Talk:Candidates of the 2013 Australian federal election

Capitalisation
I removed some unnecessary capitalisation, specifically changing "...Candidate" to "... candidate" and "Held By" to "Held by". But the edit was reverted with the comment "...the practice has been to capitalise".

MOS:CAPS seems quite clear to me, that "By" and "Candidate" in those contexts should not be capitalised. Can I have some other editors' opinions please. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not necessarily disputing that, and frankly I don't care all that much. I do care about consistency, though, and if this is going to happen, then it seems to me that all 129 of these pages should be changed. Although, if we do go ahead and do this (and since it would be an exceptionally dull job I hope we could do it as a team effort), can we also change "Held by" as a heading? It's pretty clumsy. Although I can't think of anything appropriate and sufficiently short to replace it at the moment. Frickeg (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "can we also change 'Held by' as a heading?" Possibly it should be Incumbent, but I would expect that word to refer to the individual, rather than the party. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I thought of that too and had the same problem. The thing is, while "Held by" is clumsy, I can't think of anything equally short that says it better - and the shortness is important, because these tables are big enough as they are. Frickeg (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I care about consistency as well - not just amongst all of the "Candidates for Australian elections" pages, but the whole encyclopaedia, which is why I think we should generally try to follow MOS unless there's a good reason not to. Just because past articles are wrong doesn't mean future articles have to be wrong as well. Actually it's probably not a huge amount of work to change 129 pages. Copy entire article text into your favourite text editor, case-sensitive global search-and-replace of
 * " Candidate" with " candidate", (note the leading space)
 * " Candidates" with " candidates"
 * "Held By" with "Held by"
 * copy back into web browser edit window, preview to check and save.
 * Search-and-replace should be easier than manually replacing 1400 web links with a template, but we managed that in only a couple of weeks. I think we should do it. I'm not going to rush in and do them all straight away, but I'm prepared to work through them in my spare time, unless I hear any objections. Obviously some help from other editors would be appreciated in the task. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * As I said, I have no real objections as long as the whole lot are kept consistent. Frickeg (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Leslie Cannold
I notice Leslie Cannold is still listed as a Wikileaks Party candidate for Victoria. I assume that, considering her resignation was major news yesterday and this article has not been updated by anyone, her resignation from the party does not necessarily mean that she will be removed from the Senate ticket? (the forms may have already been finalised for printing, for example). -- Chuq (talk) 01:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Then there's Lib candidate for Charlton - Kevin Baker who has ceased campaigning (and been disendorsed?) --Mrodowicz (talk) 10:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Antony Green wrote a blog post about this situation in regards to the Baker incident. If the candidate is disendorsed or resigns after the close of nominations, they will usually stop campaigning, but will still appear on the ballot paper, remain a candidate and can still be elected. He cites Pauline Hanson who was disendorsed by the Liberals in 1996 but was still elected. If they are elected, I suppose they would either resign or take the seat as an independent. It's probably worth mentioning Cannold, Baker, etc. in the former candidates section but I guess they should remain in the candidate listings. --Canley (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I reckon a new section is probably necessary for these two (and also I think a Palmer candidate, Buddy Rojek, has resigned). They definitely should remain on the candidates listings as they will still be on the ballots and will still get votes. Maybe a subsection of the former candidates, with "Candidates withdrawn after the close of nominations" or something more elegant? Frickeg (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. They are still candidates for election.  I'm not aware of any mechanism whereby a person who has nominated for election and changes their mind after close of nominations can change their official status.  They might take out TV ads and full page newspaper ads saying they no longer wish to be considered, but they'll still be on the ballot paper, and the donkey vote, if nothing else, will ensure they get at least some votes.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  01:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, pretty sure there's no way of actually withdrawing. Senate candidates even stay on the ballot if they die. Frickeg (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Senate candidates even stay on the ballot if they die - Do you have a reliable source for that? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Here. Admittedly there is no way for them to be elected and there are some special provisions in place, but they'd still be on the ballot and able to receive votes. Frickeg (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there have been a few dead people sitting in the Senate from time to time. Just because they run about and squawk is no guarantee they're alive, as any headless and brainless chicken will confirm. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  09:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The best way to do it, is to designate a footnote beside the candidates name, and explain circumstances at foot of the page. --Mrodowicz (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Because of the order of response, it looks like this is suggesting we have footnotes along the lines of "This person had been dead since 2004, but was re-endorsed by their party to run for re-election". Anyway, I agree, footnotes (of the a, b, c type, of course) would probably work better. Frickeg (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Senate Group Voting Tickets
When I placed a link to these, soon after they first became available, the AEC was publishing the tickets in PDF form, which was excellent, enabling them to be read and imnmediately understood. But when I came back today, I found the AEC link for WA (and all the others) is now to a CSV file which (as seen in a spreadsheet) is totally incomprehensible. I will be questioning the AEC about why it would make such a decision to effectively withdraw public information in this vital area. Fortunately my earlier WA download was saved (and also the one for SA). Bjenks (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have no idea what they were thinking. The ABC and Below the Line both have them in much more reader-friendly form. Frickeg (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Much obliged. The ABC one is fine; the other is too tricky for an old codger like me! Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 04:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The BTL one is thanks to me stuffing up the link, I think. Here is the homepage; you then choose your electorate and click on "view preferences". The fun thing about it is it lets you compare them side by side. Frickeg (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I got to the electorate page OK, but the Reps stuff switched inexplicably to the Senate Group Tickets. There is, of course, no relevance of the Reps division to the Senate (for which the electorate is the whole state)--and very little relevance of the Reps HTVs to the Senate Group Tickets. It may be confusing for some voters to have the lot on one plate. I grant that it is a fun site, though.:)  Bjenks (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I've now had an apologetic response from the AEC saying If you go to the following link: http://www.aec.gov.au/election/who-are-the-candidates.htm you will be given a list of states under "Senate Candidates". By clicking each individual state, you will be referred to the Candidates and preferences for the relevant state. You will also note that just below the heading "Senate candidates and preference for [insert state/territory]" there is a link called "Group Voting Tickets (Senate preference flows) [insert state/territory". Clicking this link will take you to a page which has, in a blue box at the top, the PDF for downloading. So they can be had with difficulty, eg, SA is located here and the rest can be accessed from list of states by following the above instructions. Bjenks (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Order of non-major party candidates
I've reorganized the "others" section of HR candidates, to place the victorious candidates (ie. C. McGowan & A. Wilkie) above all the others, who are listed by alphabetical order. I don't know how this was arranged in previous articles, but it seems a bit silly to me to have to scroll down a list of minor candidates to find the winning candidate. It just looks & reads better from a presentation point of view, to have the winner listed above all the rest. --Mrodowicz (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is sensible. For the record, previous articles have always been consistent in having all "other" candidates listed alphabetically, and I see no reason to deviate from that here. This is a list of candidates, not elected members, and in any case there are never more than six or seven "other" candidates so it's not hard. For consistency's sake they should all be in alphabetical order. Frickeg (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Frickeg on this. Candidates should be listed alphabetically, regardless of who won. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Colours
Anyone care to go through this article and fix up the minor party colours from grey? I did this and did Wikileaks here before realising what a job it is (note I only created 3 parties' colours' templates for the linked page, the rest had already been created). Timeshift (talk) 05:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a way we can get it so that the Template:Australian politics/party colours template works for these too? It's a real pain having to duplicate them all. I'm not sure of the best place to raise this with people who know enough about markup to maybe do something about it ... but if we can, it should be a simple job to get a bot to do the changeover and then we can get rid of a lot of clutter. Frickeg (talk) 05:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Candidates of the Australian federal election, 2013. 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/20120126053504/http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8408499 to http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8408499
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100927083727/http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/lib-speaks-for-himselfdefies-gag-by-abbott/1951905.aspx to http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/lib-speaks-for-himselfdefies-gag-by-abbott/1951905.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)