Talk:Candidates of the 2018 South Australian state election

Integrate official candidate references for refimprove?
Can someone with a bit more time please integrate http://sa.alp.org.au/alp/state-election-candidates and http://www.saliberal.org.au/candidates in to the article's references for refimprove? Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC) I've added some today - will keep adding when I have time, and candidates are announced etc. Deb B Otto (talk) 04:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why I can see (some) candidate names whilst 'editing source' like Richard Harvey and Helika Cruz, but not in the final copy ? Where do they go ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deb B Otto (talk • contribs) 05:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Nevermind - I worked it out - there was a random | in there, affecting things. Deb B Otto (talk) 06:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Labor ticket
Can anyone definitively source the order of the Labor ticket? We have Irene Pnevmatikos ahead of Justin Hanson, but most of the press on Vlahos standing down and being replaced by Bourke seemed to suggest that Hanson, not Pnevmatikos, was next on the ticket. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Poll Bludger specifically states the order (after Bourke's elevation) as "Second position goes to Irene Pnevmatikos ... The one upper house incumbent is third-placed Justin Hanson." --Canley (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Just remind me again, why do we trust PollBludger over any MSM or identifiable politics academic? Donama (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a case of trusting anything over anything. This is one source which has specifically outlined the current ticket order. If you have a "better" media or academic source that states otherwise, please provide it and the merits of each can be discussed and assessed. It seems to me the MSM sources are mentioning Hanson (as an incumbent) before Pnevmatikos in the text, hence the suggestion that he is higher on the ticket. --Canley (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Turns out it was wrong, Hanson is ahead of Pnevmatikos on the ticket! --Canley (talk) 06:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Figured as much. Thanks for being so quick off the mark with the official ticket order - didn't realise it had come out! Interesting that Mahanbir Grewal seems to have disappeared off the Labor ticket entirely. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Dignity Party column
The most immediate reason I reverted this is that it also undid the careful copyedit I did to the main list at the same time, bringing it in line with exactly what ECSA said (i.e. SA Best's Waite candidate, making sure candidate names used the same format, etc.).

But I removed the column in the first place because, well, there are a limited number of columns you can have before these tables start to look super messy, and six has been our informal standard. Yes, Dignity has an MLC, but she was elected eight years ago through an electoral fluke that is no longer possible; they barely contested the last election and received negligible results. They are more than adequately covered in the Others column. Frickeg (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with this. They've both got parliamentary representation and they're running a very similar amount of candidates: either neither of the Australian Conservatives and the Dignity Party should have their own columns or they both should. I think making a value judgment about Vincent's significance is inappropriate and a bit of an NPOV issue. Although we'd normally have less columns, it's fairly rare to have this many parties with parliamentary representation and contesting nearly every seat, and I don't think it looks overly cluttered with the extra column. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think saying Vincent won by preference harvesting is a "value judgment" - that's a fact, nor do I think Dignity is comparable with the Conservatives, who (unlike Dignity) successfully contested the last election (as Family First). At the last election, Family First got over 6% (4.4% in the LC) and elected an MLC. Dignity got less than 1% in both chambers and nada. Frickeg (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's fair to make a comparison to 2014, in which they (like many parties with staggered elections and one MP) didn't try to run a campaign on the same level as the other parties and seemingly decided to save their powder for 2018: they ran a fraction of the candidates of Family First (7?) and got a proportionately smaller fraction of the vote. I don't see a fair basis for treating them differently in 2018 when they've got the same number of MPs up for re-election and running practically the same number of candidates. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I tend to avoid reading popularity poll results, so have not noticed if there are significant differences in the current perceived support for Conservatives vs Dignity. That could be an objective reason for including one but not the other. Kelly Vincent generally does not put her foot in her mouth when she opens it, and she appears to have vocal support on talkback radio, I hear people talking about her more often than Robert Brokenshire. I have not driven through seats with a Dignity lower house candidate, so have no idea if they are actively campaigning in those seats. I've only seen a few "party" signs for Conservatives, in a seat where they do have a nominated named candidate (but that is more than I have seen for our Liberal candidate!). I agree that both or neither seems reasonable as it's hard to find an objective reason to give one a column and not the other. There is no reference I can see that a lower house Dignity Party candidate is an "other", but the Conservative candidate in the same seat is not. --Scott Davis Talk 22:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I guess I'm in the minority here then. I continue to be utterly baffled by the idea that a party with two MLCs, a senator, representation going back to 2002, and a national presence is somehow on the same level as a micro-party with one flukily elected MLC from eight long years ago, but whatever. All I ask is that if/when someone adds the column back, they make sure that the other changes made within that edit stand - those changes included a number of name adjustments to match ECSA and the addition of one or two missing candidates, as well as changing the "Held by" column to reflect the redistribution which it wasn't previously. Frickeg (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * To say the Conservatives' history goes to 2002, I guess you are counting Andrew Evans' election, and claiming that somehow that makes the current party more significant than Kelly Vincent's election in 2010 does for the Dignity Party. I'm not sure I've seen evidence to support that, either. I'm happy to try to harmonise the edits. --Scott Davis Talk 11:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, all of your incidental edits to other candidates' names have all been included. --Scott Davis Talk 13:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The point I was making is that FFP/Conservatives have been successful at four elections in a row, as compared to Dignity's one-off fluke. Thanks for checking the edits. The columns are the wrong way around now (if nothing else the Conservatives do have more candidates than Dignity). Frickeg (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no strong opinion on column order, but will note that Greens are fielding more lower house candidates than SA-BEST, but SA-BEST is before Greens, so number of candidates is not the determining factor, and neither is alphabetical. It could be polling results? --Scott Davis Talk 11:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We organise these tables based on a whole heap of things, not just one. SA Best, which is obviously in contention for a number of lower-house seats (backed up by long-standing federal and state results), is unquestionably the third party in this situation, which is why it's natural they go ahead of the Greens even though they have fewer candidates. Thanks for bringing up yet another reason Dignity should not get a column, though - the Conservatives have been included in several reputable opinion polls, Dignity not in a single one. Frickeg (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)