Talk:2016 Australian federal election/Archive 2

Next Australian federal election
All 150 seats in the Australian House of Representatives; 76 seats needed for a majority;
Incumbent Prime Minister; Tony Abbott; Liberal–National coalition	; ;

Next Australian federal election
All 150 seats in the Australian House of Representatives; 76 seats needed for a majority; 40 (of the 76) seats in the Australian Senate
	Opinion polls
Incumbent Prime Minister; Tony Abbott; Liberal–National coalition	; ;

Next Australian federal election
All 150 seats in the Australian House of Representatives; 76 seats needed for a majority; 40 (of the 76) seats in the Australian Senate
	Opinion polls
Incumbent Prime Minister; Tony Abbott; Liberal–National coalition	; ;

This is an archive of past discussions about 2016 Australian federal election, for the period April–June 2015.
Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

House-only elections

Although a House-only election can be held at any time during the three-year parliamentary term ...

That's not really true, is it? If an election was called and the parliament was dissolved on the earliest possible day, i.e. the very day it was opened (12 November 2013), the earliest possible election day would be 21 December 2013, by my calculation.
I think the truth is that a House-only election can be ~~held~~ called at any time during the three-year parliamentary term. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, the parliamentary term is only a three-year term if it is allowed to continue until it expires "by effluxion of time". That has only ever happened once in our history, over a century ago. If the parliament is dissolved at any time prior to the three years, which is almost always the case, then ipso facto it isn't a three-year term. I'd therefore amend the above sentence as follows:

a House-only election can be ~~held~~ called at any time during the ~~three-year~~ parliamentary term. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Greens in infobox

I have added the Greens to the infobox on this article. I can tell this won't be a popular decision and I do expect it to get reverted but I would like to have the conversation here so that we can reach a consensus.

1. I believe they are large enough to warrant inclusion (polling around 10%, 10 senators, 10,000 members, etc.)

2. Yes they are highly unlikely to form government at this election, but are seen as the third political force in the country as referenced by the amount of news coverage they get

3. Other infoboxes for other elections have eight or even nine parties such as Indian general election, 2014, I am not at all proposing this for here, but I think the box should not just show a two-party split

It appears that it has already been undone before I have even written this! Anyway, thoughts?

I've reverted it for pretty much reason 2 above. Analysis of Australian elections is always done in two party terms, because the competition for who will form government always boils down to Labor vs Coalition. Adding more and more parties to the infobox doesn't help readers to understand the issue, and isn't in line with how reliable sources cover elections. Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I would disagree that it would just add clutter/confusion, because readers should be able to see the diversity that exists in politics here. Also, sources are presenting the Greens more often now than they did before, because the support base is growing. If this was the USA (where the two-party system is so entrenched) I would agree with you, but since the Greens have formed (minority) government before and a growing vote I think they belong in the box. Hshook (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The Greens have not formed minority government at the federal level, and their support base is not growing (their share of the vote went backwards in 2013). They had a grand total of one lower house seat in 2010, which was far fewer than what the ALP needed to govern. Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure. But I don't think anyone would say that they are a fringe party, like Katter or Palmer. If we base everything on the lower house, which is not proportional and so is weighted more strongly to the major parties, then obviously the Greens look like a minor party, but looking at the Senate (proportional) where 1/7 of the seats are Green. And the support is growing, both over the long term and the short term - look at opinion polls and the Victorian and NSW elections for that. Hshook (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Did we not just have an RfC about this? It may not have been formally closed but the consensus is pretty clear: the general threshold for including minor parties in infoboxes is lower house representation. We are vastly out of step with other parliamentary countries here (Canada, say and NZ), and it should be corrected. The other arguments were all hashed out fairly well during the RfC. The Greens should be in. Frickeg (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If the criteria for inclusion is "at least one lower house seat", then I count 8 parties:

Four of those have only one seat. We can hypothesise that the various Liberal and National parties have agreements that Liberal is always the senior party, but it's crystal ball gazing to say that Greens have a better chance of governing than the Nationals do. Just showing the prime minister and leader of the opposition gives a more accurate reflection than showing all eight, and any other option seems to be playing favorites, especially since PUP and KAP also fielded candidates in every seat last time. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I propose that, since Katter doesn't have any senators, and Palmer only has one (for now!), they don't warrant inclusion. Also both of them were established in the last five years, whereas the Greens were established in the 1990s (with history before that). I don't think that it's picking favourites if four of the parties you mention are bound under a coalition, although I understand your point (and as the box stands they are represented under the "Liberal National Coalition banner). Also I'm not sure if Katter ran candidates in metropolitan seats, but I would have to check that. I would suggest that the criteria be something like: representation in both houses, not bound by a coalition agreement. Or at least one house member and two senators, to show a large body of support and keep the number manageable. I also added the infobox I proposed at the top of this discussion to save people digging through the archives. Hshook (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, first of all, Katter certainly didn't field candidates in every seat in 2013; I don't believe he even managed half. But that's beside the point. I'm fine with Katter and Palmer being in the infobox too - it's allowed to be more than one line. We shouldn't mention Senate seats in the infobox, though; it's confusing enough with staggered terms and such like and that information can't be presented in a concise, accurate way in the format the infobox allows. But to reiterate: there was an RfC about this very question. The consensus was that lower house representation is the threshold. Obviously we don't need all the Coalition parties individually, but that leaves five eligible parties. I see no reason to exclude any of them. Frickeg (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Frickeg. The Libs, Nats, Labor, Greens, PUP, and KAP should all go in the infobox because they have lower house representation. The CLP and LNP should not, as combined state branches of the already-mentioned Libs and Nats who formally sit in Canberra as part of the Libs or Nats caucuses. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the Nationals should be included as separate from the Liberals because they are in a coalition agreement and form government together. I don't see any distinction between the Nationals and the CLP/LNP, since they all have lower house recognition and are part of the coalition. And although it's tricky I think there should be some reflection of senate results because it's one half of the parliament (and so is very important, obviously). Hshook (talk) 07:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I can accept the "Frickeg position" that there be five "parties" represented - Liberal/National coalition, Australian Labor Party, Australian Greens, Palmer United Party, Katter's Australian Party. I believe that the first of these is a formal coalition of four parties with parliamentary representation. (I also accept correction about KAP at the last election - there were candidates in the seats I watched at the time, so I extrapolated, wrongly) --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Updated the above box example to match the "Frickeg position". Kept the senators as it is clear that that's how many were won last time. I don't have a rule to propose but Katter (and perhaps Palmer) look too small to include to me. Hshook (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit ambivalent on the Libs/Nats, actually; I feel like the Nats leader is a fairly prominent part of a campaign and should probably be included, but on the other hand it muddies the waters with how many seats the Coalition has, which I think is perhaps more important information for the infobox to have (and we can clarify the Nats further down). Further, man that table looks horribly uneven like that. Maybe two parties per row (which also leaves the ALP/Coalition with added prominence, which I think is preferable)? Still very much opposed to including senators in the infobox - the average reader just doesn't have the background knowledge to know how to interpret that, and we don't have the capacity to do so usefully in the infobox. I mean, the senators listed there will not even be up for re-election in 2016! Your average reader is just not going to know that - heck, most Australians wouldn't know that, and we all vote! The House numbers are fine. Frickeg (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

What about (for the leader of the Coalition) using something like "Tony Abbott (Lib - pictured), Warren Truss (Nat)"? If desired we could find/create an image of the two for this purpose, but it may look like they are co-leaders rather than leader-deputy. Also we could ditch Katter (who functions pretty much like an independent and doesn't even run in every seat), and move the Greens to the next line so it would be Coalition and Labor prominently on the top line, then Green and Palmer on the second, solving the awkward five-party issue. Also I think some mention of the senate is important and could be made clearer but I think the way it is now is workable. I would think that most people would understand the senate system, and at the top of the box it says how many senators are up for election, so you could work it out if you were really stuck. Hshook (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Hshook, but Katter should stay and only one person for "Leader of the Coalition". I'm not sure how much customisation is possible - we might end up needing to subst: the templates then edit the resulting boxes (might be good to do that in an external template and transclude that). I'd suggest moving Greens to the second row (so just LibNat Coalition and ALP are on the top row), then keep the Senators: count, but delete the rows with no values or meaning from the second row of parties. TPP vote, TPP Polling and BPM Polling only apply to two parties, so needn't occupy space on the second row. It might also look more balanced by leaving the blank cell on the left or centre instead of right side since the row captions are on the left. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I could go either way on whether to list the Nats separately or not, but I would prefer having one "Leader of the Coalition" to Hshook's proposal (because it would make them look like co-leaders, as they noted). I definitely think we should bump the Greens to the second row so that infobox isn't as massive, but agree with ScottDavis that we should keep Katter, even if that means having a third row. I am against including the Senate because it muddies the waters, for similar reasons to those Frickeg has already raised. I don't think you can justify excluding Senate-only parties if you include Senators in the infobox, and I think it's confusing as hell to the layperson referring to both houses without reference to what proportion of seats there is (like the party infoboxes which list [X seats held]/[Y seats in parliament]). The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The section heading here says it all "Greens in infobox" and that is the POV being pushed here. If you are going to include the Greens with their 1 house seat in the infobox, then you must include all the Coalition parties separately. It is utterly unjustifiable to include the Greens with their 1 house seat, but hide the Nationals who have 9 house seats and the QLD LNP who have 22 house seats. My strong preference is to only include the leader of the government, and the leader of the opposition in the infobox. These are constitutionally defined roles in government. To give the 1-seat parties equal infobox prominence with the main parties that have over fifty seats each is WP:UNDUE emphasis. --Surturz (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Neither the LNP or the CLP have a separate caucus federally or a separate leader - their MPs sit with either the Liberals or the Nationals, and they in no way operate as a separate parties. There is no basis on which to include them here: their "22 seats" are only relevant as part of a broader Coalition figure. I am open to including the Nationals in the infobox, but I have found some of the arguments against that here persuasive. This proposal does not give the minor parties "equal infobox prominence" with the major parties - the major parties would continue be on the top row, and we would stop putting undue weight on them by pretending the other three don't exist at all. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with The Drover's Wife, and when I created this post I didn't include PUP or KAP, but the arguments for their inclusion have swayed my view. I continue my support of the Lib Nats being listed together as they jointly form government. Hshook (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The Greens have 1 seat out of 150, do not have the balance of power, and, per WP:UNDUE deserve no more than 1/150th of the infobox.

The logic that sees a Senator's photo put in the summary of a lower house election result is contorted, to say the least. A federal election is a lower-house election. The half-Senate election is tacked on for convenience only (that's why it is months before the elected Senators take their places in the Senate).

The governing Coalition is NOT a single political party. If we are going to show parties, we show all the parties. We don't come up with some arcane justification for sticking a photo of Christine Milne where it doesn't belong. --Surturz (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

And yet, she is the leader of a party which has representation in the lower house also, and her inclusion brings Australia into line with similar infoboxes in most other jurisdictions as well. I have said I'm open to including the Nationals, but there have been persuasive arguments made against that by other people that you have done nothing to address but rant about the Greens. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Section break

I've added the infobox as shown above, without mention of senators, as this seems to be the consensus (?) - the photos were made a little smaller to make the box manageable Hshook (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Reverted. There is no consensus for this change yet. --Surturz (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

And for the record, I Strong Oppose these changes, for the reasons I state, above (mainly WP:UNDUE). --Surturz (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Well there appears to be something approaching a consensus among everyone except you, however like you say, the Greens, PUP and KAP are smaller and shouldn't be on the same level as the others. In the above discussion placing GRN, PUP and KAP on the second and third rows (to show their more minor status) seemed like a popular option (balancing the diversity of political opinion vs. vote totals). WP:UNDUE refers to minority and majority viewpoints, and says that "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". The three smaller parties are not tiny minorities and deserve inclusion. Only including the two large parties means that close to 1/4 of the 'opinion' goes unrepresented so is WP:UNDUE in itself (bad way to phrase it but I hope it's clear enough). From the strong emotive statements above I understand that you don't want anyone else in there but there has to be a compromise. Also, I gave it a couple of days so I presumed that since nobody was talking, everyone was happy. Hshook (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Added the infobox that was reverted. Hshook (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

What I'm really opposed to is the inclusion of the minor parties in the main infobox. The minor parties had no role in the determination of government, so including them there is WP:UNDUE. As a compromise, I would be happy for the inclusion (in the body of the article) of infoboxes such as appears here that summarise the party seat counts. A new section "Parties contesting the election" (or perhaps, "Election guide") with leader photos would also be okay (similar to the candidate guides on ABC election sites[1]). --Surturz (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The infobox is not about "parties who had a role in the determination of government", and that is a fairly unique claim by Wikipedia standards. I am strongly opposed to a (again, unique by Wikipedia standards) "parties contesting the election" or "leader guide" section purely because you have a bee in your bonnet about one particular party you want out of the infobox. It is undue weight to not include parliamentary parties with MPs, and not mention them in the infobox at all, on the sole basis you hate the Greens. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks such as these are not conducive to establishing consensus. I have stated and re-stated policy-based reasons why no minor party should be in the infobox - not just the Greens. If I have mentioned the Greens more than the others it is because the original section heading is "Greens in infobox"! I have suggested multiple compromise options (include all coalition parties separately, summary infobox in body of article, new "election guide" section in body of article). I am being constructive. Stop throwing mud.

As for the election guide, surely we are not bound by stuff in other articles to the point where we cannot discuss options for new content. I think an election guide section would be quite informative to non-Australians, we can give a quick summary of each party and the issues they are campaigning on. --Surturz (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not really a personal attack, it just appears that you aren't very happy with the Greens (or others or whatever) to be in there, and your compromise pushes them down to a position where it places undue emphasis on the major parties. Also you didn't really respond to my arguments above, which I would be grateful to hear your input on. (e.g. Do you believe the views of the Greens, PUP or KAP count as 'tiny minorities'?) Thanks :) - Hshook (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Besides what Hshook said, which expresses why your proposal is an unacceptable case of WP:UNDUE: if you are interested in compromise options such as including the coalition parties separately, how about responding to the points raised above by other users? I think this is about the fourth time I've expressed that I'm open to that idea, but that I find the arguments to the contrary persuasive, and instead of engaging in any way with what other users have said it's inevitably met with ranting about the Greens. As for the third suggestion, you've given no reason why we should differ from the mainstream criteria used basically right across Wikipedia except that again, ranting about the Greens. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Off topic slightly, but from an aesthetic standpoint, adding the Nationals may allow us to balance out the awkward 5-party thing we have going. Hshook (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

And we now have a closed RfC to that effect. I would consider this matter now essentially closed, except for the Nationals thing. Like The Drover's Wife, I'm open to convincing, although at this point I feel it removes the important Coalition total from the infobox which outweighs the benefits. Hshook, I appreciate the point about balance, but I think we want to be careful about that as we have to look at this with a view to other elections too, where the balance issue might be different. Frickeg (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course. I don't particularly think the Nats should be there, just thought it could be interesting to think about. Does the RfC mean that the infobox should be added to the article (and any other Aus election article) now? (not too sure how it all works) - Hshook (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Implementing the RfC

The consensus is to list parties that have at least 1 person elected to a seat. Related matters section did not have enough participation to form consensus[2]

I'm pretty unhappy with the outcome of the RfC, but I guess I'll just have to suck it up. The closing of the RfC makes no mention of the Coalition, only parties, which are defined by the AEC here. The Coalition is verifiably not a political party, so I insist that we include the Nationals as a separate party in the infobox. The Qld LNP is technically a branch of the Liberal Party, so I say we include them there for the seat count. Country Liberals (NT) should also be a separate party. I'm happy for all the component parties (e.g. Qld LNP, NSW Libs etc) summarised the same way the AEC has. I would like the order of the parties in the Infobox sorted by: 1) Government parties, followed by non-Government parties, 2) lower-house seat count, 3) Senator count, then 4) alphabetical. I also think we should have the lower-house leader photo, rather than include Senators (otherwise, why aren't we including Xenophon etc?) I think this is a reasonable compromise. --Surturz (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, I am open to your point about the Nationals here (less about the others, on which more in a bit), but don't you think losing the overall Coalition total in the infobox is an issue? That is my main objection to having the Nationals separate, but it's kind of a big one. If the Nats are separate, however, it raises another issue. I emphatically do not believe the LNP should be separate - as you appear to concede above, actually - but should they be entirely included in the Libs when a good number of their MPs sit in the Nationals party room (and are recorded by Parliament as Nationals MPs)? The CLP I see as in a position between the Nats and the LNP - on the one hand their members do sit in one of the two party rooms, but the parties are recognised as distinct by the Parliament and the AEC. On the whole I still find the easiest way to deal with all these issues is to have the Coalition as a whole, but should a solution be proposed that deals with these issues another way I would be very much open to it. Frickeg (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Losing the overall Coalition total - yes, that's why I supported the status quo. But we either summarise the outcome of the election (PM vs Opp Leader) or we summarise the parties contesting the election - we cannot do both in the one infobox list (this has been my point all along). It's fundamentally incompatible to show separate party totals and also the outcome of the election - that's why virtually every reliable source summarises Australian elections in "two party" terms[3][4] - even the AEC reports "two-party preferred" national vote counts[5]. To include 1-seat minor parties, but exclude the 9-seat Nationals party cannot be justified in my opinion. Yes, I am happy to include the QLD LNP as part of the Liberals on a technicality (that the AEC includes them as part of the Federal Libs). CLP should be separate though - they are registered as a separate party, and have different party livery etc. They are also far more significant than the other minor parties, having controlled the NT legislative assembly for most of its existence. So the Coalition parties can be grouped as Liberals, Nationals, and CLP (NT). --Surturz (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

We're not excluding the Nats, though; we would simply be including them in a total Coalition figure (and they would still be linked ("Liberal/National Coalition"), and possibly have their leader included if we can find a way not to make it look like Abbott and Truss are co-leaders. (Maybe "Tony Abbott" and then smaller "Nationals leader: Warren Truss".) I would also not necessarily be averse to including the CLP in this (not the leader part, since they don't have a federal one), i.e. "Liberal/National/CLP Coalition". The CLP, if we are including them separately, should be sorted like any other party - i.e. they should be towards the end. I am inclined to think the order here should be Lib, ALP, Nats, Greens, CLP, Palmer, Katter - i.e., on total parliamentary representation. But I still support lumping the Coalition together, on the whole. Frickeg (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion (I don't like the outcome of the RfC either), but merging the Nats in with the Libs does NOT obey the outcome of the RfC. The Nationals are verifiably "a [party] that [has] at least 1 person elected to a seat", as are the CLP. Have a different background colour or whatever for the govt parties if you like, but the consensus of the RfC is that they should be separate. The Nationals deserve the same (greater, actually) prominence as the minor parties. --Surturz (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

No. The RfC did not consider the issue of the Coalition, it did not discuss the issue of the Coalition, and so it cannot be used to deal with the issue of the Coalition, who are clearly a separate case. In fact, if you read the RfC, most of the contributions that mention the Coalition take it as a given that it should be combined. Frickeg (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to help me here - where is a reliable source that describes the Coalition as a "party"? I can't find it, though I'm happy to provide many that show that the Nationals are a party. There is no such assertion in the closing statement that the Coalition should be considered one party, and therefore there is no consensus for that treatment of the Coalition. --Surturz (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC) P.S. And the RfC definitely did discuss the separation of the Coalition parties - see my comment of 4 March 2015 and replies to it. --Surturz (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

We're at the stage where we probably need other input here, but I do have to say this: your comment of 4 March, and the replies to it, do not discuss separating or lumping the Coalition. You mention "part of the governing coalition", but at no stage does anyone engage with the issue of whether the Coalition should be combined or separated. This is probably an omission on the part of the RfC participants (myself included); the discussion really should have encompassed that. As for the other stuff, I think you're reading more into the close than is actually there. No one is saying the Coalition is a "party", or that the Nationals/LNP/CLP are not, but to say that the close's reference to "parties that have at least 1 person elected to a seat" precludes us from combining the Coalition is, I think, taking it further than what it actually says. As I previously pointed out, the various Coalition parties will still be listed, just in a combined figure. And I do want to reiterate that I am actually somewhat sympathetic to your point here, and if a way of dealing with the Coalition figure can be dealt with I would be very open to convincing. Frickeg (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

My 2c (I'm probably up to more than a dollar by now, but anyway) - the Libs and Nats are not the same party, but it doesn't help the reader if the Nats are listed separately. An awkward note would have to be added to explain how the two parties jointly form government. This really all comes down to the semantics of the word "party" but I would say, even if it's not the strict definition, that the Coalition functions like a "party", e.g. running a combined senate ticket, being described in "two-party preferred" counts (not "two-political group preferred"). Also, including the LNP in the Liberal tally is awkward because some LNP members caucus with the Nationals. Plus the CLP member has to caucus somewhere, so including them separately is misleading. And that's also putting to one side the fact that the Libs and Nats are so linked, they fused in Qld and the NT. So I guess my point is: debating semantics over what the word "party" means is, of course interesting, but maybe it's best to look at the broader picture; readers will have a hard time understanding the situation if the government tally is split over two, three or even four slots in the box. - Hshook (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010 shows both parties in the ruling Coalition, split by the Opposition. It isn't confusing there. --Surturz (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

How about having the Coalition in the infobox, because there is no current prospect that the coalition will not stand together in the next election. A more detailed explanation of the coalition arrangements could be provided further down, in or near the "Background" section.

The RFC is not only about this article. As we look back over the last century-and-a-bit (or more if we include provincial elections), there will be many opportunities to interpret how to deal with minor parties, named groups, coalitions and alliances. Some elections will have been followed by coalitions/alliances that were not contemplated before the election. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Strong Oppose for the reasons I've already given above. The Nationals and the CLP are verifiably distinct political parties with one or more lower house seats each, and thus should be included separately in the infobox per the the outcome of the recent RfC. --Surturz (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The difference with the UK election and Australia's is that the coalition there was formed after the election, whereas the Lib-Nat-CLP-LNP coalition has existed for many years and contests elections as a whole (Senate, QLD, NT). Therefore going into the election it was a three-party race, and as an aside, the coalition there has now broken up and they are all contesting the election separately. Hshook (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

But Surturz, you still haven't even acknowledged the various problems with this. Do you not think the total Coalition figure is important? How do you propose to deal with the LNP, and do you not see how lumping them in entirely with the Liberals (but not the Nats) is misleading? And a new one - who do you propose the CLP leader should be - especially since Nigel Scullion is Senate leader for the Nationals? I'm all for working towards a solution on this, but you just keep repeating the same thing despite the fact that people have pointed out numerous problems with it. Frickeg (talk) 04:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

That's unfair, I have. To re-iterate:

We can either show the outcome of the election (PM vs Opp Leader) which allows us to show the coalition as one entry in the infobox, or show a breakdown of the seats by party. We cannot, however, do both at once. The RfC has indicated consensus for the latter.
I agree that not showing the total (Coalition) government seat count is uninformative. But hiding the existence of the Nationals and CLP while showing the 1-seat minor parties is misleading. Showing a Senator's picture in a summary of lower house seats is also misleading.
It is not right to say that Liberals and Nationals are forever indissolubly in Coalition. The Coalition broke in the "Joh for PM" saga, and a Nationals MP has even been a Minister in a Labor state government! Also the WA Nationals are NOT part of the Coalition, as evidenced in 2010 election.
My suggested solution is to combine the constituent conservative parties as the AEC has done: Liberal, National, and CLP. That at least whittles it down to three rather than eight (?) separate Coalition parties. We then show those three parties first in the infobox, to indicate that they, together, won the election. We can then put the non-govt parties subsequent, starting with the ALP, then Greens, PUP, KAP. Maybe you can put a border around the govt parties, or a different background colour. I dunno.
Whose photo do we put for the CLP? That's easy - Natasha Griggs

Part of the problem here is that you all do not have a consistent criteria for inclusion - you don't know what information you are trying to present. However, the outcome of the RfC has a crystal-clear, objective, criteria for inclusion: parties that have 1 or more lower house seats. So let's stick with that. All that is left to decide is what order the different parties are listed in the infobox. I am ready to contemplate different orderings. I'd probably be okay with anything that starts with {LIB, NAT, CLP, ALP, ...} or {LIB, ALP, NAT, ...} --Surturz (talk) 05:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I think there is a clearly consistent criteria for inclusion, and treating our Lib-Nat Coalition on a similar level with, say, the Tory-LibDem coalition (or, at this stage, an ALP-Greens coalition) is just not right; the Libs and Nats are far more intrinsically and organisationally linked than either of those groups, and they indisputably run a national campaign as "the Coalition". To address your points in detail:

The RfC did not discuss this issue, so I don't at all see how it is relevant here. To say that the RfC covers the Coalition is extrapolation. But further to that, our proposal actually does follow the wording of the RfC, which says that parties must be listed. The Coalition parties will still be listed, just in a combined way. They will not be excluded from the infobox; their members will be represented in the Coalition total.
Neither I, nor anyone else, is proposing hiding the existence of the Nationals. (The CLP I will get to in more detail later on.) The party name would be clearly "Liberal/National Coalition", and as I said, I for one would be very open to finding a way to include Warren Truss in the infobox somehow.
This is a good point. In elections where the Coalition was broken (1987, Vic 2002-06, all of SA and WA), we would obviously not combine them. The WA Nats issue is also pertinent, but applies to precisely one election (2010) - I think there is a very good argument for including the WA Nats separately in the infobox there, if we can find a consistent way to do so.
I find you're still missing the problem of the LNP. Basically, you want to have Warren Truss's photo as Nationals leader - but include his vote in Wide Bay under the Liberals. I can't support something like that.
But Natasha Griggs is not the leader of the CLP. She has no formal (or even informal!) position as such. I should say here that while I am cautiously open to including the Nationals, I am adamantly opposed to including the CLP. The CLP has no separate party room, and its members sit with either the Libs or the Nats; they are different from the LNP only by a technicality. They deserve a footnote at most, on a similar level to, say, the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party in Minnesota in national US elections. (By the way, am I to assume from your Senator comments that you would support Adam Bandt being included as leader of the Greens? Because to me it is self-evident that we can put no one there except Christine Milne.)

I wonder if it would be possible to somehow include Truss's photo while keeping the Coalition in a single box? The only issue then is giving him undue equality with Abbott and implying co-leadership again, which I think we want to avoid. (On the order, should the Nats end up being separate, the only order I could support would be LIB, ALP, NAT, GRN ...). Frickeg (talk) 06:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

{Edit conflict)

Of course we can do both. Arguing semantics takes focus away from the reader and their clear understanding of how the election will be contested. The Coalition is the government, and the Labor Party is the opposition.
It's not really misleading if the reader can click on Liberal/National Coalition and see that all four parties are linked. Also, your gripe with the image of Christine Milne is not logical - the box says leader (of the party) and Christine Milne is the leader of the Greens. Simple!
We can't gaze into a crystal ball of course, but saying that the current government coalition might break up is similar to saying that Labor could split up into Country Labor, City Labor, Labor of Norfolk Island and the Labor Communist Party of China. It's better to use the information we have now, and that is, that the coalition will likely contest the next election as one. The WA Nationals point is valid - however without any lower house seats, this discussion does not concern them. Or the SA Nationals, for that matter.
As Frickeg notes, Nigel Scullion, CLP senator, is the senate leader of the Nationals. Natasha Briggs sits in the Liberal party room. Doesn't seem very separate to me.
The true leader of the CLP is Adam Giles, chief minister of the Northern Territory. If you have an issue with a Senator being listed, then I can't even imagine what you would think having a territory leader (Giles) in leader spot. I don't understand why you are suggesting a 'non-leader' being placed in the leader square.

There is a consistent criteria for inclusion being presented - every party which has one lower house seat should be in the box. The Coalition functions like a party and so should be listed as one. No, they aren't a single party, but there are four parties, two party rooms and one Coalition agreement (go figure). Unless you similarly want to break up Labor, the Greens, and whoever else, into their constituent state branches, I disagree with you. I do like your proposed order, however. A compromise could be, instead of Liberal National Coalition, writing Liberal/National/LNP/CLP Coalition. Hshook (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't think there is any middle ground between me and Hshook - I'm not going to keep repeating myself so just suffice it to say that my silence to Hshook's suggestions are not WP:SILENCE. I can tolerate LIB, ALP, NAT, GRN as suggested by Frickeg (with CLP further down the order). NAT must have an equal-sized entry as the other parties: I don't think that is unreasonable. I think putting Senator photos as leaders is misinformation (we are listing lower house results, not parliamentary parties - otherwise where is Nick Xenophon?) but if that is the price of consensus, so be it. That's as far as I can go and support the change. I think it is ridiculous to put KAP as a party but not CLP. CLP has actually governed NT on-and-off for many years. To suggest it is not a notable party and hide it from the infobox is wrong. Also, it is too hard to justify lumping it in with either NAT or LIB. The AEC treat it as a third party, the CLP have only observer status at Lib fed council, but full voting rights with NATs, but Griggs sits with the Liberals. I think the importance of parliamentary parties has been far too overstated in these discussions - it is organisational parties that contest elections; parliamentary parties are just a matter of convenience and politicking for the pollies involved. Indeed, the difference between Katter and an independent is that Katter has a party organisation behind him, registered with the AEC. Without AEC registered political party status, Katter would just be another independent and wouldn't qualify for the infobox --Surturz (talk) 07:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You've still not addressed the issues with the CLP and the LNP. In the case of the former, there are no sources to support the assertion that Griggs is leader, and has been no adequate response to the point that they lack either a separate federal leadership or federal caucus and caucus with either the Liberals or the Nationals. In the case of the LNP, there is also the issue raised before about wanting Truss in the infobox as Nationals leader but putting his vote with the Libs. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This conversation is going round in circles. One data point has been the outcomes of the RfC, which was about all Australian and Australian state/province articles. The conversation here must be specifically about the 2016(/2015) Federal election, and who we currently anticipate to be the relevant parties. Using past SA and WA state elections as evidence that the Liberal and National Federal parties are not in coalition for this Federal election is not much more sensible than insisting the Farmers and Settlers Party and the Liberal and Country League be included too. The infobox for a future election is necessarily a special case that can't follow exactly the same format as past elections. The next United States presidential election article has a map at the top of the infobox, not any of the theoretical candidates, some of whom are listed with pictures further down. It is however possible that the answers to the issues here will become clear "for consistency" by the time people have gone through the past federal elections and implemented the decision of the RFC. To strictly follow the decision of The RFC, this article should list the parties that will win a seat in the next election, regardless of whether they won a seat in 2013. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

DroversWife - the RfC does not mention leaders. The criteria for inclusion in the infobox is 'a party that has one or more seats' which the CLP clearly meets. The infobox criteria is NOT "a list of parliamentary party leaders, except for the Nationals", which is what you seem to be plumping for here. We can list the CLP and not name a leader nor provide a photo, if that will make you happy. To reiterate: I am happy to support an infobox that lists LIB, ALP, NAT, GRN, PUP, CLP, KAP in that order. I'll even put up with Senators listed as party leaders, with their photo. That is a long way towards compromise from my initial position (PM and Opp Leader only). Hshook and DroversWife have not shifted from their original position at all. I no longer believe they are really interested in establishing consensus, only using their numbers to get exactly what they want. --Surturz (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Surturz, I am respectful of your view here and appreciative of your moves towards compromise. But the fact remains that not a single other person participating in this discussion has shared your concerns with this proposal. Consensus does not always have to mean compromise, if the widespread consensus favours a particular view (as it appears to do here). A measure of compromise could certainly be achieved with ensuring the Nationals get proper recognition within a Coalition box, but that does not appear to have attracted much attention. I would even be open to including their seat numbers somehow (maybe smaller below the total Coalition figure, it could say (58 Lib, 22 LNP, 9 Nat, 1 CLP), or alternatively if that takes too much space (58 + 22 + 9 + 1)). Frickeg (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

But it is not just me. The RfC supports my view. --Surturz (talk) 02:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we have discussed this enough. I have asked the closing admin to clarify the RfC close --Surturz (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I have shifted from my original position, which was PM, Opp. and Greens, with senators listed, as I have been convinced by others that PUP and KAP should be listed. I have tried to convince you, and given you plenty of opportunity to respond to my concerns. I have offered you a plethora of compromise options, which were not responded to. There's not much more I can do. Hshook (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

There's only one thing the RfC closer can say, though. The RfC did not discuss this issue. (Edit: and sure enough, that's exactly what they said. I agree that I think we have discussed this enough. We are as close to consensus as we are going to get, which is: the Coalition gets one box, from which the Nationals can be linked. Further discussion about my suggestions re: leaders and seats could be appropriate.) Frickeg (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Created a subheading below on this topic. Hshook (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

This whole thing is ridiculous. Look at the size of the infobox for goodness sake, it looks too big and clunky. There's not need to add the Greens, the PUP or the KAP, they will never form government and do not hold enough seats in the Lower House to be considered a major political force, and as the infobox only covers the Lower House, it would not be appropriate to add the minor parties. It looks foolish to add a party that requires 75 seats to form government. There is too much confusion added, because the Greens' section says 1 seat yet Christine Milne's seat is supposedly "Senator for Tasmania" which makes no sense at all as it is not a seat in the Lower House which is only what the infobox covers and implies that she holds the only seat for the Greens. It may not be confusing to us but it would be extremely confusing for those who are not familiar with Australia politics from both overseas and even here domestically. Further, both the primary vote and the two party preferred vote is given for the major parties from 2013 but only the primary vote is given for the minor parties (further emphasizing the fact that they are not relevant third political forces). The different percentages (primary and 2PP) between the major parties and the minor parties adds unnecessary confusion especially for those unfamiliar with the Australian political system, and as we have a very complicated voting system by world standards particularly with the 2PP situation, the last thing we want to be doing is making it more complicated for people to understand our elections. The minor parties should absolutely not be included and many users have reverted these changed in the past. There may be four confirmed users right now who support including the minor parties, but the two confirmed users plus the many users who have reverted the changes recently and in the past who oppose such a change outweigh the supporters. Andreas11213 (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Seats and leaders for the Coalition

My position is that Abbott should be shown in the box. The title should be either Liberal/National Coalition or Liberal/National/LNP/CLP Coalition (with links to either Coalition (Australia) or the individual parties). The seats should have the total of the whole coalition and then one of the two options presented by Frickeg above - which were (58 Lib, 22 LNP, 9 Nat, 1 CLP), or alternatively if that takes too much space (58 + 22 + 9 + 1)). I like them both and think they are easy to understand. Hshook (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I support:

Tony Abbott should be the photograph of the leader (as the only person currently verifiable as parliamentary leader of the Coalition going in to the election);
The link should be to Coalition (Australia) which has a longer history than any of it's current constituent parties, and is both the entity that has formed Government and the entity that will (excepting any major upheavals) field candidates at the Next Australian federal election. Very few seats (if any) are likely to have candidates from more than one of these parties competing against each other.
Numbers linked to parties are difficult to interpret as a reader, so I support using the party abbreviations next to each number and linking them if required.

--Scott Davis ^Talk 06:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

- Sounds good. Added to the article. Hshook (talk) 11:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand I have joined this conversation quite late and may be repeating things, but the main problem with adding the minor parties is that the rest of the page mainly focuses on the LNP and the ALP, for example the list of retiring members and senators, the polls, the preferred prime minister etc. On top of this, none of the minor parties hold more than 1 seat in the lower house, and the infobox only talks about the lower house so it would be pointless to add such minuscule representations in the infobox. Other problems with the infobox is that the minor details such as two-party preferred or preferred prime minister can't be added like they can for the LNP and ALP, and also the fact that the Green's leader does not hold a "seat", but represents a state. Other countries' minor parties clearly have larger representations than the ones in Australia. And besides, the policy of "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" would have to apply there, as it did in the Liberal Party ideology and political position debate. I just think that the minor parties make the infobox way to big. Andreas11213 (talk) 05:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

There was a RfC on this very issue which ended up saying that every party with lower house representation should be in the box. the way the box is implemented only shows the TPP and BPM polling for the two relevant parties and so does not affect the rest. Other concerns you mention were discussed ad nauseam above. Hshook (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the points raised by Andreas11213 and still strongly oppose the current version of the multi-party infobox, that omits the Nationals. I wonder if the new infobox really does have consensus - so I shall revert again to test consensus. It seems there are two in favour (HShook and droverswife) and two against (me and Andreas). Per WP:CONS this would mean the old 2PP infobox is the current consensus version. --Surturz (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd just like to make it clear that I also strongly oppose the multi-party infobox and would like to see only the two major parties included. Andreas11213 (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Surturz, we had an RfC, with feedback from a bunch of people, that was closed by an outside party as having a clear result that happened to not go your way. We know that you and Andreas disagree with this. This is not an invitation to ignore the consensus in that RfC on every individual affected talk page and attempt to achieve your desired outcome through revert-warring instead. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh please. You and Hshook have a new version that is getting reverted by more than one editor. Where is the consensus? The onus is on those making the change to get agreement for the change (or at least, outnumber those that oppose the change), otherwise per WP:3RR the status quo version stays. You would be better holding a !vote or something here on the talk page for a specific version, rather than trying to edit-war your preferred version in. --Surturz (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

There was an RfC that applied to this article. The RfC was closed by an outside person who found that the consensus went against you. The RfC was implemented on this article. And you keep trying to revert it and insist that it be revisited and that everyone who participated in the RfC drop by and repeat the discussion for your pleasure. Consensus does not work that way. Two editors who participated in an RfC continuing to disagree with the consensus does not invalidate it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Surturz, your count is a bit off. There are two against (you and Andreas) and four for (me, The Drover's Wife, Hshook and Scott Davis). Either way, it's irrelevant because there was an RfC. By all means start another one, but in the meantime we abide by what was decided there. Frickeg (talk) 08:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

(ec)The infobox you are pushing does NOT fulfil the RfC because it does not show the Nationals or CLP.

The RfC closer has explicitly stated that there is no consensus for the coalition partners to be included in the infobox as a single party. [6]

I agree there is consensus for an infobox that shows all parties with one seat or more. But I do not agree that there is consensus for the infobox you are trying to insert - because it does not show all qualifying parties. --Surturz (talk) 08:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You are intentionally removing that very infobox, which is probably unsurprising since their addition, not specific manner of the Coalition parties, was always your primary issue. Since you acknowledge there is a consensus to add them, stop removing the minor parties, talk out your issues and try to come to a consensus about the issue of the Coalition (on which everybody here has been, and is, more than willing to hear you out to the extent you bother to engage with anything anyone says about it), and you won't be getting reverted. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

See below --Surturz (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Seats needed

If all parties represented by at least one member in the House are listed in the infobox (I'm neutral on that), it makes a mockery of "Seats needed" (which I presume means "... to form government"). Tony (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed, we should remove that line from all parties in the infobox. --Surturz (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  - Well, it's still a useful figure for the major parties, though, isn't it? Is there a way to include it just for them and leave it blank for the others? Frickeg (talk) 07:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
    - I suppose. We could include it for the Libs and ALP and omit it for the others. --Surturz (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
      - It does look a bit odd, but we can't just leave it out for some and not all. Hshook (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
        I'm fine with either option: just using it for the ALP and the Libs, or using it for all. I'm pretty sure I've seen minor parties using the "seats needed" parameter in other countries and states before, but have no strong feelings either way. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
        The top of the infobox says "76 seats needed for a majority". I don't think we need to do the maths of "76 - current seats=" for any or all of the parties who have less than that. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
My preference would be to omit it from all. Simple arithmetic, isn't it? Do readers need this done for them? Tony (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- My position is to include it for all, because it's relevant and gives an overall picture of the election's context. Sure, most people would be able to work it out, but I think the coloured symbol and number makes it crystal clear. Hshook (talk) 08:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Full infobox proposal

To resolve all the issues above, I propose we use the infobox that I put in this subpage. ~~The CLP image needs resizing~~(done), and we will need to fix the party colour underlines (by added a line break and "Coalition member" some wikimagic gets lost). Please indicate if you support or oppose this change. --Surturz (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

For me, that is something I can live with regarding the Nats, but not the CLP. The obvious lack of anything about the CLP's presence in that infobox is testament to the fact they don't exist as a separate parliamentary party, with neither a federal leader nor federal caucus and all of their MPs sitting in every capacity with other parties mentioned in that infobox. The Liberal seat count should be one vote higher since that, in fact, is who Griggs sits with. (And that you've dropped the claim for the in every way equivalent LNP, presumably because the Truss situation made it obviously ridiculous, says something as well.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

it's a bit rich to begin a discussion saying that the inclusion of the Greens is undue emphasis and then turn around and devote 3/7 of the box to a group which functions basically like a single party. Please don't ignore the RfC, the number of arguments made for and against and the effective consensus reached above including the many compromise options offered and implemented. I don't want to have another long-winded internet fight so I encourage anyone interested to read everything above and only contribute new arguments rather than rehashing ones already stated and dealt with. I understand it's not fun having others disagree with you, but it's important to respect process. For the record: I oppose the Coalition being split up especially the CLP, and rather support the compromise option of including the individual party seat totals underneath the coalition total. Hshook (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Also as an aside everyone should refrain from using personal attacks and accusations, everyone is only working for the common good and there's no place for animosity. Hshook (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This is an option I'm open to (regarding the Nats, that is - I still adamantly oppose separating the CLP), but I still have a big issue, and it's this: what are we doing about the LNP? At the moment, they've been excluded from the infobox altogether (i.e. their numbers and votes are not included), which is absurd as the whole point of including every represented party was that we include every partisan MP. They have to go somewhere, but where? I could never support lumping them under the Liberals, since so many of their MPs (including Truss) sit in the National party room. The alternative would be to split them by party room (each Qld seat has an assignation as to whether that MP would sit with the Libs and Nats), but I've never seen this done and I feel it might be too close to OR. For this reason, at this time I oppose this version and continue to believe the single box is the only solution for the Coalition that works. Frickeg (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

And this would be the other side of that coin. I don't think it would be unreasonable to split the LNP MPs by caucus (there are clearly reliable sources detailing who sits in which caucus, and I'd be shocked if someone reliable hasn't already done that piece of homework as an overarching whole), but it does make a royal mess of the vote figures. This is why I would still prefer not to split them unless an alternative solution can be found. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see how the article is aided by splitting the Coalition into its constituent parties. I think it will cause more confusion than clarification. If a change must be made, I would prefer to see the break-down of Lib/Nat (based on sitting numbers) show through the one Coalition 'slot' in the infobox, this would show the differences within the Coalition, but still maintain the clarity that they are actually in Coalition. Also, as an aside, the RfC did (briefly) discuss that the Coalition would be treated as a single entity, as it is now, unless the Coalition dissolved (as happened in Victoria), and that then the Nats would be treated separately; there was no dissent or argument at all against this in the RfC. ColonialGrid (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Utterly untrue. The RfC closer has explicitly stated that there is no consensus for lumping the Libs and Nats in a single party. As for Hshook's claim that 3/7 of the infobox is WP:UNDUE, that is ridiculous - taken together the Libs and Nats have 3/5 lower house seats (ie. greater than 3/7).

The only context where the Coalition is considered a "party" is in Two-party-preferred vote counts. Once you add in the other parties it makes no sense to include the Coalition as a single "party". I am getting frustrated because none of you can can give an objective definition of "party". This is an article about an election, not about the parliament and we should be taking our guidance from the Australian Electoral Commission references, not who goes to which party room in Canberra. And in any case, "The Coalition" is not a parliamentary party by any definition. According to the AEC the LNP is part of the Liberal Party and the CLP is separate. That said, if it means an end to the bickering, I can suffer the CLP being bundled up with the Libs. But I cannot see any justification for excluding the Nationals when they have three times the number of seats of the Greens, KAP and PUP combined. --Surturz (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I have merged the CLP into the Libs per the above on proposal subpage (click). I have to (grudgingly) admit that it looks a lot better with only two rows. --Surturz (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

This would be a lot easier if you actually engaged with any of the arguments against having the Nationals separately, since most people here don't seem to be opposed to it in principle but have issues with the way it would work practically. Also, the CLP issue brings up the same issues: you can logically merge the seats into the Liberal total since Griggs is a Liberal for all intents and purposes, but you can't merge the vote (as you have done) since those same votes, in the Senate, elect Scullion, who is a National for all intents and purposes. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

But I have! I think it is filibustering bordering on deceit to ask for me to merge the CLP into the Liberals, as you did above, and then complain when I do exactly as you ask! Ditto for Hshook, who I believed in good faith when said he would tolerate adding Nats and CLP to the infobox[7]. To address your specific concern, I don't see why lower house vote percentage has anything to do with Senate votes - Country Liberal Senate vote is here (click).

For heaven's sake, we are including KAP with 1 lower house seat and no Senators, but excluding NAT with 9 lower house seats and senators? One needs to ignore a lot of reality to think excluding the Nationals is an accurate summary. At this stage, all I am really asking for is one extra entry in the infobox for the Nationals. Is that so unreasonable? --Surturz (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not complaining that you added the CLP into the Liberals, but I'm pointing out the problems that splitting the Nationals out causes. Essentially, what you want is something that would work fine if it wasn't for the LNP and the CLP, in which both the Liberal and National parties share a ballot line for their respective caucuses. You can break out the MPs according to who sits with who, but it fundamentally messes up the vote figures and it means that the voting percentages for the conservative parties in Queensland and the NT can't be represented in the table. That is the principal objection here to splitting out the Nationals and it isn't addressed by saying "but they have nine seats and KAP has one!". This would be a much less complicated conversation if the Coalition didn't run one united ticket in those two jurisdictions. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I have previously addressed those issues: I included the LNP into the Liberals vote on a technicality because officially, according to the AEC, the LNP are part of the Federal Liberals. The reality of course is that the QLD Nationals swallowed up the local division of the Liberal Party. If you want the LNP counted as Nationals, I think I could agree to that (however, I should note that there aren't really any WP:RS to justify that). I'm also happy to list the LNP separately - but everyone else seems keen to minimise the number of entries, so I'm compromising. I'm fully aware of the problems of trying to simplify a complex situation in the infobox. In the end, we cannot communicate the entire election result in one simplistic infobox. --Surturz (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

But either of those approaches to the LNP results in perverse outcomes: either you're recording votes for the leader of the National Party under the Liberals, or for senior MPs in the Liberal Party under the Nationals. The thing is, we can clearly communicate the entire election result in one infobox - by referring to the Coalition as the Coalition (though there is a number of ways one might do that). This is the reason basically everyone else in this discussion keeps going back to "just put them as the Coalition" even though it seems that most people would, at least in principle, be okay with the idea of breaking out the Nationals except for the problems it causes in the states where the Coalition effectively runs as the Coalition. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Pretending the Nationals don't exist is an even more perverse outcome. Pretending you can vote in the lower house for "The Coalition Party" is wrong. It would be nice if you actually quoted some reliable sources to back up your assertions. Here is the official list of MHRs elected in 2013: [8]. This is the verifiable list of parties elected:

Australian Labor Party
Country Liberals (NT)
The Greens
Katter's Australian Party
Liberal
Liberal National Party
The Nationals
Palmer United Party

Even you agree that the Nationals are a distinct parliamentary party. So why hide them? I am asking for one additional entry in the infobox for the Nationals. It is not unreasonable. --Surturz (talk) 04:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

No one is pretending the Nationals don't exist, just that the only workable way of detailing them in this infobox involves placing them as part of the Coalition. (That, according to the above reasoning around parties, the leader of the Nationals is not in fact a member of the Nationals, is why it is the only workable way.) There are a bunch of ways we could do this, but splitting them out causes a bunch of apparently-unfixable problems as to what one does about the conservative figures in Queensland and the Northern Territory. As I've said, if it wasn't for the spanner in the works of the two states where they run a united ticket, we could easily split out the Nationals and probably wouldn't be having this conversation at all. That, however, is not the case. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Saying you won't revert something isn't the same as supporting it, Surturz - I don't like reverting people's changes without a specific discussion. As for the inclusion of the Nats, you aren't responding to the clear awkwardness of the CLP and LNP in the Lib Nat split - or the truly easy to understand option of the total and then in brackets each party's total with links to each party. instead you want to push an agenda of maximum Coalition inclusion in the face of sustained, logical and fact-based opposition.

I removed the Factual Accuracy tag as there are no facts being disputed, just the presentation of information in an infobox.

I think since this discussion has lasted over two weeks now, we can say that this has gone one too long especially because consensus (minus two people) has been reached and arguments delivered to those two people are not being listened to. I'm not going to keep bashing my head against a brick wall by repeating myself when a constructive discussion isn't occurring – the number of people who support the Coalition being split is less than those who want to see a single square for them (Drover's Wife, Frickeg and myself, possible others who I have forgotten, vs. Surturz and Andreas). That would suggest general consensus. If you don't like it, I would urge you to start another RfC on this issue at Wikiproject Australian Politics. This discussion is taking people's time away from other areas of this website and it's getting nowhere. -Hshook (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Just mostly to echo what The Drover's Wife and Hshook have said, but also: the problem here is that most of us actually agree with your points, Surturz, and in an ideal world I (and I suspect the others, though I won't speak for them) would like the Nationals to be separate too. But so far I have not seen a version (nor have I been able to think of one) that doesn't lead to basic factual inaccuracies, except for the one with the Coalition lumped together. This is the only option that doesn't result in confusion, the need for endless footnotes, and actual inaccuracy, which is why it is the only version I can support. I am more than happy for the Nationals to be linked separately (i.e. Liberal/National Coalition), and for the seat numbers to be separated in brackets as described above. (BTW, you've actually left the LNP out of your proposed table altogether, at least in the seat count.) Frickeg (talk) 08:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox with minor parties looks awful

I really dislike the infobox with the minor parties added. Timeshift (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

That is not what we are discussing; it was settled at the RfC. Frickeg (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, I just wanted to say it. Timeshift (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to throw in my voice and agree with Timeshift. Stickee (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Good for you, but that's still not the issue we're discussing. The RfC was open for a month and a half; there was plenty of time to discuss this then, and if people aren't happy they're more than welcome to start another one. What we are discussing here is how to implement the consensus that emerged from the RfC. Simply saying "I don't agree with the RfC" is hardly helpful unless you have something constructive to say. Frickeg (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Timeshift and Stickee. It's one thing for an RfC to discuss infobox inclusion criteria in the abstract. It's another to see the eye-gouging results of that RfC in article space. Also consensus can change, and I'd certainly support a local decision to go back to the two-party-preferred infobox. --Surturz (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This has been settled for now. You had plenty of opportunities to convince people, and have your say, but unfortunately, you weren't successful. Nobody has veto power - Hshook (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Settled? Really? I count four in favour of the multi-party box (DroversWife, Frickeg, Hshook, Scott Davis) and four against (Surturz, Timeshift9, Stickee, and Andreas11213). --Surturz (talk) 06:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes settled. Didn't you read the RfC? – Hshook (talk) 07:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Surturz, as I think we've all said about six times by now, you (and those who also disagree with the userbox) are more than welcome to start another RfC if you feel the outcome of the first one was flawed, and we can hash all that out again. In the meantime, we abide by the previous consensus, and this is supposed to be a discussion about the implementation of the new multi-party infobox (which, to my eyes, looks absolutely fine). Frickeg (talk) 08:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest being cautious in seeing the RFC as a be all end all beating that horse as a response to concerns without consideration wont solve issues. Consensus can change for a number of reason and it maybe that the practical implementation of that consensus could cause people to rethink what was a good in theory result as being a not so practical in reality result. Gnangarra 23:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- The only thing is this was never an "in theory" result - it involved adopting the same structure of Wikipedia articles on basically every other Western democracy, which they've been doing for years. Surturz just really, really hates that. The only issue that is unique to Australia is what we do about the Coalition, but as Surturz himself explicitly stated below, his main issue was always about getting the minor parties (and specifically in his case the Greens) out, not apart ensuring the Coalition was represented in the best way possible. We had an RfC on this discussion for a month and a half, and an independent outsider closed that as having a consensus to fix this once and for all. I don't think Surturz bullying everyone for a further month or so, and finally finding a couple people who agree with him, changes that dynamic much. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Bloating of the infobox

Can I raise a different issue with the infobox? I saw some guy comment the other day that he thought the infoboxes looked bloated and had tried to switch them over to the format used in Canada, and had been reverted. I also think, minor parties or no minor parties, our election infoboxes look bloated - I use a netbook so I have a very small screen, and the difference between the infobox at Alberta general election, 2015 and any of our infoboxes (with basically the same number of parties) is really noticeable and I'm not sure why. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Could be that the photos are a fair bit larger here. – Hshook (talk) 11:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, we include a lot more data than that example; TPP and BPM polling, swings, votes given by percentage and by the actual number, etc. I think a little streamlining could be in order, but I'm not sure what should go. – Hshook (talk) 11:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's cut the polling; I was actually going to suggest that independently anyway, but it helps here too. Where is the polling even coming from? Is it the most recent poll? Is it an aggregate? Why on earth should it be in the infobox? When did this happen? (We also have an actual link in the infobox to "Opinion polls" (just above Abbott's photo). When did this get added? And why?) Otherwise open to any other suggestions for streamlining the infobox. Frickeg (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree 100%. We should stick to official figures – Hshook (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd be okay with tossing anything that isn't in the Alberta one, in this case. They're both forthcoming elections and I don't think our infobox is any more useful than theirs. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I would only keep the 'seats needed' section, but otherwise I agree – Hshook (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks bloated because it has gone from two to five photos. The only way to significantly reduce the size is to get rid of some photos. Either get rid of the minor party photos, or get rid of all the photos. I would support either option. --Surturz (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The whole idea of including minor parties in the box is a decision which is clearly incompatible with Australian conditions, it's just the kind of "standardisation" which gets pushed out on Wikipedia without full regard of all the consequences.

If we have to have the minor parties in the box, they should be reduced down to absolutely minimal, nothing other than party name, leader name, and current number of seats. They have no chance of winning government at the next election so none of the polling/seats needed stuff is relevant to them. Party leader photos for the minor parties are also irrelevant, as only the leaders of the major parties are at all likely to be PM and so "win" the election in any personal sense. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Still not what is at issue here. Look, honestly, this is getting tiresome. It seems clear that various people are unsatisfied with the outcome of the RfC - to which I am inclined to say, look, you had a month and a half to put your view, it's a bit late now. But frankly, if you're going to keep complaining about the minor parties in the infobox, the thing to do is to start another RfC. (I mean, Christ, I'll do it myself if this tediousness keeps up.) I assume PalaceGuard above has not read the RfC, or they would know that it was proposed and discussed entirely by Australians and not as some sort of "standardisation" drive.

To address what is actually being discussed: I am opposed to removing the photos for just the minor parties, and see no reason to do so. Once the extraneous polling stuff is removed I suspect it is reduced in size as much as it feasibly can be - although perhaps the images could be shrunk a little. I would not necessarily be opposed to the minor parties' photos being smaller than the majors - I wonder if there is a way to squeeze them all onto the one row too (without mucking up the first row). Frickeg (talk) 08:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I feel like the removal of certain photos may just be an attempt to overthrow the RfC outcome by stealth – I think the polling data should be removed, but all the photos should be the same size (shrinking them all is my preferred option). – Hshook (talk) 09:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, the recent RfC that keeps being referred to was about standardisation for all Australian election articles, which would mean that the vast majority of them are in the past, with known outcomes, for which it is entirely clear which parties did or did not win lower house seats. "The consensus is to list parties that have at least 1 person elected to a seat." There are potentially (I haven't checked if they all exist) up to nine articles about next elections, for which any indication of which parties won seats is conjecture. The upheavals would deserve new articles of their own if any of Lib, ALP, NLP and Nat did not win lower house seats. CLP, GRN, KAP and PUP require a degree of conjecture to anticipate that they will remain in this article (and no others join them) once the date of the election has passed. Maybe we need to sit back and think about what information (if any) is meaningful to display in a future election infobox, and make sure that whatever quick facts are summarised in the infobox are stated and expanded in the prose. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the RfC discussed this point and the criterion decided on was at least one seat either before or after the election, subject to discretion. Frickeg (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

it ain't worth much. There is now a majority that prefer the old 2PP infobox. The onus is now on you guys to make the new infobox work. I don't think jettisoning actually informative polling data in favour of leader pictures is the way to go but YMMV. For the record I recant on all my suggestions for multi-party info boxes and now only support a return to the 2PP box. If a decent (or at least adequate) multi-party infobox can't be formulated in the next week or so I intend to propose a return to the 2PP box. The bad-faith filibustering up to this point has not left me with any desire to continue to try to make the multi-party box work. --Surturz (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The RfC is over. The consensus was for every party with lower house representation to be included. Everyone has tried to tell you this in the most polite and courteous way, but this manner is not returned, which is wholly depressing. In addition, I do not appreciate being attacked personally, and would like you to stop. – Hshook (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I oppose going back to only two parties/groupings, but don't oppose making the infobox more compact. Surturz, your position now simply confirms my initial suspicions that your original proposal to add all coalition parties is pointy and verging on bad faith (and yes, I understand this statement makes me a WP:DICK). ColonialGrid (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Late to this party, I like what trying to be achieved. Is it possible to reduce the size of the minor party photos why should some party with one or two seats be given equal prominence with the government/opposition parties who each have specific roles in the parliament. As for the coalition may I suggest a collapsible section that shows the breakdown of the coalition with each party/partner leader seats, it would also be possible/practical for situations where we've had non aligned parties combining to form government. Gnangarra 23:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- With the first suggestion: can we just all make them the exact same size? I think it's unnecessary (and probably look messy) to make the minor parties smaller, but I've definitely noticed problems where the minor party leaders images are unduly large and it looks plain weird. The second is something we've gone over and basically it doesn't work: you can't list leaders, parties, and votes separately, for a four-party coalition that results in two caucuses that basically run under one banner and interlinked leadership team. (There is basically a clear consensus among nearly everyone that we would break out at least the Nationals if it weren't for this problem, and it's not resolved by clever templating; if these problems we're resolvable we'd have a consensus to just list them separately.) Neither the CLP and the LNP have separate caucuses or leaders, and the fact that the leader of the Nationals is technically an LNP member complicates those things even further. I am quite strongly opposed to listing parties that ran independently and then formed a coalition as one party (the government formation came after the election), but the Coalition is so entangled, especially post-LNP-creation, that you really can't do it any other way. The only way you could do it (linking the number of seats each party technically has on paper under the leadership info) has been rejected by the people that said they had issues with the Coalition display. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  - The size of the column is determined by the size of the largest photo in it AFAIK. Just to be clear: if the ALP and Greens form a formal coalition after the next election (ie. there are Greens ministers) then we should merge them into the one entry, just like the Lib/Nat Coalition. But if like in 2010 they only support confidence, they are separate. Is that what you are saying? --Surturz (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
    - For myself, I would say no - if the Coalition were formed after election X, then the infobox for election X should list them separately. The question of the election after that (let's say election Y) is more complicated. I would say we would only merge them if they ran as an electoral coalition. So if the situation were like in the UK right now, we would still list the Conservatives and the Lib Dems separately because they are not co-operating electorally, and are running in every seat. But if, say, Labor and the Greens formed a coalition after election X, and then ran as a team in election Y ("vote for the Labor/Greens coalition"), with some joint Senate tickets and dividing the seats they contested, then we would merge them. A fairly academic point for now, though. Frickeg (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
      - Basically this. I'd go further and say that I think we should list all parties with parliamentary representation wherever it's possible to split them: the issue of dividing up the Coalition at a federal level is impossible because they're so intertwined, but it's 100% possible to list the Liberals and Nationals separately without issue in NSW, Victoria, SA and WA and I would absolutely support doing so. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
        I wouldn't have a problem listing the Nats on a state level, but I'm not sure how the government figures could be listed. – Hshook (talk) 07:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
        I'd do the government-as-whole figures in prose paragraphs at state level: it seems like the best way to handle it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I created an infobox with a 2 column government/opposition and then followed with 3 column minor party box.... template:Infobox election may need some tweeking to get better alignments but gives a more balance representation of the parliament without creating undue prominence to parties that hold only 1 or 2 seats and who's leaders dont have formal roles within the parliamentary processes. looking further the page on the coalition could have its own infobox showing the current details of each federal coalition partner so that if people follow the link they get the breakdown. Gnangarra 09:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- This makes the entire page completely illegible on my small screen - that infobox is massive. I don't see the point, either: the minor parties are still listed in exactly the same way are now, except that Katter isn't on a third row, and it bloats the infobox to absolute hell. I'm not trying to be rude, just this seems to aggravate everyone's issues and solves none of them. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  - Yes, I have to agree. It was a good faith attempt, but it looks monstrous. The senators/polling should also go. Frickeg (talk) 09:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
    - made some adjustments reduced the Gov/opp to 150px and the other parties to 90px Gnan garra 09:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

demo 2x3 infobox

Thank you @Gnangarra:. This is the nicest-looking version I have seen. The only changes I'd like to try to introduce to this version would be to

remove the "seats needed" lines. The only cell where the number makes sense is the Labor column.
expand the TPP and BPM acronyms - most readers will have trouble understanding the acronyms, even once they understand the concepts; hopefully the longer words also push the top two columns across a bit to centre them better above the three in the lower row.

--Scott Davis ^Talk 10:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

- expanding out the TPP, BPM acronyms doesnt expand the column the underlying template doesnt allow for differential weight regardless of whether a party represents 60% of the population or 1%, the side effects of one size fits all infoboxes...<commented out polling stats for the moment> looking into BPM polling and TPP polling links both are redundant links to this article may pay to use a redirect from the expanded term so people get the full meaning especially as BPM can also be PPM preferred prime minister, as both figures are dynamic and get updated depending on who adds the next set of polling results(currently 2 different dates) I think they really should removed and let the article tables provide that info. I also have hidden the seats needed for the minor parties given the unlikehood of that carrying any significance.
  - While I am still not a huge fan of this idea, for it to work at all it should (a) remove the "opinion polls" link above the major party leaders; and (b) remove the "senators" line underneath the House seats, which makes no sense in this instance. Frickeg (talk) 11:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
    - it does look more succinct and clearer without the Senate info... Gnan garra 11:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

We need a standard size for leader photos. --Surturz (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting idea but I'm not sure the current template is suitable for this. The imbalance re top and bottom levels is not ideal, but if there was a way to centre the two larger parties then perhaps. However I am not wholly supportive of shrinking some and not all, since the infobox is supposed to present all parties equally and it would be 'crystal balling' to immediately discount the chances of the Greens, PUP or KAP. I noticed that on the 2013 election article, a 5% share of the vote threshold was enforced so removing Katter. Personally, I have no problems including KAP, but could be something to think about concerning layout. – Hshook (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Somewhat unrelated, but in the infobox above I have experimented with a graphical representation of seats for Labor; it would be good to change "last election" to "seats held" with maybe the houses listed too? – Hshook (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I really need to stress that this infobox seriously does look monstrous in 2x3 on a small screen, and I don't see why since all it does is bump the Katter Party up a line. Every other country and state puts their parties in descending order of vote gained and I see no reason not to do the same. I strongly agree with Surturz about needing a standard size for leadership photos. I think we've had consensus not to include the Senate in the infobox, and it opens a whole another can of worms entirely which I'd rather not. I strongly agree with whoever removed the polling, and I think that bit of the infobox looks a lot cleaner for it (and it was a meaningless statistic anyway because what polling). The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It looks better without the poll results in the table - thank you. The remaining "TPP" is wikilinked to an explanation with a title that shows with mouse hover, so that is OK. I prefer listing senate as well as House of Reps seats: The 2013 election was for both houses; there is a high chance that the next election will also be for both houses; and it looks really misleading to say that the Greens won one seat, name their leader as a senator, and have no indication that they aren't the same person. Showing the two bar graphs might be informative as to how many seats each party has, or will the 1-seat bars look empty? It will emphasise the difference between major and minor groups. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

If we're going down that line, then we still have an infobox that adds up to the amount of actual members, and to the complete amount of the vote, for the House, but not the Senate. We'd also need a second lot of voting figures because the House vote != Senate vote. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually you're right, listing senators is just a little awkward even if it would be better for some parties. I would still like to use the coloured composition boxes for the seats held, because they're pretty. – Hshook (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I could go either way on the composition boxes as long as they're used for all the parties, otherwise it just looks weird. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why I lose the right to complain about a crap layout just because I was not invited to any RfC and didn't bother to read it. I'm sorry I misunderstood it to be an international standardisation drive. Even if it's an Australia-specific one, I still don't like it. Standardisation drives on Wikipedia tend to give certain people a delusion of a mandate to go and change articles where not appropriate, and this is a case in point.

To the sample box above - I absolutely do not agree that the minor parties should be shown in the box at the same size or level of detail as the major parties. That's undue weight. So the sample box is far better than what's in the article at the moment, so given a choice between the current box and the sample box above, my vote is for the sample box. I think it has the right amount of information, except that I would prefer the minor party leaders' photos to be removed. One of them is not even an MP! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I can live with the size and information changes (although it's petty and a bit ridiculous), but for the love of god get rid of the bloody 3x2 setup. I would love to know which federal party leader (at the time of the infobox's creation) PalaceGuard008 thinks is not an MP. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

When I said that the leader's photos should be a standard size, what I meant was that we should have standard crop dimensions so that they all are the same height x width ratio. Hshook's Greens MP photos, for example, are much squarer than the other photos, so they end up larger in the infobox. I'm not opposed to scaling the images after that within the infobox, making minor party images smaller etc. I think the Shorten photo is a pleasant aspect ratio, though the Abbott image would likely result in a narrower infobox, the image being taller. If the photos are all the same dimensions, it will be more pleasing to the eye, there will be less dead space in the column, etc --Surturz (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this, we should decide on one aspect ratio and crop infobox images to that ratio. However, I reckon all images should be the same size and having two parties on the top row and three on the bottom looks odd. ColonialGrid (talk) 07:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with ColonialGrid. The images I uploaded were in the original format from the Greens website – Hshook (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  - I have uploaded and placed cropped images of Tony, Richard and Bob which are very similar to the ratios of Bill and Clive. – Hshook (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
    - Thanks. Also thanks for the cat over at wikimedia commons, that's a good idea. If possible for such a subjective question, I think we should decide to use a standard portrait photo size e.g. 5x4, 4x3, or 8x5. --Surturz (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Demo infobox: could it be more parsimonious with information? I find it a bit cluttered, and some stuff is not sufficiently important to be trumpeted in the box, like (1) "leader since" for the minor parties, and (2) "leader's seat" for all five of them (Warringah and Maribyrnong? That's amazing ... oh, where are they?). The red pipes are totally confusing: the proportion of red is nearly the same for both NLP and ALP; and how I've realised they must be different scales (150 vs 75?). Why do we need a "seats needed" field: first, needed for what? second, people can easily get a feel for that if you just give their respective numbers out of a total number of seats. Tony (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Some of that information is, I think, useful (seats needed for Labor, for instance; I think it's fairly clear that it's "seats needed to win", i.e. for a majority), but where did those horrible red pipes come from for the Labor seats? Other than that, what happened to the colours for the minor parties? Frickeg (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Pipes: just an experiment with graphical representation, the numbers aren't correct but I wanted to see what it looks like. I think it looks quite nice, but I wouldn't fight for its inclusion.

Photo ratio: 450x625 is roughly 3x4, and I don't think on that scale 25 or 50 pixels will really show up, so either way it will be okay.

Seats needed: I don't support leaving this out for one party but including it for another; it should be equal (same for leader's seat and leader since). It's fairly clear that 'seats needed' refers to forming government. – Hshook (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I find the pipes absolutely ghastly in this infobox, which already has a lot of graphical information to convey and is really not helped by an extra dollop of colour. Unless there's a way to centre the majors (and restore the minors' colours) I don't think I can support different-sized photos, and in any case I am inclined towards the same size for all (it's not ideal, but it's better than what we have here). The seats needed is, I think, a reasonable thing to leave out for the minor parties - while the arithmetic it requires to figure out how many seats Labor, on 55 seats, might need to get to 76 is not necessarily instantaneous, I think most people could pretty easily see how many seats a party that currently holds 1 seat would need. The size of the infobox means we want to remove any information not absolutely necessary, and I think that definitely counts. Frickeg (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this. The red bars are too big and don't convey any meaningful information the seat count does; the two X three arrangement doesn't look any better than the one currently used; and the seats needed field makes sense for Labor and the Coalition, but makes none at all for the minor parties. ColonialGrid (talk) 08:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

So I suppose the main ideas being put forward is that the layout should be the same as now, but removing the 'seats needed' for all but Labor and Lib/Nat Coalition. Sounds fine to me.

What do we do with the polling information? I don't think that anything speculative (or unofficial) like that should be included and we should stick to official results released by the AEC. It gets such a large section below anyway. – Hshook (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I think polling information should go in prose, but that we really need primary vote. Only using 2PP makes it look like someone's pushing an agenda, and it's information that every other election article has: what percentage of the vote a party got is at least as relevant as their seat count. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The primary vote is already there under the seat count in the "previous election" line. As for the use of 2PP stats being evidence of "pushing an agenda", that's a ridiculous assertion. All the major newspapers report 2PP stats, as does the AEC. --Surturz (talk) 05:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

But why does it need to go in the infobox, which is a summary of the information, rather than a comprehensive listing of statistics? The large grid shown below also gives a lot more context rather than just a single figure in the box. – Hshook (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Because the two-party-preferred vote is a summary of the country's voting intention. All the mainstream papers report 2PP. It's only here on wikipedia that some people seem to think that 2PP is evidence of some conspiracy. --Surturz (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think 2PP is useful polling info which can often at a glace indicate who is in a winning position, I also think that it is right to have such info in the infobox. ColonialGrid (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's not important, I just think it doesn't belong in the infobox. It can give a close indication of voting intention, but at worst it can be completely incorrect (like in the UK election recently). Polling data is not official, shakily accurate, and somewhat irrelevant, and already has a large section below which I have no problem including. – Hshook (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

That argument makes no sense. The presence of a large section in the article body does not obviate the need to include polling in the infobox - it justifies it! The infobox summarises article content. This is an article about the next election, and polling data is highly relevant to that topic. On the topic of the next federal election, readers are going to be interested in when it will be, who is running, and who is likely to win. --Surturz (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

So a poll conducted this week with a sample of 1200 is proof of who will win the next election? If you would read my comments more thoroughly and stop dismissing me as nonsensical, you would see that I'm not opposed to having polling data, but the context is what is important, not a single poll conducted here and there. A single poll says nothing, 6 months of polling says a lot. You can't include 6 months of polls in one field of an infobox. The only poll that truly matters is the official count on election night done by the AEC. – Hshook (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

There are often two or three polls a week. It's not something it's reasonable to keep updated, and it's not something on which case there is one clear answer: if Ipsos, Galaxy and Essential Research release polls in a given week, their dates in the field probably overlap and determining which one we used on whether it was released on a Wednesday or a Thursday is silly. It's not even remotely helpful to anyone who is specifically looking for polling information, because they need all of that data - which are well-illustrated in the table below. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

2x3 format

I feel like I'm talking into the void, but can we address the damned 2x3 format? It is ugly as hell and it serves absolutely no purpose: I'm not sure why it was added when no one was asking for it. Katter being on a fifth line was a problem for precisely 0 people in this discussion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

(The void responds) Totally agree. Super ugly. I would think that the people pushing it are just bitter about the inclusion of the smaller parties. For the record, I'm totally fine with it how it looks now in the article. – Hshook (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Just saw your above comment, and I agree; the current box on the page lists all of that, and I can't see any problems with it as it stands – Hshook (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't like the 2X3 format, and prefer the one currently in the article. But, I reckon we should remove 'Seats needed' for the minor parties, and am a little unsure if the percentage of vote received at the last election is appropriate or not; KAP is shown as getting 1.04%, but they don't run in every seat, so to say they only got 1.04% is both true and untrue at the same time. ColonialGrid (talk) 05:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I see your point, but the figure of 1.04% is still their national vote whether they ran in every seat or not. I think the percentage at 2013 is very relevant. – Hshook (talk) 07:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing the "seats needed" for the minor parties, but I think the vote is absolutely vital information, and I don't think it's altered by the fact they didn't contest every seat. This is consistent with the international approach (e.g. Alberta general election, 2015, where the last two listed parties didn't remotely contest all seats.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Also the whole "contesting every seat" thing is comparatively new, even for the major parties (in state elections especially - as recently as 2008 the CLP didn't contest two Northern Territory seats). Frickeg (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy with this; it's not really a big deal to me. ColonialGrid (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

2x3 was because a the complaint was the box was too bloated, and given WP:UNDUE says that minor views should be treated as such and not given equal importance to the majority which is the two parties at the top this seams a solution to that. It should really be broken into the components of the coalition as it would be more likely that one of them could gather enough seats alone then Palmer or Katter. Gnangarra 04:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- How is this a response to that particular opinion in any way when the only party that it changed the position of was the Katter Party? It makes the infobox much more bloated, so it's a really peculiar to that one (which I was the one making). A 3x2 infobox still has the Coalition and Labor parties at the top, the Greens and the Palmer parties in their current places - it just puts the Katter Party up a line. The only thing this infobox does is make it really, really obvious to readers that someone had a bee in their bonnet about the representation of minor parties, and was prepared to do it at the expense of the readability of the page and the usefulness of the infobox. As for the Coalition parties: read the discussion above, address the points made there as to why it's unfeasible, and if you've got a plausible way of getting around those I'm all ears. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  - yeah every party should have its own box, with all the coalition parties stated first, then the opposition party, then all the other parties if you want equal billing for every one... I suggest you read WP:AGF and WP:WEIGHT the 2x2 format was being complained about I just put together an alternative using the constraints of one size fits all box the actual infobox documentation recommends a 3x3 structure for these types of pages so its even bigger than whats was proposed...... Gnangarra 12:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
    - We had a very long discussion, on this very page, about how best to represent the Coalition on this page, and there were a whole bunch of insurmountable issues why separating out the Coalition does not work even though many of us were in favour of it in principle. I am not particularly inclined to rehash the entire discussion when one can read up the page. Beyond that, "all the coalition parties, then the opposition party" would be the most hideous case of WP:UNDUE imaginable" in this situation. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Name

In most articles the year is given for future elections (2017 Australian Elections) even though the government can (or very well will) call them earlier. Shabidoo | Talk 16:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Not for Australian elections. Where the date is fixed (i.e. New South Wales state election, 2019) we list the date. This page will move when there is no longer a possibility of holding the election earlier. Frickeg (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Double dissoution final date

I have removed this line:
"A double dissolution election "shall not take place within six months before the date of the expiry of the House of Representatives by effluxion of time." (That is, last date for a double dissolution is 11 April 2016, being 6 months before 11 November 2016.)"
As the article further down cites Antony Green's calculation that the final date would be in April. – Hshook (talk) 06:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The two graphs for opinion poll results

I wonder whether we could reach an arrangement for these to be updated regularly (perhaps not as regularly as the table, which is nicely tended to, but more regularly than just once in a blue moon)? Tony (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The editor who did those graphs is based in Spain and probably does not have the time nor inclination to update the Australian charts regularly. However I think I have worked out how to do them myself... so I will try to keep them updated, but I'll also post the source files and methodology in my userspace so others can take up the mantle if I fall behind. --Canley (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Canley, that's great news and a lift in the utility of this page for readers. Thank you! Tony (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this up again, but if you don't have time to do so, I'm willing to help out (even though I'm not entirely sure how to create the graphs as of yet, so it would be great if someone could teach me). They're pretty important for the page too. Airlinesguy (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys. I've tried my hand at creating a graph of the polls. It includes an exponential moving average (the solid line) for smoothing. Any feedback on thisbefore I do the same for primary vote and publish it on the page? Hopefully I'll publish the methodology for creating it (although it's somewhat convoluted). (Pinging Tony1, Canley.) Stickee (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks great, sorry I haven't had time to work on this. If you publish the methodology I will try and set up a parallel system. --Canley (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Crikey's BludgerTrack

An FYI that BludgerTrack is not an actual poll, just an aggregate of the polls in the previous week. I've removed them from the poll results table. Stickee (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It's like a mini australian 538 no?Shabidoo | Talk 14:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Including them in the poll table was always absurd. Frickeg (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Preferred prime minister table

Is the order of the top few right at the moment? Tony (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

senate composition

Should their be information about which senators are continuing/ up for election? Catprog (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I would say so, given that the half-senate election will occur at the same time. Would a state-by-state breakdown be best, or a party-based one, or combining the two? – Hshook (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)