Talk:2017 Queensland state election

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2017 Queensland state election article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Australia: Queensland Low‑importance

	Australia portal 2017 Queensland state election is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Adani

The need to defend regional seats explains the Palaszczuk government's strong support for the Adani coal-mine project, despite the many economic and environmental questions about its desirability and viability. This will drive votes to the Greens in some parts of Brisbane, but probably not enough to threaten any Labor seats. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 08:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata queries

I'll post some Wikidata queries here which might be useful:

--Canley (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retiring MPs

Can someone please add in the Liberal Nationals that Verity Barton has been deselected for the seat of Broadwater? Journostudent092 (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations close today, I'll add it if the final candidate list confirms she is not running as an independent. --Canley (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Astrology?

What is that astrology forecast at bottom of this article? JennyOz (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weird! I have removed it. --Canley (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, weird alright! Thanks. JennyOz (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seats in doubt

So I have put 13 seats in doubt here - it differs from the ABC list by including Townsville (really don't know what's going on there) and excluding Glass House, which is showing up in the ABC's list despite being listed (and being clearly) "LNP retain". Frickeg (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was working on one as well. I had the same inclusions and exclusions as you. --Canley (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whitsunday seems to be popping on and off the list, but given that I have seen zero discussion anywhere that it's in any danger I think we're OK leaving it off for now. Frickeg (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people trying to take out Macalister. Given William Bowe and Kevin Bonham both still have it in doubt (and have provided reasoning), I really think it needs to stay there until we get more information. Certainly a Johnston victory is unlikely, but we've heard nothing about those Greens preferences yet so no harm in waiting a few more days (or until either/both of the above pull it off their list). Frickeg (talk) 07:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I have now listed these sources specifically as well. I understand Macalister is a lineball case, but Maiwar is more confusing and the ABC has been extremely opaque this election - it has not been at all clear what they are basing these calls on. What happened in Maiwar? There is no explanation anywhere that I can find - ABC just quietly took it off its list with no explanation. Until we have a clearer picture on either of these seats they should stay in doubt. See also: here's Nine News under an hour ago citing both as in doubt. Frickeg (talk) 07:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, ABC is modelling the preference distributions based on the original 2CP counts that ECQ published, and as more primary votes come in, they distribute them based on those proportions. --Canley (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right, but these ones must have been manual decisions because their 2PP was not in doubt, it was exclusion order. I am presuming that the ABC has some sort of information about Maiwar saying that the Greens will definitely be in second, but without knowing what that information is it's hard to know. Frickeg (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram

I have updated the parliament composition diagram to Antony Green's prediction on Saturday, but I will leave it up to someone here to decide when it might be appropriate to include it in the article. Tomiĉo (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Results tables output

I'm using the ECQ's XML media feed to generate result tables for each district. You can see it here:

Results of the Queensland state election, 2017.

It is currently only showing primary votes, the data is a day or two old, and I haven't wikilinked some of the new MPs. I will add the two-candidate distributions when they are published by ECQ, and update it every night until counting is complete. --Canley (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are also eight independent candidates who ran in 2015 as well, so I will link them to calculate the swing. --Canley (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why the results section is using ABC predictions, rather than ECQ calls? What makes ABC predictions more important than other media?Dacium (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ECQ doesn't call these things for yonks, even the safest seats. There are seats with huge primary vote majorities (e.g. Traeger) that they still haven't declared, because declaration is a formal process that takes time to organise; I believe, if we were limiting ourselves to formal declarations, the results would be 4 Labor and 0 for anyone else. It is of no use to our readers to limit ourselves to formal declarations when we have multiple reliable sources giving a much fuller picture of the results. Generally we've been pretty cautious here, and if any one of the main sources (ABC, Poll Bludger, Kevin Bonham) has left it in doubt, we have too. (I would use Fairfax and News Ltd as well, but they don't specify which seats they're keeping in doubt so it's kind of difficult.) Frickeg (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greens Position

It looks increasingly likely that the Greens will pickup Maiwar. Latest from ABC has Maiwar as a Greens gain (and not in the in doubt category). If that eventuates when the count is declared, it would seem to me that the top info box should be updated with the Greens as the fifth party. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jschoermer (talk • contribs) 04:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you say ABC has given Maiwar away but I haven't been able to find any substantiating information (although I believe the preference throw was scheduled for today). If this is confirmed, then yes, the Greens would need to be added to the infobox. Frickeg (talk) 06:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The deadline for postals was today, so hopefully it will be tomorrow. --Canley (talk) 09:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two Candidate Results after Distribution of Preferences

ECQ has started publishing these [1]—only one at the moment (Algester). --Canley (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greens Leader

Wasn't Amy McMahon the Queensland Greens leader for this election. And if so, shouldn't the info box be updates to reflect that? Fremantle99 (talk to me) 23:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]