Talk:2016 Australian federal election/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Leaders in the infobox

As a user who is trying to remove the leaders from the infoboxes of future elections in Canada, I'd like to ask why Australian political editors include the leaders in infoboxes for elections that are three years away. These articles are on the election, not the current state of the House, and I believe that the infobox should be about the election, and that it is a crystal violation to add leaders' pictures and names to the infobox. Leaders resign or are challenged, and we shouldn't be saying who will be in the election. The current state is a perfect example, an election won't be held while Bowen is leader. The article on the previous election is also a good example, stating that Gillard would lead her party into the next election. I also believe that people vote for a party, not for a Prime Minister, and the infobox only needs to have data on the parties, not their leaders. I'm not saying the leaders can't be mentioned in the article, they are still the players in the lead up to the election, but it is wrong to say they will be the major players in an election that isn't close to be called. 117Avenue (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I half-agree with you. Were our federal elections fixed at regular intervals such as the US presidential elections and some of the Australian state elections, we could say with certainty that the next one wouldn't be till 2016, by which time many things might have changed. However, we all know that our Constitution provides only for a maximum 3-year term of the House of Representatives, which in our entire history has only over happened once, over 100 years ago. Parliaments are almost always dissolved early; the only question is: How early? There is much talk of a double dissolution not far over the horizon. Who knows what else might crop up?

On balance, I'd prefer to keep whoever are the leaders at any point in time, on the basis that should an election be called at any time, as it can be, they would be the people fighting it out. If the names change (and here I acknowledge both that Bowen's time is limited, and that the chances of an election being called during his interim tenure are very tiny), we can update them quickly. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a tricky article. We're not supposed to speculate in Wikipedia, yet this article has to be entirely that, by definition, even if it is backed up by some factual background. The photos of the current leaders is one of the few 100% definite parts in it. As for "people vote for a party, not for a Prime Minister", that's technically true, but these days the Libs and Labor run their campaigns far more in a presidential style then ever before. Many DO vote for the leader. Otherwise, why the repeated swapping of Gillard and Rudd? HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The next election will probably be in 2016, but we don't play the odds when it comes to the article title, we leave it open for an early dissolution. Likewise we shouldn't play the odds with the infobox, Abbott and the winner of the Labor leadership election will probably be the leaders in the next election, but they could die or resign. 117Avenue (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure they could. But right now it is presumed that they will be the people leading the campaigns. Same as how we say Prince William is second in line to the throne. His dad Charles could fall under a bus or get blown up before the Queen dies, but we make no presumption that it will happen. Nobody had a problem showing Julia Gillard as the ALP leader for the 2013 election, yet she was still dumped 5 months after (informally) naming the date. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition are roles that have an existence based on centuries of convention in the Westminster system and should be in the infobox. If the person in either role changes, we change the article - it is that simple. We do that for articles such as Prime minister of Australia so there is no inconsistency there. Besides, I don't think any editor would seriously suggest that any wikipedia article is ever finished. The purpose of this article is preparatory - it eventually becomes the historical election article once the next election is finished (see [1], [2]). So even if you think it violates WP:CRYSTAL (which I think is arguable), per WP:IAR, we should ignore WP:CRYSTAL, because it means when the election finally arrives, we have a very mature article ready to go. --Surturz (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

This article applies the various laws to determine the last date which an event can happen. Determining ranges is not speculation. It is also possible to determine the earliest date on which a House of Reps plus Half Senate election can be held, which I think is 6 August 2016 - the Saturday at least 5 weeks after the 1 July 2016. This does assume TA is unwilling to risk a double dissolution. JulianL (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Sitting date 12 November?

I hear Parliament will be sitting on Tuesday 12 November (my birthday, as it happens). No online confirmation that I can find, but if it's true, I calculate the latest possible date for the next election will be Saturday 14 January 2017. Anyone care to check? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It now seems to be Monday 11 November (which is really tempting fate), but that doesn't change the outcome above. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I found this - https://twitter.com/murpharoo/status/390621575147311105 - but that wouldn't pass as a reliable source. Another report is from - http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/19400700/outgoing-speaker-anna-burke-welcomes-new-mps-to-parliament-house-offers-advice-on-dress-code-and-public-scrutiny/ - but it just says "is expected to sit" on Nov 12. -- Chuq (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox fixed

I'm not sure what was done at Template:Infobox election but i've undone the edit and notified the contributor, and i've undone the polling removal here. Timeshift (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Essential polls

Several to be added, currently we only have one. Anyone keen? Timeshift (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather we had none until much closer to the actual date of the election. They are ultimately meaningless. HiLo48 (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

No they aren't. :) Timeshift (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

That's dramatic news, but at this stage it makes no difference to the subject of the article, the next election. HiLo48 (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

What? Polls have always been included in next election articles, both in Oz and overseas. Timeshift (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, now that's a different argument. My earlier points still stand, and I'll add to them that "We've always done it that way" is not the kind of argument that I find very convincing. I didn't think you were the conservative kind. HiLo48 (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a be-all and end-all to why we should have polling. There is little argument given as to why we should not have polling however. And of course, with WP:CONSENSUS, disputed contribs stay with the status quo which feeds in to precedent and "we've always done it that way" too. Timeshift (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that there has been past consensus on this, but I always like to emphasise that there is not unanimity. The point I made in my first post above still stands. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

While I think these polls are certainly useful, they're already taking up a good third of the page only a few months out from last election. Anyway, our past practice has been to split them, a la Opinion polling for the Australian federal election, 2013. I'd actually prefer a different title (maybe in the format "Australian federal opinion polling, 2010-2013"), but I'm not too fussed either way. It's good information, but not necessary for the main election page. Frickeg (talk) 02:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Before removing polls for no ref...

Just take the 10 seconds to have a look? This cites this. It's really not that hard people. It takes just as much effort to find it as it does to undo an edit for the point of undoing an edit. Timeshift (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Can we add BludgerTrack to the polling section?

For those unfamiliar with BludgerTrack, it is Crikey's collaboration of polls. The link indicates the methodology and how an average is produced. If we're going to add all polls then I don't quite think it's complete without BludgerTrack. Thoughts? FYI, the current 2PP poll is at 51.7% ALP. Timeshift (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

There are a few other poll aggregates going around (which William Bowe - aka the Poll Bludger - also regularly reports on in his blog and articles): does this one get cited by other reliable sources? I agree that it's probably the best of the aggregates though. Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not a black and white question. I wonder how long ago it was that Morgan or Essential last appeared in a WP:RS. Is Crikey a reliable source for something that isn't subjective or controversial? It's maths. There's a clear methodology used to average the national polls, I think anyone would struggle to claim bias in either direction. Off the top of my head I'm not aware of any other regular national poll aggregates - what are they? I think this is one of those situations where consensus can override the strict definition of WP:RS. I support the inclusion of BludgerTrack in the article. Timeshift (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

William Bowe often highlights Kevin Bonham's aggregate. The Guardian and (from memory) ABC also had poll aggregates going before the 2013 election, but sadly don't seem to have maintained them. As the methods of aggregation differ (as the experts give different weightings to the various polls to take into account each pollsters 'house effects' and the like rather than simply averaging the results), it's a bit risky to just pick one. That said, I'd take BludgerTrack over the others, and William Bowe is a recognised expert (he filled Anthony Green's shoes in the ABC's coverage of the South Australian election while Anthony was covering the simultaneous Tasmanian election). Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Hear hear. Timeshift (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree as well. As long as the source and methodology are linked to, it's got to be better than linking unrelated sequential polls. The ABC's aggregate was called "Poll of Polls" and was presented by Andrew Catsaras on Insiders, but they only seem to do it regularly around election time. The last one was at the end of July. --Canley (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I had somehow missed this discussion. I am not necessarily opposed to having BludgerTrack included somewhere, but I think it's inappropriate to have it embedded within the main polling section. To have it there is implying that it's a poll just like the rest of them, which is not what it is at all. Aggregates are useful and often tell us more than individual polls do, but that's why we provide, you know, all the polls. If we are to include BludgerTrack, it should be in a separate table. Frickeg (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it should be listed, especially not in the polling section - I'm not aware of Nate Silver's being listed in US elections for the same reasons. William Bowe is a reliable source, but polling aggregates, if listed at all, need to go somewhere else than being portrayed as an actual poll. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Can we get a 2PP graph please?

Primary vote graphs are nowhere near as meaningful as two-party-preferred vote graphs. Timeshift (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

My thought exactly, when I looked last week. The updates are a valuable resource, actually. I have the section bookmarked. Tony (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

photo

The previous one had bad skin quality; now he's sneering. Isn't there a better one? Tony (talk) 10:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Already thrashed out here. I doubt we'll ever get a better photo than the current one being used. It is of exceptional quality and the composition is excellent. Timeshift (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Graphical summaries

The two charts are both out of date - the primary votes one by about three months. If there is no sustainable way to keep them updated (i.e. there is no editor interested in keeping them updated on say a fortnightly basis) then it might be better not to have them.

Also, I would suggest that if the charts are to occupy such a prominent position on the page, their presentation should be optimized for presentation on the page - e.g. there should be fewer labels on the x-axis and the labels should be larger. A legend box would also be helpful - although the caption says the charts use the colours in the table, they do not totally match. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree. If the graph charts aren't updated very soon I reckon i'll remove them. Timeshift (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sample of TPP poll chart in Python

I would really like to do some clean-looking SVG polling charts in R or Python (which don't look too obviously like they were done in Excel)—possibly with some kind of trend line such as a running average for all polls (see Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election), because linking together different sets of polls annoys me. I used to update the (Newspoll-only) graphs every week before the 2013 election (see sample), because GoForMoe stopped doing them but had provided the Python code to generate them. However, they were replaced with the Excel charts of every poll so I stopped bothering. I have seen some charts for the UK election with source code that actually reads the polling table in the Wikipedia article to generate the chart! What could be ideal is a web service that can generate the SVG code or a bitmap graph based on the Wikipedia article or imported data so that anyone can generate them, if whoever is doing them stops for some reason. --Canley (talk) 03:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Broken URL links in the refs

I hadn't noticed them. There are quite a few. I don't know how to fix. Tony (talk) 06:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#RfC addressing the inclusion of minor parties in Australian election article infoboxes

A RfC has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#RfC addressing the inclusion of minor parties in Australian election article infoboxes which may affect the infobox of this article. ColonialGrid (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Graphical representations

Thanks to @Impru20: for the nice, clear two-party graph—and to whoever created the precursor for it.

I wonder whether we might think about how to improve our graphical representation further. While the UK Guardian's effort is not all applicable to the Australian context, it offers food for thought. Does anyone have the skills to create more graphs along these lines? If so, perhaps we could gather opinions here as to priorities. What is done here could be a model for other similar articles, too. Tony (talk) 04:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's fantastic. Until a poll or 100 come out and makes it outdated, and nobody updates the graph. Been there done that. Sorry to be cynical. Timeshift (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea if this is possible, but is there some sort of in-Wiki graph that we could use, rather than an image? Frickeg (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to note that the charts are now 3 months out of date again. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)