Talk:Candidates of the 2019 Australian federal election

Katter column removed?

I did all that and it just got reverted. There's more Katter candidates announced than One Nation candidates. It's got nothing to do with having a candidate in every electorate, they're obviously an established party. What's the point of reverting it when we get closer to the election and will have even more candidates by then anyway? Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

At the last election they endorsed 12 candidates, and not that many for the state election either (which was a successful strategy they are likely to repeat!). One Nation is overwhelmingly likely to run for every seat. If we get to the election and no one else has endorsed a full slate (fairly unlikely, but definitely possible), or they endorse a larger than expected group, they can have a column then. (This is partly why I always think we write these pages too early, but I recognise that ship has sailed.) Frickeg (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

They've endorsed a candidate for the Division of Wright though, so they're likely to have a candidate in at least every non-metropolitan seat. None of that is relevant though, there's no requirement that they have a candidate in every or most seats to be in their own column. It's unlikely but not impossible that One Nation will run in every Queensland seat. KAP has endorsed six candidates and that's enough for a column to list those candidates separately, since it's about removing the clutter from the "others" column. Most of all it's just completely unnecessary bureaucracy to revert a constructive edit when there's no need to, especially when it will be restored in the future anyway. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

How does endorsing a candidate in Wright indicate they're likely to run in every non-metro seat? (Last time they ran in Longman and Rankin, but not in Hinkler.) And how is that relevant anyway? You are correct that there is no requirement that a party run in every seat to get their own column, but it is generally expected that they would run in at least half, because otherwise you have a half-blank column that takes up a lot more space than their inclusion in the Others column would. At this stage these tables require us to make reasonable judgements based on past and present evidence, and the evidence makes it very likely that KAP will not run in more than half of Queensland's seats (based on recent state and federal elections), whereas the evidence for One Nation is the reverse (I would expect they will end up with columns in every state, but that's a bit premature for now). KAP got a column in 2013, when they ran in most seats, but not 2016, where they did not. I hardly think it's bureaucracy to remove a column that will just need to be removed later anyway. Frickeg (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The evidence shows that the Katter party is not repeating their small target strategy of the last state election, and of course there was a state election where they ran candidates in Brisbane too. Just on where they've announced candidates this election, it's more areas than the equivalent for where they ran at the last state election. There's no evidence for One Nation running in every seat, or even in most seats, this is completely unfounded political analysis. It is not true that it is very likely KAP won't run in more than half of Queensland's seats, that's something we simply don't know. If we want to look at trends then it would suggest KAP will run more candidates than One Nation (and they have more candidates currently too), but none of that should matter. We clearly have enough candidates for a Katter column, where all the evidence suggests they will have a similar amount but probably more candidates than One Nation will in Queensland. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

We do not have enough candidates for a Katter column on its own merits - that number would be at least 16, and probably more. I don't see any evidence that KAP is likely to abandon its regionalised, small-target strategy (even if they did run in every regional seat - which they might! - it still wouldn't be enough for a column). They have announced six candidates, five of them in seats they ran in last time (leaving seven seats they ran in last time unaccounted for!). There is zero - zero - indication they intend to run in significantly more seats than last time, and yes I did look (please provide any evidence I may have missed). In the last state and federal elections for which they ran, they did not run close to enough for a column of their own; whereas One Nation did, in the last state election, and it's hardly "unfounded political analysis" to say that they are a clearly national party attempting a wide-ranging campaign in a way KAP is not. At this point, though, I am happy to turn it over to other points of view - maybe I'm completely off base here. @Canley: @The Drover's Wife: Frickeg (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

First of all if you want to bring in more voices, which I agree with, it would be better to take it to the Australian noticeboard rather than choosing specific people. You agreed there wasn't a required number but now you're proposing a requirement of sixteen, when there's no particular reason for that to be sixteen except that it's roughly half.

At the state election, KAP contested 10 of the 93 seats which is 11%. For the upcoming federal election they have announced candidates for 6 out of 30 seats, being 20% and clearly we anticipate that to rise. That's very much a difference in their strategy from the last state election. It's not just that we can predict they will be running a broader campaign this time, it's that we already know they are.

Either way it's quite a trial to justify having a column for One Nation but not Katter when there are more KAP state and federal elected representatives and when KAP has announced more candidates than One Nation. It seems you've assumed, and it's not clear to me why, that One Nation would be running more candidates than KAP. I think it makes sense to just not have reverted the creation of a new column since it wouldn't have been a problem either way. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

(Would completely agree with putting a note at WT:AUP - I specifically pinged those two because they have both had major involvement with these pages in the past.) Frickeg (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Didn't see the tagging, stumbled across it anyway. I think there's no reason to jump the gun here - both ON and KAP have announced way, way short of a full slate (and there's missing Palmer candidates that they may even equal them). Neither had columns in 2016. It seems to me that we're better off crossing this bridge when any of these parties turn up with close to a full slate. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Having anything like the full amount of candidates wasn't the reason for the column though. It was because it's a party with several elected representatives with currently more than a few candidates, which is distinct from the other small parties and independent candidates running. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Jim Casey

What is the source for saying that Jim Casey is running for Grayndler again? Neither the Greens website nor his own social media indicate this. Constant Pedant (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

We really need a reference for every single candidate here, I don't think that's too much to ask. When there are no sources there are likely to be a few errors, and we shouldn't risk that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I've removed Casey - there's no evidence he's running. While everything should certainly be referenced somehow, it ends up being much easier to keep as much as possible to general references (party websites) listed at the bottom, since eventually the reference for this page will be the AEC and it's a pain to pull out all the thousands of individual references when the official nominations are announced. If people feel really strongly, citing the party's "Our candidates" page in the title row could be an acceptable compromise, and then there could be additional citations for anyone not listed there (or we could use The Tally Room as a general source if people are satisfied it's an RS, which I am) - but filling out this page when nominations close is a huge job as it is and I'd strongly suggest we don't make it more onerous than it has to be. Frickeg (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

If the only source for a candidate is one of those "our candidates" page, they should be sourced individually using that citation. I don't think anybody would reject The Tally Room and The Poll Bludger as reliable sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem with doing that, as Frickeg said, is that it means that the table is filled with hundreds of largely pointless individual citations to the same sources which then become a nightmare to clean up when the whole table winds up sourced to the one AEC source at close of nominations. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

We don't have to use the AEC as a reference. I don't think anybody should bother changing them into AEC links. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The AEC becomes the more reliable source at that point, since some endorsed candidates may not necessarily nominate. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Should be fine to just keep the references we have there and then have a link to the AEC down the bottom. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

He has announced it on his Facebook page –LeoC12 (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

"All other pages are in alphabetical order"?

Our results articles are in population size order, which is pretty standard. I don't see why this should be otherwise but I'll let people discuss. I don't really see it as that important either way. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Standard for what? Every other "candidates" article is in alphabetical order, it's not obvious what order they're supposed to be in until it's explained, and it makes it more difficult to find stuff. We've never got around to agreeing on a good standard format for the results pages, and they look like a right mess in the scrambled order. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, I change my mind. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

PPAU

Hello.

With the layout, it appears beyond my skills, to edit the web page, so I am advising that I have found the web page at https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Federal_Election_2019/Preselection_Nominations which names the candidates so far selected for the Pirate Party of Australia (PPAU), for some seats in each of the two chambers of the parliament, for one of the editors of this web page, who knows (more than I) how to add them to the web page. I hope that this information is helpful. I hope that this submission displays correctly, as my knowledge and skills are lacking. Haeretic (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Haeretic

"Please note, these candidates are not yet formally endorsed by the party. This list is neither exhaustive nor final." https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Federal_Election_2019 . It appears they're only preselection candidates and not official candidates yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catiline52 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

:From an email message received from Clive Myers, both he and Paul De Abel are confirmed candidates. My reading of the web page, is that the names listed there, are the names of the people selected by the pre-selection meetings. If anyone doubts that they are real candidates, perhaps, an editor could send an email message to the secretary of the party, requesting clarification of exactly who are endorsed candidates.Haeretic (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Haeretic

:Catiline52 - I believe that the web page that you cited, is superseded by the web page that I cited; "This page was last edited on 26 November 2018, at 01:21." vs "This page was last edited on 10 December 2018, at 20:52.". However, if the PPAU candidates are to be omitted, for whatever reason, then, so be it. I have done my bit, in advising of the candidates for the PPAU. What is chosen to be done with the information, is for others to decide. Haeretic (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC) Haeretic

New liberal party candidate for Stirling in WA

At https://www.watoday.com.au/politics/western-australia/libs-pick-former-army-officer-bishop-staffer-as-candidate-in-stirling-20190223-p50zu4.html is report of new candidate for Stirling in WA, for liberal party, to replace Keenan. Vince Connolly is his name, I believe. Haeretic (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Haeretic

Haeretic (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC) Haeretic

References

Columns for UAP

@Catiline42: Are we sure about a column for UAP? There may be an issue of undue weight. I think at least we should include a column for KAP in Queensland, who are equivalent to the Greens in country Queensland electorates. UAP is unlikely to make an impact in any particular seat except Herbert where Clive Palmer is contesting. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a huge amount of candidates they're running in this election with them running in nearly every electorate so far. I'm unsure how we should sort these; they're not running at the same scale as the minor parties which are placed in "Other" which run in a handful of seats. When I placed them in the other section, there a lot of repeated content such as the references and the party tag. If we continued doing this for every UAP candidate, there would be 150 redundant references. I'll cease adding more UAP tables for the different states lower house seats though and see what other editors think, I'm honestly unsure of where we should place them. Catiline52 (talk) 04:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a set criterion of which parties get added to their own column on the table. It'll help with figuring out whether parties like the KAP or UAP will be added. Catiline52 (talk) 04:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Do they currently have endorsed candidates in nearly every seat? If not, no column. Saves an enormous amount of arguing about edge cases. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not just about how many candidates they endorse, it's about the significance of the party as well. For example KAP has more elected members in the House of Representatives and Queensland Legislative Assembly than the Greens, and is likely to exceed their primary vote in many electorates. UAP has less elected members than the Greens, and is unlikely to exceed their primary vote in more than a few seats. (NOTE: Queensland only.)Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The statement about KAP is very wrong and a bit strange: the Greens have both a state and federal representation many times that of KAP. The parties have the same federal representation in Queensland and KAP only marginally more in the QLA. And this is another example of why trying to quantify "significance" winds up in pointless and strange discussions, as opposed to just asking whether the party has enough candidates to need their own column. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

What? I'm referring to Queensland, in the House of Representatives in the federal parliament, and in the Queensland Legislative Assembly. I think if it appears I've said something so strange, then it's not actually what I said. I'm only referring to the Queensland table, so I don't think the Katter party should have a column for any other state. This matter of significance is actually vey straightforward, they are significant in Queensland. It's not simply about having "enough" candidates, what matters is giving the parties due weight as to their role in the election. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I support both Catiline52 and The Drover's Wife suggestions to avoid ongoing and unnecessary argument. I think by trying to quantify significance and use subjective criterion is going to create endless debate. What's wrong with us just having an objective criterion onetwothreeip as Catiline52 has suggested? We just need to decide what objective criterion we want to use. I think The Drover's wife option is a fair suggestion. Merphee (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

My objective criteria would be if they are comparable in significance to the Greens in a particular state, since we all agree that the Greens are an important minor party. This also includes Centre Alliance in South Australia, even though they have only endorsed candidates in less than half of the South Australian electorates, and One Nation in Queensland despite endorsing candidates in less than half of the electorates. I would simply apply the same to Katter's Australian Party, solely in Queensland. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with these criteriums, alongside with the addition that parties which run candidates in a significant number of electorates should be sorted into their own column. Catiline52 (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

That really excludes UAP from having a column, which I think is particularly inappropriate since it gives undue weight to that party. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

If we're considering the benchmark to be that the party needs to have a similar presence to the Greens, CA, and ON, should the SFF be given their own column in NSW once they've announced candidates due to their recent success in the NSW election? Catiline52 (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I would think so, for New South Wales. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Only if they announce candidates for more than half of NSW's seats, which seems unlikely. Once again, getting a column is not about the significance or otherwise of your party, it is about how many candidates you're running. Significance only comes into play if there are too many parties running candidates in most seats and there isn't room for them all. Frickeg (talk) 06:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of announcing candidates for more than half of New South Wales seats. Columns go to the significant parties, and the rest are placed in an others column. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

No. These tables are meant to present information in a concise, readable way. Half-empty columns are counter-productive, look appalling, and actively make the page harder to read. If the SFF run in a significant number of seats (which they are unlikely to, but we'll see), they get a column. If not, they don't. That is how these tables have always worked, and they have worked well. Frickeg (talk) 07:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

This isn't getting anywhere, we are just contradicting each other, but I maintain that columns will be there for significant parties. It may not be optimal to have empty cells, but it's also visually unappealing to have cells with far too much content relative to others. That is truly how information can be presented as concise and as readable as possible. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

UAP is running candidates in every seat. There is no question they should have a column. Frickeg (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Completely WP:UNDUE, they are simply not a party anywhere near as important as the Liberal, Labor, National and Greens parties. Not just a matter of running in many seats. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, and has never been how we approach these. Check out literally any other candidates page - you'll see columns for CDP, definitely PUP, Family First, going back to Communists and others. Frickeg (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Their obviously shouldn't have been columns for those parties either, except maybe PUP in 2013. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree UAP should have a column as they are running in every seat. Preferable to applying a subjective view of "importance". --Canley (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Both should be considered, importance and candidates. Reliable sources are not considering UAP as one of the four major parties in this election, it's not the view of any editor that UAP is unimportant. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

It is not undue to make tables easier to read by giving parties running a large number of candidates their own column; as you yourself argue above this helps with readability. Where there are so many parties running significant candidates (or where one doing so is a clear micro-party), then decisions may need to be made about significance. That is not the case here, and is also (contrary to your edit summary) not what the discussion above concluded - literally everyone apart from you agrees that the criteria should be based on number of candidates running, which is why I didn't think we needed to discuss this. I've already added NSW, but as this has been questioned, I'll hold off adding any more for a bit until others weigh in. Frickeg (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Given the lack of candidates for KAP and SFF, I don't think they should have their own columns either. UAP as a party is as significant in parliament as the Motoring Enthusiast Party was with one senator (and didn't win any last time), so it depends how you define "micro-party". I'm not the criteria shouldn't be based on the number of candidates running, it's just not all that it's based on. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

No one is disputing KAP and SFF. Also, please undo the NSW revert - I spent ages digging out the forest of useless refs (which I specifically pointed out would be a pain, but you ignored me) and fixed a number of typos which are now unfixed. You are the one arguing against the status quo here. Frickeg (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The arguments for separate party columns should be volume of candidates and readability of the table. Perceived importance/significance is a subjective judgement and impossible to quantify. We should have a simple criterion like "if a party fields candidates in at least 90% of electorates in a state, they will be reported here in a separate column". WWGB (talk) 03:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree broadly with this, with the proviso that "if this would result in there being more than five/six (?) columns, preference should be given to parties with elected representatives" or something like that. I would also probably say 75%/80% rather than 90%, and that it should generally be taken with a grain of salt, especially relating to Tas/territories - I see no reason to give the Australian Progressives a column in the ACT, for example. Frickeg (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

That's really the issue, we're rightfully not giving Australian Progressives a column, even though there is room. This might be Clive Palmer's party but really it's closer to being like this Australian Progressives party than one of the major parties, at least by media sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

They're pretty different, actually. One is being included in a number of major national opinion polls and is being discussed quite a lot; the other has a total of 158 hits on Google News, none of which are significant coverage of the party itself and around half of which aren't about it at all (instead about Australian progressives generally). Also, if the Progressives were running in every seat nationally, this might be more of a fair comparison. Frickeg (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

No, that neither Australian Progressives or United Australia Party are being discussed to the extent that the Coalition, Labor and Greens parties are being discussed and reported. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

No one other than you is saying that should be what we're basing this decision on. I'm going to leave this discussion for a while since I don't think we're getting anywhere here - let's let a consensus develop. I'll drop a note on WT:AUP. Frickeg (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to note that the UAP is getting discussed and reported at around the same level as One Nation at the moment. "A surge in support for Clive Palmer on the back of a $30 million ­advertising campaign has given the billionaire the power to act as kingmaker in marginal seats, as the Coalition closes in on Labor in at least two of those electorates." (14% Herbert, 5% Deakin, 7% Lindsay, 8% Pearce) The ABC has also been reporting on the relative importance of the UAP on the campaign.

Looks like it's even bigger than I expected. As I mentioned in Talk:Opinion polling for the 2019 Australian federal election, the UAP is appearing in most political polling alongside the Greens and One Nation. In my opinion, I think this warrants a new column for the party, as well as them being shown in the polling graphs. If we base whether a party should be shown based on pre-existing success, no rising party would be shown until the next election. I don't think any other Wikipedia election page does it that way. Catiline52 (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

It would depend how high they are polling, especially in each state, and not seat polls. There's no doubt KAP is polling well in Kennedy, or Centre Alliance in Mayo. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Centre Alliance in SA

Well, it's been nearly a week, and this seems a pretty clear consensus reading the discussion overall. From the very beginning, only one person opposes columns for candidates running in every seat. Over the weekend I will separate out UAP into columns. I do not propose to make any other changes to the House column layout, with the exception of merging Centre Alliance into Others in SA for obvious reasons. Frickeg (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Surely Centre Alliance would have its own column in the South Australia table. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Why? They are only running three candidates, and as the discussion above establishes very extensively, number of candidates is the key consideration here. Frickeg (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

It would certainly be the main consideration for a party like UAP, but Centre Alliance is of comparable importance to the Greens in South Australia. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

"Importance" is a vague, objective way to make this distinction, and this has been well established above with KAP/SFF/others. The consensus above is clearly in favour of using number of candidates as the principle measure. Frickeg (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Both measures should be considered, and Centre Alliance is running multiple candidates in South Australia. Importance may be vague but so is an arbitrary number of candidates. We regularly evaluate importance and relevance throughout editing Wikipedia by relying on reliable sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Fine, we'll do this all again. I will leave the CA column for now and re-advertise at WT:AUP. Frickeg (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

My preference is for Centre Alliance to be in the Other column, as Frickeg proposes. --Canley (talk) 03:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

In SA, Centre Alliance is probably more "important" than the Greens, but the point is that CA has only fielded three lower house candidates, not ten, so has a mostly-white column. Not all of us use wide screens that easily render wide tables well. They are the three largest electorates by area, so CA has a possibility that the state map could look quite orange, but that is not the point any more than putting SFFF in its own column in Candidates of the 2019 New South Wales state election. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

And much more important than United Australia Party. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The question here is not about electoral importance, it's about displaying data in a meaningful and compact manner. If screen width was not important, then every party should have its own column, and the white space conveys its own meaning. Trying to make the page as compact as possible, I don't see that three rows out of ten is enough, even though one is a sitting member. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I understand this, but I also think we should uphold WP:DUEWEIGHT in these considerations. Ultimately it is not that dramatic either way. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I have been WP:BOLD (perhaps too much) and swapped the AJP to have a full column in SA, and the three CA candidates to Others. I was surprised by how much smaller the table went both in narrow and wide windows, so saved it rather than just posting to this talk page for comment. My measure of "importance" is purely about efficient use of screen space. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

One Nation in WA

I also think it's worth looking at a One Nation column in WA - they're running in every seat there, there are a large number of candidates per seat, handling an extra column is a bit easier because there's no Coalition (so the Coalition column doesn't have to include Lib/Nat, which always widens it), and, if you need an "importance" argument, they have three state MPs and a sitting senator. Frickeg (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

My assessment of importance has largely relied on the party's ability to win seats or get a disruptive amount of the lower house vote. I would lean against including One Nation in Western Australia, since three upper house state MPs and a senator puts them roughly around SFF in New South Wales, probably lesser. It might be valid on their statewide polling but I haven't checked. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

BludgerTrack has One Nation on 6.7% in WA, although for my money this continues to be more about number of candidates than us trying to prognosticate what sort of vote a party might get. Frickeg (talk) 06:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I did not feel as confident about adding a PHON column, so have only done it in my sandbox. It's better for "wide enough" and very narrow windows, but not always better (in my browser) for mid-width browser windows, so I haven't been as bold as I was for SA yet. The criterion of "candidate in every seat" is met by PHON in WA, and I most other states have five party columns. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I think if we're going with the AJP column in SA, it makes sense to add PHON in WA. With mid-width windows, there is always going to be a bit of push-and-pull there - I generally think we shouldn't go beyond six candidate columns (five in states with the Coalition in operation, i.e. NSW and Vic), but up to six is fine; but this is for my browser settings and perhaps it impacts others more. We should also note Fraser Anning's party is running in every Queensland seat, but since we already have six columns there keeping them in the Others seems the best option. Frickeg (talk) 04:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I've pasted in the PHON column change from my sandbox now. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Fraser Anning's Conservative National Party in Queensland

As Frickeg noted above, it looks like Fraser Anning's Conservative National Party has a candidate in every Queensland seat, so by that objective criteria could be split out to its own column as well. That may not result in a net decrease in space, as there are a number of seats where the FACNP candidate is the only person in "other", so it would leave a blank space in that column. I am not trying to sandbox it at the moment to find out, but can try if someone asks me to. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I think leaving out FACNP makes sense. For readability there has to be a limit to the number of columns, and as I said above, that is when the "importance" argument comes into it. If only two of PHON/UAP/FACNP are to have a column, then FACNP is the obvious one to leave out - it has no electoral form, is running the lowest number of candidates nationally, and has not been included in published opinion polls. Should it end up surprising everyone, this can be revisited post-election. Frickeg (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

References

No Kirralie Smith. Yes Emma Azzopadi

Kirralie Smith is not running for Conservative party

Emma Azzopadi is running for One Nation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auspolwatching (talk • contribs) 01:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks like Azzopadi didn't nominate. --Canley (talk) 02:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

As a purely trivial thing, while going through the candidate checklists - it turns out she did, but she's now known as Emma Illies (One Nation #2 in SA). Frickeg (talk) 11:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. --Canley (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

---

DLP NSW omission

Could somebody please add the DLP Senate candidates for NSW. They have been left out for some reason 1. Daniel HANNA; 2. Benedict O'BRIEN / I could have a go at doing it, but I don't want to mess the table up. Mrodowicz (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've done it. --Canley (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)