Talk:2014 Australian Senate special election in Western Australia

Talk moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics

It's on!!! [1] --Canley (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

High Court Ruling. --Canley (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that's the Order, here is the Ruling, not on the HCA site yet. --Canley (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I did find amusing the number of political commentators who said that a new election was not a foregone conclusion. I wonder what Palmer has to say. Timeshift (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly there's no ruling yet... "High Court Judge indicates WA likely to go back to polls for fresh Senate election". Timeshift (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I've created Australian Senate election, 2014, I was conflicted with what to name it (ie your title) but in the end I went with consistency with the previous 4 half-Senate only election articles. But i'm not too fussed with where any consensus would take it. Something else i'm conflicted with is to if we should add the article to templates like Template:Australian elections and Template:Politics of Australia - they are half-Senate elections so on that line of thinking it should be added, but in another way it could be considered like a by-election and we don't add those. I preferred it more when half-Senate elections were in a seperate list on the same template rather than blended in with all federal elections but even still could go along the by-election theory of not adding. We haven't had a single-state half-senate senate-only election before. Thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 01:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm fine with your title, will be interesting to get some other opinions/viewpoints though. Should the results table be WA Senate only though? --Canley (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I think both would actually be good. It's all new territory to us with little precedent, how excitement! Timeshift (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Heh heh, yeah, #auspolnerds! I'll do a WA summary table and pop it in. --Canley (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It was funny watching the audience in the Senate Occasional Lecture with Antony Green, you really could tell who were auspolnerds and who had frazzled, confused and tired looks on their faces :P - 55:15 lol #auspolnerds Timeshift (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

"Western Australian Senate special election, 2014" would seem the most correct title. It is not an election because one has already been held and (almost certainly later this week) voided. It is not a by-election because they are not irregular vacancies being filled, they are vacancies from effluxion of time (and those in place from the 2007 election are still serving their terms). It doesn't help that there has never been one before in Australian history so we have nothing to go off - a case where the High Court voids an election in the Reps results in someone who was elected being booted and having to recontest their seat, which is unambiguously a by-election, and the two deferred elections I can think of (Dickson 1993 and Newcastle 1998) don't have articles. Orderinchaos 02:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

What a mouthful! Timeshift (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Orderinchaos about the title. I'd also note that we do have something of a predecent for this - in the Tasmanian supplementary election around 1980, which IIRC we have a separate article for. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I've added the 2013 WA result. Timeshift (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've done a summary with all seat winners + PUP listed, and everyone else in Others if it's agreed this one is too long, but I'm fine with the full table as well. --Canley (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I've always thought the current incarnation was too long in the Senate state-by-state result articles but consensus overrode me. We really don't need candidate names, we have an article for that, it's unnecessary space-wasting duplication. They are just too long. The length of articles like Senate results for the Australian federal election, 2013 is sheer madness when we have winning candidates in right-side tiny tables and losing candidates in Candidates of the Australian federal election, 2013. Perhaps we could revisit that issue more generally? Timeshift (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is the summary table:

Senate (STV GV) — Turnout 92.77% (CV) — Informal 2.86%

Party		Votes	%	Swing	Seats won	Total seats	Change
	Liberal	513,639	39.20	−3.79	3	6	–1
	Australian Labor Party	348,401	26.59	−3.11	1	3	–2
	Australian Greens	124,354	9.49	−4.47	1	2	0
	Palmer United Party	65,595	5.01	+5.01	0	0	0
	Australian Sports Party	2,997	0.23	+0.23	1	1	+1
	Other	255,292	19.48	+9.71	0	0	0
	Total	1,310,278			6	12

Elected	#	Senator	Party
2013	1	David Johnston		Liberal
2013	2	Joe Bullock		Labor
2013	3	Michaelia Cash		Liberal
2013	4	Linda Reynolds		Liberal
2013	5	Wayne Dropulich		Sports
2013	6	Scott Ludlam		Greens

--Canley (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to the 1 in 5 "other" votes, especially when a lot of them changed the outcome. What i'm advocating can be seen here.

Party		Votes	%	Swing	Seats won	Total seats	Change
	Liberal	513,639	39.20	−3.79	3	6	0
	Labor	348,401	26.59	−3.11	1	3	−1
	Greens	124,354	9.49	−4.47	1	2	0
	Nationals	66,421	5.07	+1.64	0	0	0
	Palmer United Party	65,595	5.01	+5.01	0	0	0
	Liberal Democrats	44,902	3.43	+2.25	0	0	0
	Australian Christians	21,499	1.64	+1.64	0	0	0
	Sex Party	19,519	1.49	−0.76	0	0	0
	HEMP	13,973	1.07	+1.07	0	0	0
	Shooters and Fishers	13,622	1.04	+0.44	0	0	0
	Wikileaks	9,767	0.75	+0.75	0	0	0
	Animal Justice	9,720	0.74	+0.74	0	0	0
	Family First	8,783	0.67	−0.48	0	0	0
	Smokers Rights	8,719	0.67	+0.67	0	0	0
	Motoring Enthusiasts	7,748	0.59	+0.59	0	0	0
	Fishing and Lifestyle	5,729	0.44	+0.44	0	0	0
	Aust. Independents	4,041	0.31	+0.31	0	0	0
	Katter's Australian	3,909	0.30	+0.30	0	0	0
	Rise Up Australia	3,861	0.29	+0.29	0	0	0
	Democrats	3,841	0.29	−0.09	0	0	0
	Sports Party	2,997	0.23	+0.23	1	1	+1
	Outdoor Recreation	2,215	0.17	+0.17	0	0	0
	Secular	1,486	0.11	+0.03	0	0	0
	Climate Sceptics	1,481	0.11	−0.05	0	0	0
	Stable Population	1,352	0.10	+0.10	0	0	0
	Socialist Equality	1,143	0.09	+0.09	0	0	0
	Australian Voice	1,139	0.09	+0.09	0	0	0
	Independent	422	0.03	+0.03	0	0	0
Total formal votes		1,310,278	97.14	+0.32	6	12
Informal votes		38,519	2.86	−0.32
Turnout		1,348,797	92.77	−0.78

(previous text associated with previous table has been removed for flow)

Works for me. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, definitely! As the person who did them last time, these tables are a nightmare! A synthesis of several different sets of data, and as I said on the talk page, it was disastrous to use the ABC's simulation count, and the AEC tables were not detailed enough. As Timeshift says, the candidate listings are in those articles. I can easily do a table like above without the candidate column, I will do it now. --Canley (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Timeshift (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

So are the people who were elected now former senators-elect? Hack (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

No. Timeshift (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

So it seems unanimous to remove candidates from tables on Senate results for the Australian federal election, 2010 and Senate results for the Australian federal election, 2013 based on the above discussion - any comments from other editors? Timeshift (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I replaced it with a simpler version without the candidate column, could do with a bit of tweaking of column widths, some more totals and swings for informals and turnout, a few colours are missing. I will tweak it throughout the day. --Canley (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The above looks good, so far! As you say, more totals etc. I've removed previous text so as not to confuse what people are saying about what tables, apologies to those who I have removed. If there's any issue feel free to change back. Timeshift (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hows the table going? Timeshift (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Done, I've added seat columns, informal vote rows and so on. --Canley (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

To come in late, I don't agree with removing candidates from the tables, if that's still on the cards. We have the summarised results on the main page; no harm in going into detail, and it's not really duplicated information since it's the only place where the votes for independent or ungrouped candidates can be seen. Frickeg (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The harm of going in to such detail is such lengthy results tables that create such long long articles, when the info is available in full in another article. Timeshift (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

moved to Western Australian Special senate election 2014

The claim that the High Court justice in his role as Court of Disputed Returns on the 18th actually handed down a decision regarding calling of another election is a misreading of the reports of that day - he specifically said he would be announcing the ruling on the Thursday 20th - too many media and online enthusiasts in the sport of second guessing claim the ruling was made on the tuesday.

Also the process does not involve the High Court, or the AEC, it actually is all subserviant to the Western Australian 1903 act, consequently the Western Australian Premier and Governor. It is important that we get the detail right, otherwise we fall in the rubbish that the general media grab so easily with and run with. satusuro 02:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

What should we do in regards to Zhenya Wang and Wayne Dropulich? Should they or shouldn't they have articles? I think no personally. Timeshift (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I think they should. They were both declared elected to the Senate, and both had a bunch of articles written about them on that basis. I think Wikipedia's coverage of the 2013 election in WA would be a lot less for not having any information about the candidates who were said to have won. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree, whatever the outcome of the re-election, these two have definitely become notable, particularly Dropovich. This is an historical situation, I can see it likely to be discussed in future in a similar way as the Dismissal, this is a mess. They are not Senators Elect, but they are possibly the only candidates to be elected to the Senate, but then have their seats declared null. Screech1616 (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

They pass my reading of WP:POLITICIAN as well, since it talks about being "elected", not "assuming their seat". Heather Hill is the obvious precedent. For what it's worth, Linda Reynolds is in the same boat. Frickeg (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

References

Electoral events timeline

I've selectively copied the content from Australian federal election, 2013. I think I have to mention that to avoid WP:COPYVIO. --Surturz (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyone doing a candidates page as the Senate paper draw has been done?

See here for candidates/draw. Timeshift (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It's done but I can't for the life of me work out what's wrong with the last row of table. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

The following discussion 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.

---

Hello everyone I propose adding an Infobox to the article which will assist readers in seeing a concise overview of the election result and because Infoboxes are generally used without dispute on election articles. Please discuss the issue. LordFixit (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Here are some examples of non-national elections that contain Infoboxes:

• London Assembly election, 2012
• London local elections, 2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordFixit (talk • contribs) 00:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose infobox. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This is certainly not appropriate for this article. See Australian Senate election, 1970 as an example. It's not a general election. This was an election of a few Senators in one state. It would be like adding an infobox to by-election articles with leader pics etc. Timeshift (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it is not a general election is irrelevent. See my examples above. Just because the 1970 article is incomplete does not mean we shouldn't do this article better. LordFixit (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it up for discussion. For some context, I raised some previous discussion at Talk:Australian federal election, 2013#State-level infoboxes, to discuss the addition of infoboxes at the state-level House of Representatives results. My main concern was that the addition of an infobox badly broke the layout because it clashed with the summary table of results which was in the same location (top right of the page), however this is fairly easily fixed by removing the right alignment and moving to a heading section. My other concern was the inclusion of national information such as photos of Rudd, Abbott, and the date they became leader—which appeared very "noisy" and in my opinion really distracted from the summary of the election at the state level which is presumably the point of the infobox. I removed this national leader/PM data in WA, NSW, VIC, QLD. The original infobox remains in TAS, and was not added for SA or the Territories.

Some other issues for discussion/clarification:

1. Clive Palmer was included in the QLD state HoR infobox, but Bandt and McGowan were not in Victoria—what is the criteria for inclusion in the infobox? If they win a seat (so LIB, ALP, GRN and PUP for the WA Senate election)?
2. You used the 2PP (ALP/LNP) figure for popular vote in most cases, except Queensland where the inclusion of Palmer meant the primary vote was used. Not an issue for this Senate article as there will be no 2PP breakdown, but what is the definition of popular vote?
3. Will you count the Liberals and Nationals as being in Coalition in WA or not?

--Canley (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

God, please, please no. These kinds of infoboxes cause more than enough problems as it is; the last thing we need to be doing is adding them to subnational articles. In fact, we already have a summary table that is far more informative and much less cluttered. I'm against having any infoboxes at all in these kinds of articles, frankly. Frickeg (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It's standard practice in election articles (subnational included ie Queensland state election, 2012) worldwide though. The table is far more cluttered than the infobox was. LordFixit (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

By subnational I didn't mean state elections, I meant by-elections, etc., which this clearly is. I don't see that that is standard worldwide, nor would I especially care if it was; this is about what is standard for Australian elections. I don't consider the table more cluttered than the infobox; it includes all the relevant information without any of the guff that the infobox requires. Frickeg (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a global project, not an Australian one. I contest your claim the table is not more cluttered. LordFixit (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Countries on wikipedia often do things their own way. Wikipedia may be global but contributors and consensus are usually majority local. The infobox would over-clutter the article. Timeshift (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose infobox - unnecessary clutter. The tables are necessary to the article, and an adequate summary. --Surturz (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose infobox. Worse and more cluttered way of displaying the same information. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

How can it be 'more cluttered' with less information and less parties? LordFixit (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose infobox – I'm not against infoboxes per se when they are used to summarise key data in lengthy prose, but I would question their use in an article consisting of mostly tabular data which is both more comprehensive and arguably more accurate, and summary prose which can more effectively encompass the nuances of the results and the electoral system than a one-size-fits-all infobox. --Canley (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

How very strange that three editors make basically the same point within less than two hours of each other. Users who often post on each others pages friendly messages. Be careful not to give the impression of WP:CANVASS, WP:MEAT or WP:VOTESTACKING. LordFixit (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, how dare three people disagree with you? It must be canvassing! I mean, obviously you can't say that, because you can look at our contributions and see that no one has discussed it outside this page, but by all means throw the implication out there anyway. Or maybe they're all meatpuppets! Yes, multiple editors of more than six years in good standing are clearly throwing it all away over an infobox on a minor electoral article. It couldn't possibly be that other people have an interest in this article and disagree with you, now, could it? Perish the thought! Frickeg (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

LOL! Timeshift (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You are all clearly friendly with each other and I'm not sure that it gives a good impression to all make literally the same comments within two hours of each other. I said give the impression, I didn't actually say it was the case. LordFixit (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yet you threw all that out there anyway, and added the template below, despite absolutely zero evidence of anything even approaching canvassing, meatpuppetry or vote stacking. Charming. (Sometimes, astoundingly, people edit at similar times. Even more astoundingly, if they have the same page on their watchlist, they might even respond at similar times! And maybe, just maybe, they might come to similar conclusions.) Frickeg (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

. I am happy to discuss this but I cannot see why this article should be an exception to the general rule of Infoboxes for election articles. It's different to a by-election, as a whole state is being polled, not just one seat. LordFixit (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not different to a by-election. A whole state is being polled because that is the size of the relevant constituency. Frickeg (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• United States Senate special election in New Jersey, 2013 LordFixit (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The US Senate is different in virtually every way to the Australian one, except for being the "states' house". There is no real comparison there. Frickeg (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

In what way is the election different? This is about the use of Infobox on election articles, including special elections. LordFixit (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's see ... single-member, FPTP, a totally different way of dealing with casual vacancies ... I mean, personally I would argue against an infobox in that article, but it certainly works better there than it would here. They have single candidates, we have multiple ones here and no real way to include a unifying figure. And more to the point, we have a table in literally the very first section of this article that includes all the relevant information, and in a much better way than an infobox could. Frickeg (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We aren't bound to something because another article does it a certain way. I'm certainly glad we don't have to, and do not, use the same election tables, boxes, and layouts uniformly over all of the countries of wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Why do you keep posting a link to an essay which is not a policy or guideline? You have no actual reason to oppose what I am wanting, you are just being obstructive because this is not the 'Australian way' LordFixit (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It adds nothing extra but overclutters the article. We've been through this already. You're the only one pushing for it. Timeshift (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you clarify how a four-party summary with swings is clutter? LordFixit (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a big bulky infobox which adds nothing extra to the simpler tables we already have. And look at it! It's not about Abbott or Shorten, it's not a general election! Timeshift (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is the infobox I want to add: (revised)

Australian Senate special election in Western Australia, 2014

5 April 2013
6 of the 12 Western Australian seats in the Australian Senate
First party Second party Third party   Party Liberal Labor Greens Last election 3 seats 2 seats Seats won 3 1 1 seat Seat change 1 Popular vote 595,695 203,304 65,605 Percentage 37.87 21.10% 102,500 Swing 4.53 4.40% 7.02%   Fourth party   Party Palmer United Last election 0 seats Seats won 1 seat Seat change 1 Popular vote 44,505 Swing 7.70%

(with random figures) LordFixit (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

So what exactly does the mammoth infobox have that the result tables already don't? Irrelevant party leader information? Wowie! Timeshift (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It's been reduced in size, and is without leaders photos - a compromise from my original proposal. It is a compact, clear guide to the parties that won seats and the respective vote share and swings. It is especially useful for those who don't have immense knowledge of politics or who learn differently and prefer visual information to a complicated table. I would encourage others to consider my compromise. LordFixit (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how removing two photos is a compromise. Anywho, I'm not sure how you think this is compact and clear and claim the existing tables to be "complicated". Timeshift (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

What a monstrosity. To begin with, the leaders are irrelevant (not to mention their seats!), as they were not candidates in this election. The rest, as Timeshift says, is precisely the same information from the results table, presented in a bulkier and more unwieldy form. What is the point of having this infobox? Frickeg (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Evidently there are editors who can only read results if they're in infoboxes *snigger* Timeshift (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you really think ridiculing people on that basis is acceptable? Dyslexia is not a laughing matter. LordFixit (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You have dyslexia causing you to only read infoboxes? Wikipedia must be a real struggle for you. Timeshift (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

What a low comment. I am simply saying I find the Infobox to be a much easier way to display a summary of the information. LordFixit (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the leaders? I removed their photos? I removed their seats. The whole point of an Infobox is to summarise information contained in the article. LordFixit (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

So you want an infobox to exactly duplicate what's already in the result tables? ...why? Timeshift (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I hope you (LordFixit) don't mind, but you hadn't actually removed the seats - I assume you intended to do so from your comment above, and have done it for you. Anyway, yes, that makes it marginally better, but the point we're making is that we already have a great summary of the results: the results table. Frickeg (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Frickeg. I did mean to. Infoboxes usually only contain information within the article anyway. So I don't see how having the Infobox can cause such upset. LordFixit (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This talk page should be entered in to some WP link somewhere as an example of what flogging a dead horse is. Timeshift (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should this page contain an Infobox, as is generally standard for elections? See:

• London Assembly election, 2012
• London local elections, 2010
• United States presidential election in California, 2012
• United States Senate election in California, 2012
• United States Senate special election in New Jersey, 2013 - another Senate special election

LordFixit (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to start and finish by saying this... "it ain't happening". RfC all you want. Timeshift (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I have never encountered such an arrogant, rude person on Wikipedia. Australian politics articles do not belong to Australian editors. This is a global project. LordFixit (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

If you've never encountered such an arrogant, rude person on wikipedia then you haven't been around the traps much. Allow me to repeat. Countries on wikipedia often do things their own way. Wikipedia may be global but contributors and consensus are typically local. These are facts. Allow me to say it again for your infobox... "it ain't happening". RfC all you want, I have no problem with everyone, Australian or not, having their say. But, it ain't happening. But, you're welcome to waste your time trying. Timeshift (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

If the consensus does not go your way, it will be happening. Do you think you own Australian Wikipedia articles? This is a community project. LordFixit (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Good luck with consensus going your way :) Notice all the opposition to the infobox above? You've got half a dozen against you and nobody with you. Consensus owns wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Infobox - It would unnecessarily clutter the article, and the existing tables are an adequate summary. The five "similar" articles linked by the proposer are not actually similar. We would be unable to put pictures of the "winning" and "losing" candidates in an infobox because Australian Senators are elected to represent states, and once elected there is no rank among them. The "winning party" - where who controls the executive is decided - is determined in the House of Representatives, not the Senate. It is not meaningful to declare a political party the "winner" of this special election, it is only meaningful to list the candidates that were elected. The proposed infobox lists Tony Abbott, Bill Shorten, etc. These people were NOT candidates in this election! --Surturz (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

London Assembly election, 2012, London local elections, 2010? The leaders were not candidates in those elections. Anyway, I've updated my proposal and removed leader photos. --LordFixit

I still oppose the infobox, but at least the latest version (without the leaders) is not misleading per se. Thanks for the effort in attempting a compromise. --Surturz (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Infobox for reasons I and others have already given above. Timeshift (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Infobox. I have detailed my reasons at great length above, but in summary: an unnecessary and bloated duplication of information already displayed far more concisely in the results table, using a template that does not really fit the needs of a proportional multi-member system, let alone a special election thereof. Frickeg (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose infobox again for reasons listed above. Having a (literal!) consensus against you the first time around is not an invitation to keep going in the hope you somehow get your way otherwise. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly Support Infobox. Infoboxes always contain information available in an article, especially election ones. However, they are a good visual introduction to the subject before going into the more detailed figures for parties. Infoboxes are standard for election articles, regardless of what system they are conducted under. London Assembly election, 2012 or Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2011 both not conducted under FPTP and the NI election being an election which the two largest parties win are good examples. The article is visually unappealing - starting with a large chunk of text. The updated Infobox has removed party leader photos and seats. In addition, it does not declare anyone a 'winner' - see the NI Assembly election for more information. LordFixit (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose infobox I have never seen this article before, but reviewing the talk page shows that ample discussion has occurred and reasons showing that an infobox is not helpful have been presented. What is generally standard for Wikipedia is WP:OSE which eliminates everything in the RfC opening statement. There has been a discussion and consensus was reached. Starting an RfC is POINTy, and going to ANI is not warranted. Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

"Starting an RfC is POINTy, and going to ANI is not warranted." - completely agree. Timeshift (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:OSE is an essay, not a policy or guideline. It's not 'POINTy' to start a Rfc - it was to gain consensus. I just wanted viewpoints from unaffected editors. That's what Rfc is there for! Plenty of reasons showing the Infobox is necessary have been presented as well. This is not a vote - you haven't actually said why 'you' oppose an Infobox!?! LordFixit (talk) 02:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

"reasons showing that an infobox is not helpful have been presented". You just think that an infobox cluttering up information that's already presented in the results table is for some reason not a valid argument. Timeshift (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Infoboxes always contain information presented elsewhere in the article. LordFixit (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

While we're splitting hairs over what is a policy, guideline, or essay, WP:INFOBOXUSE (from the Wikipedia Manual of Style) is pertinent here: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.". This demonstrates there is no rule, no "general standard", and no global consensus which overrides the opinion of local, involved or interested editors. The discussion is taking place, and the consensus seems abundantly clear. --Canley (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks muchly Canley :) Timeshift (talk) 04:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think it matters either way about the infobox, but requesting comments from other editors is not 'POINTy'. WP:POINT says As a rule, someone engaging in "POINTy" behavior is making edits which s/he does not really agree with, for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition and I don't see that happening here. 94.193.139.22 (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I strongly support this comment. Some experienced editors above are out of line with their comments. AIRcorn (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Conditional support - if it is an infobox without leaders (as presented at the bottom of the last section), I think it makes since. - Nbpolitico (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Support infobox. I had initially opposed it and was going to delete it myself. The stuff with the leaders was completely inappropriate. With that removed, it is now a superior summary t the results summary table, because it readily presents important information that is lacking from the other one: the change since the last election. Since people don't want both, the solution seems simple: insert the infobox with its higher quality information, and delete the summary table.hamiltonstone (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I actually see the change figure as a potential problem, and I believe leaving it out of the results table was a conscious decision (it is, in any case, an extremely simple measure to simply add a column). I mean, are we going off the 2013 result? The 2010 one? The 2007 one, since that's the senators that are being re-elected? Should we be including the senators not up for re-election? Frankly this all seems a bit complex to attempt to represent in a table or an infobox, and would be better dealt with in the text, unless someone has a better idea than I can think of about how to display it. Frickeg (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I see we're going off 2013 in the swings, and I guess I can see that being sensible. Maybe the column was left out while the results are not final (since we couldn't have said, for example, the change in the Liberal seat count until we know whether they won the final seat). Either way, including the changing seats has been standard for this kind of table and I see no reason it couldn't be included. Frickeg (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, unfortunately the elections infobox has become so bloated that it's effectively useless as a source of quick information-at-a-glance. Does the infobox add any service to our reader not already served by the "Result" section? I would say "no". It is also not the usual practice to include these infoboxes on Australian by-election articles, although being a Senate by-election this is something of a special case. Finally, I would like to put my admin hat on and remind everyone to be excellent to each other, there is never a need to respond to a proposal made in good faith with rudeness. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC).
• Oppose. The conversation at the start of this seems rather unnecessary and makes me a little sad. Anyway, sorry LordFixit, but in my opinion the article looks better without the infobox. AIRcorn (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• I don't care. The article could be good either way. But it seems very unfortunate when either side in a dispute seems to grow more brittle and stubborn rather than seeking compromise. Homunq (࿓) 14:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC) note: please check out other RfCs and comment there too. This RfC is the reason I'm commenting here.

It has been worked out. Based on the above and the silence since, the infobox isn't happening. I'm not sure how compromise works when it's a black and white choice with no grey area - whether or not to include an infobox. Timeshift (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2014 (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.

When to add 3rd Lib candidate as 6th elected?

The sixth and last seat appears to be a close contest between third Liberal candidate Linda Reynolds and second Labor candidate Louise Pratt, with the final result to be unknown for weeks.[2] Reynolds is ahead in the ABC's detailed count projection,[3] with Antony Green stating on 10 April "It is clear the Liberals will win the last seat".[4]

Antony is a reliable source, at what point can/should we enter Linda Reynolds in to 6th and fix the results in the tables? Timeshift (talk) 07:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

If Antony has said it, I think it's fair to put it into the article, so long as we also note that's only a provisional estimate, not yet "official", and subject to change if something strange happens. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC).

The Lib candidate's lead has only increased so far. I think we can add put Reynolds in as a qualified 6th, per Lankiveil. --Surturz (talk) 08:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed. We have reliable sources saying there is no prospect of Reynolds' defeat, so we can put her in. Frickeg (talk) 08:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australian Senate special election in Western Australia, 2014. 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/20131012010411/http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateStateFirstPrefsByGroup-17496-NAT.htm to http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateStateFirstPrefsByGroup-17496-NAT.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)