Talk:Candidates of the 2025 Australian federal election

Moving to mainspace timing

Hi all, The timing for returning this to mainspace is the guideline "until the next Australian federal election's date and candidates are more certain and there is more content for an article".

What are our thoughts about exactly when that is? I have a few options we could consider:

• Submit immediately and continue building in mainspace
• Move when we are within one year of the election (24th of May)
• Move when a majority of seats have a candidate listed in them
• Move when all seats have the major party candidates listed
• Move when all seats have all candidates listed
• Move when the election is called (Likely 5-10 weeks before the election)

I think it's useful to have consensus discussed ahead of time about what we want this article to look like in a "ready" state. GraziePrego (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Politely notifying those involved in previous discussions:

@TarnishedPath, @Mangoe, @Onetwothreeip, @Teraplane, @Ajf773, @J2m5, @Marcnut1996, @ITBF, @Cabrils, @SportingFlyer, @ToadetteEdit, @Villian Factman, @Asilvering, @Samoht27, @Stifle, @Frank_Anchor, @Alalch E., @SmokeyJoe, @Enos733, @Robert McClenon. GraziePrego (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this. Unfortunately the closing comment that "the page will inevitably move back to mainspace once nominations begin in earnest" doesn't provide much guidance about timing. The closer did state that "for the vast majority of races, candidates have not yet been decided" and similar comments were made by the draftify votes. Based on that, I think having at least one confirmed candidate in a majority of seats (including the Senate) would be a reasonable metric - obviously with inline citations as per the current state of the article. ITBF (talk) 06:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to echo ITBF and say when there are confirmed candidates in a majority of seats. I think that is in line with the two AfD results and the recent deletion review close. TarnishedPath^talk 06:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a sensible metric. - Enos733 (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

There's 62 references, the article follows the format of previous candidates articles, and we are sooner to the election than when all the other candidates articles were published. I have no problem pushing this into article space and contributions can continue there. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Move when the majority of seats have two or more candidates listed (each properly sourced); or

move when a major newspaper or magazine publishes a guide to candidates in a majority of seats.

— SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a good measure. Currently only 3.33% of lower house seats have 2 or more candidates so still a long way to go. Teraplane (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I think "the majority of seats" is probably too high, since parties don't always run candidates in every possible seat, and also because I think it's quite likely that coverage of various individual races will be uneven, prioritizing areas that look to be more competitive. What I mean here is that we may have a situation where the majority of candidates are listed, or the majority of contested races are listed, but the article does not yet meet a "majority of seats" guideline. At that point I do think that people will be coming to wikipedia for this information, and we ought to have an article for them to find.

Does it make sense to add "move when a majority of seats have a candidate listed by one specific party" to the two above? eg, if Labor has a candidate listed for at least half of the seats, we can move it.

I should add that I don't have any particular interest in this article and won't be editing it myself. My position in the AfD and in general is simply that I think it is fine to have articles that are mostly unfinished in mainspace, so that they can be edited and improved. -- asilvering (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

since parties don't always run candidates in every possible seat is definitely not true. Looking at the prior election, I don’t see a single seat with less than five parties running. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

and the big, big issue with this article is that the vast majority of electorates have absolute no candidates listed. How can an article claim to call itself "Candidates of the next Australian federal election" when it fails to tell us who the vast majority of those candidates are? TarnishedPath^talk 05:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• It was ready for mainspace when it was at AfD. There are currently sourced announced candidates. Just move the damn thing already. SportingFlyer T·C 16:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  It fails the GNG, no secondary source content. So it’s justification relies on being a navigation aid.

  As primary source data, it is woefully incomplete. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  There's 64 secondary sources, it more than meets general notability. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  There is no secondary source content in the article. It is all data. And as data, it is terribly incomplete and non-randomly so. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  How is it incomplete? Most of the content is supported by secondary sources, only some is supported by primary sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  How is it incomplete? Is that a serious question?

  There is no secondary source content on the page. Would you like to give me an example of a source being used as a secondary source? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Isn’t this a secondary source? The primary source it’s discussing is Reynolds’ Facebook post. GraziePrego (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  There is a difference between a secondary source, and sourced content that is secondary source content. Sourcing facts from a secondary source doesn’t make the facts into secondary source content. The draft is all facts, facts are always primary source content, however sourced. The secondary sources are not being used as secondary sources. The point is that the draft will be found to fail the GNG. It’s claim for inclusion is as important spinout data (table of the candidates), and right now it is mostly empty cells. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  There's no argument about GNG, the candidates articles meet general notability. Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source, not a random collection of facts. Refer to WP:NOT. TarnishedPath^talk 13:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  This is not a candidate’s article. Most of the candidates at Candidates of the 2022 Australian federal election are not Wikipedia-notable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Of course it's not a candidate's article. It is a candidates article, which is notable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Which source discusses the set of candidates collectively? Find that one, and it’s time to move to mainspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  All 64 sources discuss the candidates, and most are secondary sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  Source typing requires examination of how the source is being used. A source may be primary for one purpose, and secondary for another. This page is an extreme example of facts only. Every source is being used as a primary source, for a fact. There is no transformation of facts into information in this page. It cannot be justified through the GNG. A GNG-based argument will not save it in mainspace.

  Its justification will be as a source for the set of candidates. While most seats don’t have candidates, it fails that purpose. It currently implies that most seats have no candidates. It is too drafty. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  Lists of candidates are generally notable (GNG). Most sources are secondary sources, as they are secondary to the event. The tables implying that most seats have no candidates is purely an editorial dispute - the cells without candidates used to contain "TBD". Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  Read WP:NLIST. A list (or table) of all candidates in all seats in a national election is never a notable standalone list.

  Read secondary source again. You are blurring from the historiographical term to the journalism term. Wikipedia is historiography, not journalism. Sure, anticipation of near future news, almost entirely sourced to newspapers, sounds like journalism, but Wikipedia is not journalism. For Wikipedia, newspapers are the worst acceptable sources.

  The list of all candidates does not belong in mainspace until it is a list of candidates. “Majority of seats with two or more declared candidates” I think is a good pragmatic test for when the list is getting serious. I assume that this will be well before the date of the election is declared. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't need to read those pages. Wikipedia is neither journalism nor historiography, it is an encyclopaedia. A list with any amount of candidates is notable, and there is no minimum candidate requirement for this article to exist. Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  "A list with any amount of candidates is notable". So a list with one non-notable candidate satisfies WP:GNG? Is that your argument? TarnishedPath^talk 14:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  If it's sourced, yes. It's an article related to the article for the election itself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  If non-notable candidate doesn't pass WP:GNG for their own article, how do you propose that a list with only that same candidate would pass WP:GNG? TarnishedPath^talk 00:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  I agree, but that wasn't how the AfD was closed, so we have to work with what we've got. -- asilvering (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no strong views. Stifle (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

i concur with SmokeyJoe. J2m5 (talk) 09:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

To clarify – I concur with their suggested way forward not the secondary source stuff J2m5 (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the Candidate selection is getting momentum. Villian Factman (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• Maybe, if for all sitting members who are not known to be not running, they were included as “presumed <incumbant>”, then the table would look less ridiculous. At the moment, it looks like the governing party has no candidates. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  Presuming incumbents are going to be the candidates for the next election and putting their names into the tables, without sourcing, strikes me as original research. TarnishedPath^talk 00:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

There's a lot of candidates now. Any objections to moving into mainspace? Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

No objection from me! We have lots now. Time to make it a main space project. Great work everyone for building it over months. GraziePrego (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Victoria table, UAP?

I understand that Ralph Babet is still a UAP senator and all that. But considering that the UAP is no longer a registered political party, I dont think it can be expected that the UAP will be running candidates this election. Should their column be removed? DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

That is valid. If you want to remove it, I'd support that action. However, I am expecting them to try to re-register and run candidates. Babet has said that the deregistration is for "administrative reasons" and that the party will "reestablish before the next election" here. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I think I will remove it but I do agree that they will probably attempt to re-register. If they do and once the announce candidates that might be a good time to reinclude it DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Premiership tickets

There is no such thing as a 'Premiership ticket' in a Westminster system. Therefore, I propose removing the section. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there is a problem with the wording in retrospect and will happily rename and edit it to represent a sort of party leaders/prime minister candidate model. However i think it provides a glance of information to show readers who the major players are, and that is why i created the section DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The wording is fine. There is no problem with the use of the word 'Premiership' in relation to the Prime Minister. The problem is that the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister are appointed by the Governor General of Australia, not at an election. There are not officially any 'Prime-ministerial candidates'. The election is for the Members of Parliament, from whom the Governor General appoints the Prime Minister. The term 'major players' is highly subjective. A section such as this would be suitable for a presidential election, not for a Westminster Parliamentary system. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay well if its that deep im fine with it being removed. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The party leadership is also covered pretty prominently in the main election article infobox, which is how most readers will find this page. ITBF (talk) 09:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Higgins

Higgins is going! Question now is, do we remove the candidates we had listed, or leave them with a note that the electorate is being abolished? They were candidates selected for that seat so I'm inclined to propose we keep them for historical record. It's of interest to know that Katie Allen was attempting to come back as a former member for the seat, and the unusual dual candidate proposal etc. Happy to hear everyone's thoughts though. GraziePrego (talk) 11:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The article's name is "Candidates of the next Australian federal election". TarnishedPath^talk 22:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I propose we remove the Higgins candidates from the table and add prose below the table discussing those candidates. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The status of the seat of Higgins has already been recorded at Division of Higgins. I see no value in adding pre-selected candidates for a now defunct seats. The other candidates colums records the joint team of Bock and Brandlow. But this was a media stunt as only a single person can nominate as a candidate. Not encyclopedic to have that type of information here. Teraplane (talk) 04:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Preselection ballots

I think this section should be removed - there's no way we're ever going to get an exhaustive list of the votes in every major party preselection, much less every minor party's, and the bulk of what is currently there isn't even particularly high quality - any thoughts? Goodebening (talk) 08:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Two of those ballots are for now defunct seats and one has no source. There is no pre-selection data at Candidates of the 2022 Australian federal election. We don't need to overload this page with excessive detail of little interest to the average voter. Teraplane (talk) 05:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Really no need for them especially as quite a few of them are simply uncontested, and most are Liberal tickets which doesn't offer much insight into the party politics diversity of a seat. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree, we’re going to end up covering 0.05% of the ballots that actually take place, don’t really see much point. Agree with the points others have raised too. GraziePrego (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Eventual renaming

This article can be renamed to Candidates of the 2025 Australian federal election on the 25th of November, as that is 33 days before the last Saturday of the year. Once that date has passed, the election cannot be called for a date in 2024 and it must take place before May 2025. GraziePrego (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Senate table condensing

I am thinking that maybe we should be condensing the single-candidate minor-party senate candidates into a simple 'others' column. In the event of Victoria, the table is really just getting to large and i dont see a need for a full column for parties like VS, GAP, FF or LC. Should we do this? DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. It's the format used in all the other Senate candidate sections from previous elections. I get that it looks a bit odd right now given all the minor parties haven't announced they're running yet, and some minor parties that have are yet to reveal more than one candidate, but I think it would look worse if we were to just have Labor, Liberal, Greens, and then a long list of random minor party candidates under 'other'. It will just fill out in time. Goodebening (talk) 07:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Bradlow & Bock as Vic Senate Candidates

This has been re-introduced, citing [1] in support. But reading the content it clearly states that 'These forms only permit one person nominate as a candidate'. So this nomination cannot occur on the forms to be used for the nexct election, it just seems to be a publicity stunt. It's not encylopedic to include non-compliant potential nominations in this list. Teraplane (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Teraplane, what do secondary sources say? TarnishedPath^talk 06:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

This was the best I could find [2]. It describes House of Reps nominations but the same principles apply even more strongly to the senate. There are 12 senators per state. So accepting a dual nomination would give Victoria 13 senators, one more than all the other states. This would break the founding principle of equal representation for every state. Hence a non compliant nomination. Teraplane (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, senators are free at any point to resign and be replaced by anyone of their party's choosing. The job-sharing proposition is far more viable in the upper house than the lower. B+B could theoretically continuously resign and replace each other on, say, a month-on, month-off basis, but it would require them to be re-nominated by the Vic state parliament and re-sworn in every time. I suspect it wouldn't be long before the Vic gov got a bit annoyed, and there would probably be quite a substantial period of time across a six-year term spent without anyone sitting in the seat because of administrative delays. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 10:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

As the one who put them back (was hoping the added explainer would be a good middle ground) I am in favour of keeping them on the list until they are disqualified. I cited [3] due to the AEC acknowledging that they are intending candidates. The top of the page says "Candidates have been reported to be contesting seats for the House of Representatives and Senate at the next Australian federal election" as such I added the AEC announcement to help indicate that even though their nomination would be denied in its current state, they are still intending candidates. Considering them as two separate candidates they are both eligible to run, the only thing that would get them disqualified is filling out the form in a way that the form gets denied (which they have publicly announced their intention to do). I personally think that they should be included as they are currently fit all the required criteria to become candidates, the only thing that is in doubt is whether their application will be accepted. I hope that the explainer of the situation after their names is a good middle ground. If everyone thinks they should be excluded from the list till the time that they agree to conform to the paperwork, then I'm happy to go along with that. Afropenguin (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)