Talk:SA-Best

Strongest Xenophon/SA-BEST seats
The section "Strongest Xenophon/SA-BEST seats" is cited to The Poll Bludger, however to me it feels like an opinion piece, and possibly pushing a barrow. Nine of the top ten seats listed were won last time on first preferences, two of them with over 60% first preferences. I'm uncertain how the tone of the section improves the article, and even less whether it has any chance of staying in a state like it is now beyond 17 March. What can we do to change it to talk about what media speculation showed before the election, instead of Wikipedia providing our own speculation about Xenophon stealing voters from seats thta don't need preference distributions? "...the more strongly performing major party candidate will be in serious trouble unless their own primary vote approaches 50%" doesn't note that the winning candidates in those seats far exceeded that level in 2014. --Scott Davis Talk 21:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Surely you aren't that ignorant to such basic political arithmetic and history, recent or otherwise? You do realise that nobody got a 50%+ primary vote in any of the 11 SA seats at the 2016 fed election? You wouldn't claim the NXT presence was purely coincidental and wasn't the cause, would you? And surely enough, Mayo fell due to a substantial NXT primary, coupled with a low Labor vote in a safe Liberal seat, where the Liberal candidate's primary vote usually well exceeds 50%? Frome in 2006 and then 2009? In a marginal seat, say a common example where both majors were to once again poll near or above a 40% primary, it wouldn't be possible for a third candidate to win. Even at 34% each. The imbalance is larger in safer seats, and therefore easier due to the lower threshold to poll second and pick up third-placed major party preferences. History is littered with this exact recipe. Lastly, where do you think third party primary votes come from, if not the major parties? They don't just spontaneously appear from nowhere. Timeshift (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim to be ignorant of arithmetic, or history. I accept that I am ignorant of how the bulk of voters in those electorates will respond to the different political landscape this time. The Poll Bludger and Essential references do not attempt to account for the significant Family First vote in recent elections. Mayo and Heysen have a long history of voting for other parties (I used to live there). SA-BEST might be able to draw on the Karlene Maywald legacy in Chaffey, but she lost the last election she contested, so that might not be a bonus any more. Using Chaffey as the example, 78% (Lib+FF) - (0.6*30% = 18%) (SA-BEST leaning Liberal) = 60% still leaves Liberal well over 50% first preferences. Other electorates might leave that number in the high 40s, but until we know which way Labor will recommend their preferences, neither reference gives us a value for the leakage of Labor preferences to Liberal in an Lib/SA-BEST 2-candidate distribution. I'm not cinvinceed that if SA-BEST are to end up with a signifficant number of seats, they will mostly be won by sweeping past a Liberal leader using Labor preferences. I think if it's going to happen, the voters will have moved far enough that SA-BEST will be chosen, not just best-of-the-rest. However, for the next 6 weeks, that is just as speculative as any other opinion. --Scott Davis Talk 13:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What you're both saying is perfectly reasonable. Just arrange the whole section along the lines of: "The arrival of SA-BEST is very significant to this election blah blah. Antony Green thinks such and such. Galaxy polling analysed the Nick Xenophon Team federal vote per polling booth across the state to estimate which states seats are likley to be won by SA-BEST. This (blah blah) is a summary of that research. And Politics blogger Pollbludger has done such and such analysis and come up with such and such." We don't have to argue about whether to put this info here or whether we personally think SA-BEST has a chance, just put what political analysts have actually said and name each source in the text. Donama (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 21 March 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by the nominator as noted below; no support had been expressed. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

SA-Best → SA-BEST – Their official name is capitalised now, both at their web site e.g., and on election ballot papers. Adpete (talk) 02:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * is BEST an acronym? We should use sentence case as the Wikipedia standard convention instead of a stylization unless this should follow WP:ACROTITLE. -2pou (talk) 06:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * fair point: no it is not, as far as I know. I still think capitalising makes more sense though. Regardless, I think your reluctance is sufficient to disqualify this as "uncontroversial". I will take it to Requested moves. Adpete (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there now a discussion somewhere so we can remove this from here? Dr. Vogel (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Apparently, there is no such discussion elsewhere. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the above, I'll say: Adpete (talk) 02:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia already makes exceptions to normal capitalisation rules in other cases, e.g. eBay and iPhone.
 * The article uses capitalisation ("SA-BEST"), so the title should be consistent with the article.


 * Oppose per WP:TITLETM, MOS:TM, MOS:ALLCAPS. Wikipedia generally avoids promotional styling, and all-caps is a classic example. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * That's convincing enough for me. They were the guides I was looking for and couldn't find. I'm happy to withdraw the request now. Adpete (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)