Talk:2020 Eden-Monaro by-election

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 articles

Australia: New South Wales / Politics Low‑importance

	Australia portal 2020 Eden-Monaro by-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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Lead section prose

Wishing to seek consensus on the prose used in the lead section of the article. Until 4 May, this relatively consistent with other similar federal by-elections, including New England, 2017 and the five 'Super Saturday' by-elections of 2018 (eg. Longman).

In diff 954818863, LeoC12 appears to have re-written this lead section in a manner which isn't consistent with these similar articles. As I see it, the lead sentence in particular fails MOS:REDUNDANCY and was more concise prior to this edit. Over several edits I reverted the majority of these changes, only to find these reinstated with the following edit summary: Implemented prose consistent with more recent 2019 federal election article, as well as new title of the House of Representatives article

For one thing, I presume the new title of the House of Representatives article line is meant to refer to a difference in how the article was linked between our revisions (ie: Australian House of Representatives versus House of Representatives). Regardless, given there appears to be a consistent approach to the lead section in articles about Australian federal by-elections, I would have thought it preferable to keep this article consistent with those. In the interest of avoiding an edit war, and noting there are many other editors who have more experience in editing Australian election articles than myself, now would be a good time to reach a consensus before more significant changes—such as what candidates are confirmed to be contesting the by-election—are made. Heyitsstevo (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for seeking consensus; I'm not too fussed with how the introduction looks like, but I would say that my version, as set out in the 2019 Australian federal election article, as well as most other election articles, including by-elections (e.g. 2016 United States presidential election, 2019 Newport by-election, 2017 New Zealand general election, 2019 Spanish regional elections, etc), use the style of repeating the article title in the first sentence verbatim.

I think this method is more concise, as a construction like 'the 2020 Eden-Monaro by-election will be held...' is much more precise than 'a by-election for the HoR division of Eden-Monaro...'. In particular and most authoritatively, I cite MOS:BOLDLEAD, which states that "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence". Since this article's title is widely accepted within Wikipedia following the latest changes around election titles (ie YEAR-JURISDICTION-ELECTION TYPE), I think that my current version should be kept. LeoC12 (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pru Gordon

Hi all, hope you can help clear something up for me so we can include it in the article. I'm confused about this line in the The Australian Financial Review on 6 May 2020: "National Farmers' Federation official Pru Gordon is also set to seek preselection." source Can anyone find another news source specifying if Pru Gordon is set to seek the Liberal preselection or the Nationals preselection (or as-unlikely-as-it-is the Greens preselection)?

If Pru Gordon is set to seek the Liberal preselection then I'm a concerned that the line "Fiona Kotvojs as the only known candidate for Liberal preselection" in the current version of this article, although verified by a Canberra Times article could be inaccurate. Please consider Wikipedia:Inaccuracy. WP:Editing policy states, "on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information". Thanks, New9374 (talk) 04:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@New9374: At the time of writing the statement in the article was correct. As your reference is dated only today, it is a later development and I suggest you update the article to reflect that there is now a second known candidate using the reference you have quoted from the AFR.Fleet Lists (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding this. As to your query re: sources, I'm yet to find any other secondary sources that claim Gordon is running (for either party), but I'll keep an eye out. Heyitsstevo (talk) 06:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, it's a rapidly changing story. I'll keep an eye out for another, more specific source. Cheers, New9374 (talk) 06:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AFR and Canberra Times seem to be the only sources to mention Pru Gordon, but even then it's just a "rumour", so we can't use it. Heck, not even NEWS mentions her. All sources otherwise seem to support that Fiona is the likely contender. News does mention rumour of Tony Abbott, but it's come across as unsupported spitballing. -- Tytrox (talk) 07:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Abbott has just denied this on television. Fleet Lists (talk) 08:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was first reported by a Channel 9 reporter then denied ten minutes later. A total non-starter as fair as I'm concerned. Heyitsstevo (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spitballing. Regardless of its origin, in context, there's no weight to it, so it can't be used, although granted I'm the one who brought it up... It goes without saying, but we'll need to stick to WP:NOTNEWS -- Tytrox (talk) 09:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, I've found a new Brisbane Times article and The Conversation article] stating Pru Gordon will run for Liberal preselection and so will Jerry Nockles so it's no longer just Fiona Kotvojs that's the only known candidate now. I'll update the article; feel free to re-word, etc. Thanks, New9374 (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Unconfirmed' poll (12 June)

@Catiline52: re: the Sky News sourced poll you linked to today — I'm immediately sceptical as to its inclusion (at this stage) for two reasons: firstly, while Sky may be considered reliable, I'm not convinced the clip is verifiable as it doesn't mention which political party commissioned the polling, nor what the sample size is ("around 600" is vague); secondly, that One Nation is somehow polling at 3% when the party isn't running a candidate in the by-election. I lean towards its removal personally, but worth getting the thoughts of others on this. Heyitsstevo (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of One Nation is likely due to the poll being run before the candidates were confirmed. I don't really have any strong feelings over it's inclusion, it's only a small poll, I'm happy to hear other editors views.Catiline52 (talk) 06:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]