Talk:2010 Australian Senate election

Result boxes

What do people think of changing the state-level results to these? I find it a bit of an oversight that we don't have detailed results somewhere, and this seems to me the best place. The main advantages over the current versions, as I see them, are including candidate names (without bloating the table enormously) and enabling the placement of independent tickets. (Also, can we come up with better names for these pages? I'd suggest maybe "Australian Senate election results, 2010" or something similar.) Frickeg (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea. At the moment there's 2 tables, 1 for ticket votes and 1 for those elected. The ticket vote tables as they are are just mostly full of 0's, and the new table has a lot more useful information as well as effectively combining the two. And since there would only be a maximum of 8 per page, it wouldn't be that bad for article length. I also agree with renaming it to Senate results. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 05:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree, I think the two articles, one for results and one for candidates, works and is presented very well. I think a lot of people not familiar with politics would become quite confused with interpreting the proposed change. Timeshift (talk) 07:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

What do you think about the name? I find the current one pretty unprofessional really - why are we calling it "upper house" and not "Senate"? And "Australian 2010 election" is pretty informal. Where do you feel the information on the draft page should go, if anywhere, and how do you find it confusing? This is something of a specialist page anyway, and the main results table (i.e. all of Australia) would be unchanged, in addition to the prose summaries and what's on the main election page. The only thing I don't like about them is that you can't put in percentages of quotas (although you can include the quota at the top), but those aren't in the current tables anyway. Frickeg (talk) 09:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no problems with the name being changed. It's been done several times already. It is a hard one to name. Specialist page indeed... maybe we have another article for it? Or put the current at the top of the article and the proposed at the bottom? Timeshift (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to weigh in here. I really like Frickeg's style - I think it's really clear and informative (though I would hope it wouldn't affect the candidates pages, which also look really good). How about Senate results of the Australian federal election, 2010 - keeps it clear, not messy, and seemingly consistent with other articles. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This seems like consensus then. I understand Timeshift's concerns seem to be mostly about losing present information - I'm not intending to change much of that. The blurbs would still be there, and so would the top table and the "current senators" ones. The only thing being changed would be the state-level tables themselves. I don't see these pages affecting the candidate pages at all. Frickeg (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I wish to note what seems a minority dismay for this article... way too overcrowded. Though 3-1 is hardly consensus for a two-year status quo. I don't have a problem with them but not as a replacement for the summaries. I do however wish to note my approval for the see also state articles on the lower house equivalent article. Timeshift (talk) 11:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "minority dismay" (not a term I've encountered before), or by it being overcrowded ... it's significantly less crowded than, say, the candidates pages, or indeed the House of Reps subpages. Having both the summaries and these seems like overkill - these give all the information the summaries give, and more. As for the consensus, I'm actually impressed we got this many people to comment on something like this. Frickeg (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Dismay in the minority. There's plenty of articles less crowded out there than what's been done to this page. But they aren't this page. They should be two seperate pages. Timeshift (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

But that would be two pages that have essentially the exact same information, with one of them more detailed than the other. I can't see the need, nor can I see that this page is especially overcrowded. Frickeg (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with Frickeg - I don't see this page as being particularly overcrowded, and I don't really see the need for another covering similar ground. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Especially overcrowded? Particularly overcrowded? So what level of overcrowded remains the dispute, not if it is overcrowded. The previous version gave almost everything the current version does but with far less space. So what extra do we get for the vast expansion that couldn't be on another article? If we don't want to cover similar ground, then why would we duplicate 150 lower house seat result tables? (which i've said I support as an adjunct, not a replacement of, the same should apply here). Timeshift (talk) 07:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, the HoR is not comparable - the tables actually give different information there than they do here (i.e. state-level results, which for the Senate would obviously be identical but for the House correlate all the different seats in that state). To clarify, I wasn't intending to get caught up in semantics but I don't find the page overcrowded: the key issue is that people are saying they don't find the page too crowded. Overcrowded in that instance was a poor choice of words, but it was responding to the previous comment. The previous version did not remotely give everything the current version gives. There was no quota (a vital piece of information), and there were no candidates (especially useful when there are independents - that is, there was nowhere to see how well Cheryl Kernot or Anthony Fels did). Frickeg (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

But we have seperate candidate pages. Why are unsuccessful candidates so critical that they must be top-level? Why not like the HoR model with see alsos? What's the downside of that? Less than current i'd have to say. Timeshift (talk) 08:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Candidate pages don't show the results. And this is already a second-level page; I hardly think we're giving them undue importance. The HoR model is, as I said, completely different, as the see alsos actually provide different information. A similar situation for the Senate would be straight duplication, basically. Frickeg (talk) 08:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Aren't the HoR see alsos straight duplication from the seat articles? Timeshift (talk) 08:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

There's a discussion on table style here. Timeshift (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Tasmania

It is possible that Liberal preferences may have pushed the Greens ahead of Labor,

I thought back then Tasmania was the one state where the Liberals were already preferencing Labor over the Greens? Timrollpickering (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me. Though I didn't revert the changes by the inexperienced editor, I didn't exactly approve of them either. Timeshift (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)