikiproject and anywhere else editors care to put one. Editors curating state- and territory-related election articles would thus work out their own infobox protocols if they want to change them.

The proposition would be something like this:
 * If a federal-election infobox contains photographs of politicians, those politicians should be of the prime minister and the leader of the opposition alone. Reference to other parties or members that have established a coalition with or a formal arrangement to support the government or opposition can be made briefly in the infobox text (e.g. "Liberal–National coalition", "Labor–Greens coalition", "Liberal–National coalition with informal support by crossbenchers X and Y"). By editorial negotiation, any parties or members can be described in the main text, with or without photographs, as now.

Is that a reasonable proposition to put? I'm trying to make it simple, even though it's quite wordy. If future elections produce a House with a third party of substantial numbers, the rule could be revisited. That seems unlikely any time soon, though. Note: this is not yet an RFC—it's just an attempt to form a proposition that stands a good chance of being approved without complications. Tony  (talk)  03:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with you Tony. The RFC could do with a revisiting. Timeshift (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll be opposing this anyway, but I still have some suggestions here. I would leave out the coalitions stuff: I think the Lib/Nat Coalition can generally be taken as a given for all but a few post-1922 elections (which can be dealt with via footnote), and Labor/Greens coalition is muddying the waters far too much and quite likely to sidetrack the discussion. (Although, actually, it brings up new objections to the whole concept I hadn't previously considered, so ...!) I'm also not sure that separating federal and state/territory elections is the way to go (the previous RFC applied to all). In fact my best suggestion would be to propose the first sentence alone; I would think that (a) most likely to get support, and (b) most likely to focus the discussion on the actual point. Frickeg (talk) 13:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm prepared to make it a one-sentence proposition if other people think that's a good idea. Is there anything that would gain your support? You just like to over-emphasise independents and small parties? Tony   (talk)  01:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing, I'm afraid. I'm open to tweaks regarding before-and-after seats and that sort of thing, but really "elected an MP" is not at all a low bar. I won't get into it all now, though - plenty of time for that. :) Frickeg (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you want a pic of every MP in the infobox. I'm confused. Tony   (talk)  03:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, just parties that elect at least one MP, in common with Wikipedia-wide practice. It applies to exactly two elections post-war, for what it's worth. Frickeg (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. For post-war federal elections, only the Government and Opposition should be included in the infobox. The purpose of the infobox is to provide a very high-level summary – and it is not unreasonable to assume that the information the casual reader is most likely to want is about the parties vying to form Government, the two candidates for Prime Minister, and the two-party preferred vote share and swing. Mqst north (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I've thought of a perfect threshold to decide which parties get included in the infobox - how about parties which had or gained official party status in the Australian parliament? That means at least 5 parliamentarians. Timeshift (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * As long as we're including Senators, then I would support this. It includes third parties (i.e. the Greens, and after tomorrow very possibly NXT) which have far too substantial a presence in the campaign and in parliament to be kicked out of the infobox, while not wasting space on the Katters and Palmers. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Of course we would include Senators. Five parliamentarians make an official party status. The house they come from does not affect that. I'm glad you as the first to reply are supporting my idea of using official party status as the threshold for infobox inclusion... I suspect this should satisfy the majority of respondents, and hopefully before not too long we can apply this throughout the fed/state election articles. Timeshift (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You realise this would actually result in more parties appearing in the infobox than now, not less? It would add the Democrats to every infobox from 1980 to 2004, and the DLP to a couple as well. The rules are very inconsistent at state level as well (didn't the Newman government upgrade it to about 10 members, which is patently absurd?). I still think lower house membership is sufficient, but would obviously prefer this to the Government/Opposition only option. Frickeg (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Depends how you look at it. Palmer and Katter wouldn't be in 2013. Single-seat parties wouldn't appear. And of course if the Greens are in the infobox in the present day, then certainly the Democrats and DLP would qualify in the elections they won at least five seats at... why include Greens but not Dem/DLP...? Timeshift (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Timeshift - there were historical elections where both the Democrats and the DLP were massively relevant, and accordingly where it would assist readers to put those details in the infobox, while removing the silly situations where a microparty gets in the lower house. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the infobox could just be made neater by having rows of 3. I've seen some European election pages with more parties in the infobox and still manage to stay neat. 110.22.236.11 (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

So, shall we present two propositions for the federal articles? Tony  (talk)  05:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A: For post-war federal elections, only the government and opposition should be included in the infobox with photograph, with textual mention of any formal or informal support from other parties or members.
 * B: Only parties with official party status in the parliament should should be included in the infobox with photograph.


 * Reading Timeshift and TDW above, I may support option B here - I'd have to go through and see. There will need to be clarification about whether option B refers to before the election, after the election, or both. I would also support a caveat that this is not a hard-and-fast rule, and can be adjusted in individual cases with consensus (off the top of the head, One Nation 1998 (and 2016, sigh!) and DLP 1955 would be cases where this might be applicable). If we do go with option B, we will need to find historical data on party status too, since it will have changed when parliament expanded (I assume?). Frickeg (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not very keen to do it on actual party status (because that changes every so often, is technical, and I suspect didn't exist for a long time at the beginning) but rather thought that applying the current federal level makes for a reasonable cutoff. I do agree that having the leeway to adjust with consensus is a good idea. However, I also think that applying this to this election already raises some potential issues - not least that if Xenophon doesn't pick up Grey he won't meet that criterion. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 07:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm keen to broker one or more options we can RFC on without becoming complex and getting out of control. I'm very open to suggestions. BTW, nearly 70,000 hits today for this article. Tony   (talk)  11:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Election night TV coverage
Is it relevant here to add information about the broadcast of election night coverage on Seven, Nine, ABC and Sky (such as hosts, panelists, etc)? -- Whats new?(talk) 05:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not unless there is something particularly unusual about the coverage this time, compared with other elections. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's notable, and think it would be a good thing to have on all elections where missing. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the make-up of an election night TV panel is notable, any more than the line-up on any other TV panel on any other night. Knowing which channel had Michael Kroger on this year doesn't add to the reader's understanding of the election process or result. Mqst north (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we can all agree it's critical to know which ridiculous seat loss contraption the Nine Network will be using for each election—shark tank, giant boot, rubbish crusher? --Canley (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Election night coverage can be seen at Australian federal election, 2007 and has been there for a decade so it isnt not notable, however it is part of a much fuller article. I'm on the fence as to whether it should be added for this election. Timeshift (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Katter, seriously?
Why is Bob Katter and his party featured in the infobox? They're not exactly major players like the Greens. Is it because Katter and Greens have existing seats in the lower house, whereas LDP, Nick Xenophon, PUP, CDP, etc. are only represented in the upper house?

Pelagic (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, hang on, I didn't see the section above ... will update or edit after I read some more. Pelagic (talk) 07:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)