Talk:Candidates of the 2023 New South Wales state election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Withdrawal of nomination for review[edit]

Can this nomination for review be withdrawn until the article is ready? Especially since much of the article was blanked immediately before nomination, it is unlikely to be accepted in its current form.-DilatoryRevolution (talk) 04:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retiring MPs[edit]

Retiring MPs are typically placed on "Candidates" pages (see 2019, 2015, 2011, Victoria, SA). They were recently removed from this page. I am happy to review whether they belong on these pages but a consistent approach should be taken. -DilatoryRevolution (talk) 11:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I looked at other Candidates pages. I see it as a mistake on all the other pages, that the retiring candidates of the preceding parliament are listed on two pages, the election page, and the candidates page. As the retiring MPs are not candidates for the election, they don’t belong on the candidates page.
The candidates page might make a special feature of prior sitting MPs who were not elected, and elected candidates that were not prior sitting (ie newly elected), but listing prior MPs who don’t stand as candidates, on the candidates page, that doesn’t make sense, does it? SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I'm happy to review whether the retiring candidates belong on the candidate pages. I don't think that they should have been deleted from this page without discussion on whether they should be deleted from all candidate pages. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think whole sections of content forks should exist. For lots of elections, not just this upcoming ones, the retiring members are recorded (near) identically on both the election page and the candidates page. That should be fixed, record the list on one page only.
You bring up the other pages. Ok, the retiring members from the previous parliaments should be all removed from the candidates page for the following parliament. But, comparing especially US legislatures, it seems that individual pages for individual parliaments for Australian states seem to entirely missing, and maybe that is a bigger problem. Maybe retiring members should be noted as retiring on a page devoted to the particular parliament that they last served in. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The removal of retiring members from the previous parliaments from the candidates page for the following parliament should be discussed before action is taken and when action is taken, it should be consistent across all candidates pages. Australian state politics is an area that, in my view, is not adequately covered on Wikipedia. If you are proposing that you create individual pages for individual parliaments for Australian states, I would encourage you to do so if you are willing to put in the required work. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 13:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am considering creating some individual state parliament pages, for each of the states, for the last few parliaments. The data will be in the history of each of the state parliament general pages. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:DilatoryRevolution, looking around, I see that the Australian state elections have term by term elections and candidate pages, but do not have government/legislature/parliament pages.
For Austalia, it looks like dated parliament pages are only for recent parliaments, the last being 47th Parliament of Australia. I think, generally, these pages need a bit of overhaul of their structure. Do you have an opinion? SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do I have an opinion on what? On whether the Federal Parliament pages need a structural overhaul? I'm not overly fussed honestly. It seems irrelevant to this discussion on candidates of the 2023 New South Wales state election. Am I missing the connection? --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On whether the state parliaments need a structural overhaul. If your not fussed, ok thanks. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The state parliaments? You brought up the federal parliament in your last point. I don't understand what you're proposing. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 13:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I brought up the federal parliament as an example of how it is done and should be done, and propose doing a restructure of the state parliaments on the model of the federal parliament pages. Sorry, I can see I was unclear. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:DilatoryRevolution, ok, I see why retirees from the previous parliament get added to the candidates list for the next parliament, it’s because the decisions are intimately coupled, and reported on, together.
In some cases, a “retirement” appears to be a euphemism for “they lost the backing of their party”. Kind of a “forced retirement” from the parliament? SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Pearson retirement[edit]

I removed the retirement of Mark Pearson from this article as the source used (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1asrx1v3eeQS0b_WuBQp65VvsZ60_tiJW/view (pg5)) did not explicitly say that he was indeed retiring. I've since found another source (https://www.echo.net.au/2022/11/ajps-lead-candidate-is-alison-waters-from-lismore/) to indicate that the AJP will be nominating a different lead LC candidate. However this doesn't necessarily mean that Pearson won't be on the ticket - if the AJP hasn't made any substantiative media release to say that Pearson won't be on the ticket (in a winnable spot or not) then it is probably inappropriate to list him as having retired, even if there is a new lead candidate. A recent example of this would be Tien Kieu's placement on the ALP ticket in SE Metro in Vic upper house in an unwinnable spot, not being listed as a retirement as it is still a nomination. I've written this section just to notify watchlisters of this reasoning. J2m5 (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the Google Drive document is not an ideal source but the valedictory speech that I linked on the election article is fairly conclusive. There is evidence that Mark Pearson is not contesting the election as the lead candidate in the Upper House and no evidence that he is contesting another position. In my view, it is absurd to suggest that this is not evidence to suggest that he is not contesting the election. You could apply the same logic to any of the retiring incumbents on the page.
I think we can apply occam's razor here. Also, I know that this is not a source but if you talk to anyone in the AJP, they will tell you that he is retiring. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
J2m5, the Tien Kieu example is a false equivalence because there was evidence that he was contesting another position. Also, that Echo source that you found is actually the same one that I put into the article in November.--DilatoryRevolution (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DilatoryRevolution, while I don't agree that the Kieu example and this are different at all, and take offence to the idea that a lack of evidence to actually suggest that an incumbent will not take a #2 spot on the ticket to boost name recognition as "absurd" given where the burden of proof in my view lies here, I'm happy to have Pearson listed as a retirement as you're right about the dot-pointed examples you give. However if the tickets come out and Pearson is on there on any position, he needs to be removed. J2m5 (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that if he gets put on the ticket, he should be removed from the retirements list. However, I think this is very unlikely. Everyone I speak to at AJP seems pretty confident that he is retiring. Also, if you read his speech, he does not seem open to continuing. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 10:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition Legislative Council ticket[edit]

DilatoryRevolution, on a separate note shouldn't the Mason-Cox, Mallard, Amato retirements be removed given this? https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/perrottet-s-plan-to-install-liberal-women-in-upper-house-in-tatters-20221223-p5c8jz.html J2m5 (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, potentially. Quite unclear to me what's happening there right now. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 10:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Politician's foxing around...[edit]

An excellent example of this foxy malarkey is David Elliot (DE), who in his bye-bye speech left open the door to have a run in Castle Hill as his seat of Baulkham Hills was abolished in the 2019 redistribution. Logic at the time was he would move into Castle Hill and the incumbent there Ray Williams (RW) moves into the new seat of Kellyville. Simple, reasonable, both well known locally. Then at the Local Government elections all of those on The Hills Shire council, who were part of the DE group failed to receive endorsement from their own party. The new endorsed ones were from Dom the Premier's lot and they sailed in with a significant holding over the chamber. The Mayor & Deputy needless to say are aligned with the Premier, so therefore one of their own (not on council) would be endorsed for CH, a Mr. McCoy who then had his own issues to sort and wisdom was he was too hot a potato to parachute in - passing the 'chute to Dep. Mayor Hodges who will be the new member for Castle Hill. Historically the hills district, known as the bible belt, is blue ribbon heartland although the federal election has seen 2PP in Mitchell (Alex Hawke) and Berowra (Julian Leeser) returned to that of the 2007 election, those 2 federal seats now surrounded in a sea of red and teal. Other notable characters in the hills at a state level are Matt Keen (Hornsby) and Dom the Premier (Epping) and Ms. Preston (Hawkesbury), a previous Hills Shire Councillor around the same time a RW.

Moral is that don't believe anything (all is 'pending') until nominations close and the fields declared. 120.18.43.67 (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having a solid quota for a column in Candidates article tables[edit]

Hi all. Problematically, candidate list articles seem to not have a hard barrier in ascertaining which parties qualify for their own column, and which parties are instead listed in the "other" column. I'd like to propose that a number expressed as a percentage of seats that a particular party contests is agreed upon as the quota for having a dedicated column. While picking a number will obviously be arbitrary, I think we can pick a number which emphasises readability, minimising blank space, and allowing readers to quickly find a candidate from a particular party. I think a low barrier might be 60% of seats, and a high barrier might be 85% of seats. A potential problem with a number approach is that it may exclude parties which field a low number of candidates but have high political relevancy, for instance the National Party of Australia (WA). J2m5 (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Candidates_of_the_2023_New_South_Wales_state_election&oldid=1206530531"