Talk:Results of the 2020 Northern Territory general election

Changes to results article

My thinking on each type of change is as follows: 1) Number of candidates per party/grouping - I thought it would be of interest and it gives a better sense of the election and the results. It is as per the 2019 UK election results - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_breakdown_of_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election

2) N/A for changes to candidate % vote - N/A is as per the election template box and indicates the party did not run at the previous election or the individual did not run last election for independents. Example here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsover_(UK_Parliament_constituency) Please note I have not edited the page I am using as an example.

3) Election box layout - It gives a cleaner look to space it and lay it out as I have which makes life easier for subsequent editors. It does not change the look of the actual article.

4) Changes to turnout %'s - This just makes sense surely? —Benawu2 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your edits. Here are my thoughts/concerns:

1. Number of candidates is fine in the summary table – it's just that you lumped hundreds of changes into a single edit, and my main concern was the N/As (the next point), however I couldn't unpick all those so had to bulk revert. Maybe break these changes into sections or several edits so some can be kept and controversial ones can be reverted and discussed.
2. I know the UK election results use N/A where a party or independent hasn't run before, but that's a consensus and style for those editors to reach and abide by. The Australian results pages usually use the AEC and ABC formats as best practice which show this as a swing from 0 (such as Aston (AEC), Aston (ABC)). I was going to say the New Zealand election pages also do this, but they are a bit inconsistent (sometimes they have the change like "+2.3", sometimes it is blank, but they don't seem to ever use N/A). Apart from the five or so NT districts where you have added N/A and re-ordered the results chronologically, thousands of results tables for Australian state and territory elections use the change from 0. I don't think using N/A is an improvement, or that we should be beholden to the UK style.
3. Again, the summary box is generally OK, spacing is good. However, I'm not keen on the ±0 in the seat change column unless we are using the + and − symbols for the changes rather than and , as the symbol fits in better with that aesthetic.
4. Generally yes, but technically because there was a boundary redistribution in 2019, the 2016 formal/informal percentages and turnouts no longer apply. While Antony Green did publish the vote percentages for the redistributed boundaries, this did not include the estimated % informal and turnout, so just subtracting from the 2016 percentages would be inaccurate. That said, there were some seats with no boundary changes like Nelson, so that could show the turnout change accurately. --Canley (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I just realised with (3) you were talking about adding spaces to align the wikitext fields—that's absolutely fine, and you're right, doesn't change the page appearance and does make it easier to read and edit the wikitext. Once again, because this was lumped into a single massive edit, it couldn't be unpicked easily.

Also, argh, if you're going to be doing so much work in the election results area, please use minus signs (−) from the Math and logic shortcut menu in swing columns rather than plain old hyphens (-). --Canley (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The reason candidates like Raj Samson, Scott McConnell and Trevor Jenkins have the party left blank instead of using "Independent" is because they are members of parties not registered with NTEC (such as UAP in Samson's case), so technically they are not independent. While NTEC does list them without an "Independent" notation on the candidate listing, they do have them as "Ind" on their results pages, so I guess this is OK.

There is an error in the results for Arnhem, which says there is a +9.1 swing to Labor—I think it's preferable not to include a swing in that row where the two-candidate count is so different, but even then, it should be a −9.1 swing for Labor. --Canley (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The reliability of Wikipedia depends upon verification by reliable sources - in this case the swing is listed by ABC NT Votes. I am not aware of any reliable source that lists the swing in the NT as N/A in the manner done by Benawu2 & I have corrected the swing accordingly. --Find bruce (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Find bruceCanley Canley/Bruce - N/A is used in the US and UK election templates. Bruce see my thinking above as to why. However there is no reason why Australian election boxes have to be the same so I won't use N/A like that again and will change the other pages back. Canley I agree with you about which - sign to use. Where do I find the preferred one? Re changes to turnout - The results page was a bit of an inconsistent mess. Some seats had no changes to formal/informal, some had those but no turnout changes and some had neither. My approach here and elsewhere has been to take the approach of consistency. If a seat has changed enough to be a "new" seat then that should apply to candidate vote totals, turnout and formality. Otherwise all 3 should be changed.

Benawu2 (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

In full agreement with Canley on all of the above points. I will say that the addition of candidate numbers to the results table is a definite improvement and provides important context; I'd be more than happy to see that roll out across all single-member results tables (Senate/Hare-Clark states are a bit different and would probably need a different approach).

Regarding "new" seats - election analysts are able to calculate notional margins (and often electoral commissions do this themselves). It is completely standard to use these notional totals to calculate swing. The only issue with the informal votes etc. is that no one has calculated them in some cases so we have no figure to use. Frickeg (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for considering the suggestions. In answer to some of your questions and points:

• The minus sign character: just under the editing textbox, there is a menu saying "Insert" with some special characters like en dash and so on. If you select "Math and logic" from the menu, the first button is for the minus sign. You can also copy it from the other rows.
• With informal rate and turnout, the inconsistency was because there was no change to the boundaries of Goyder, Nhulunbuy/Mulka, Nelson and Port Darwin, so they showed the change, but the others have considerable differences to their notional composition and voting pattern, so just using the last election figures is inaccurate. I could estimate the new figures, but that's original research so we'd need a reliable source like Antony Green to do this as per the vote percentages (he has done this in the past but not this year). If there is concern about the inconsistency of 4 divisions showing changes and the others not, I'd be inclined to leave them all blank. --Canley (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The point I was getting at is that is a seats boundaries change enough for turnout changes to be blank then so should changes to votes for candidates also? Benawu2 (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

No, because as both Frickeg and I have mentioned above, we have a reliable source (ABC election analyst Antony Green) who has estimated the vote percentages and two-candidate margins for the new boundaries—if this was not available then yes, it would be appropriate to omit the column entirely or populate it with N/A or leave it blank. However he has not calculated (or at least not published) the corresponding turnout or informality rate. --Canley (talk) 05:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Okey dokey. Have changed this article to . Have changed the 3? seat results pages to remove N/A except where it is actually the case e.g. after an unopposed re-election.

Cheers. Benawu2 (talk) 11:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)