Talk:2015 New South Wales state election

Polling

I can see absolutely no reason to include polling for the 2011 election in an article about the 2015 election. The leadership was different, the issues were different, perhaps the mood of the electorate was different. It is an attempt to compare apples and oranges. A table that reports regular polling towards the 2015 election should use the 2011 election as base data, not what the sample audience thought of the now CEO of Basketball Australia before she was dumped as Premier! WWGB (talk) 11:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The usual approach is to start with the results of the most recent election and then detail the results of the polls conducted from that time up to the next election. Nick-D (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - that's the way Newspoll do it as well (using the previous election results as the first data point). Orderinchaos 18:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree as it shows trends over time and where the party has gone (isn't it about the party not the leader?) but if people disagree, so be it. I just wish satisfaction polling was moved to the previous article than removed all together, deletionism isn't god. Timeshift (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thoroughly agree with WWGB. The previous data will still be available on the 2011 page, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with 2015. No problem with the satisfaction data being in the 2011 article (if this is bloating the article too much, there can always be a subpage). Frickeg (talk) 03:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think there is now sufficient agreement to remove the 2011 pre-election data. WWGB (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

And as for what's been removed from the encyclopedia alltogether WWGB? Timeshift (talk) 07:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that most of it was in New South Wales state election, 2011 already. WWGB (talk) 07:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

When I said as for what's been removed, i was referring to satisfaction and dissatisfaction leader ratings. Also, i'm not sure the above is a consensus to remove the poll prior to the election as a comparison for the result itself and compared accuracy. Timeshift (talk) 09:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If it's not in 2011 article (or a sub-article thereof), it should be. Orderinchaos 09:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we have the one poll 2 days before the last election included, as we do federally? It compares the poll to the result and gives an indication of how it compared. It's the standard on every Australian election wiki page with polls, and what was on this page before I added a few more. I see no reason why we wouldn't include the last one. This is in response to today's revert. Timeshift (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't mind if you include the last LA polling as an indicator of survey accuracy, but preferred premier is meaningless when one of them is now out of parliament. I'm happy to add back the LA polling. WWGB (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I find it a good compromise, it still leaves an inconsistency, and there's a LOT of election articles to change if thats what it should be. It's relevant to see how o'farrell or <insert here> was rating prior to the election. I think o'farrell's approval/disapproval 2 days prior to the last election is relevant to his current position and a bit of a copout to say otherwise. Timeshift (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, happy to add an O'Farrell pre-election score (I just did). I just cannot support a KK vs JR comparison. It's apples and oranges. WWGB (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that I can accept, with the minor presumably uncontentious modification I made. It's still an inconsistency across wiki though. Timeshift (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent IP's "dont you dare change this" vandalism

They should be happy with Miranda state by-election, 2013! Timeshift (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Imparitality

"The incumbent centre-right Liberal/National Coalition government, currently led by Premier Barry O'Farrell, will be challenged by the centre-left Australian Labor Party opposition, currently led by John Robertson." What about the other parties? Jamesjansson (talk) 07:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Which other party has any practical chance at forming government...? Timeshift (talk) 10:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jamesjansson that this article is biased, I suggest this to fix it:

"The incumbent centre-right Liberal/National Coalition government, currently led by Premier Barry O'Farrell, will be challenged by the centre-left Australian Labor Party opposition, currently led by John Robertson, according to opinion polls."

Do you understand my point, the idea is to add ", according to opinion polls" because now the opinion polls say that Labor is the only other party has any practical chance at forming government, NOW, but things may change later. Do you see? articles written this way always help preserve the duopoly (Labor/Coalition). At least there are perceptive persons like Jamesjansson that say that. Australia is not yet a lost cause. Abcdudtc (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• WP articles are based on what reliable sources state, to do otherwise is original research; do you have a reliable source to back up your supposition that a minor party could win the election? ColonialGrid (talk) 11:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"do you have a reliable source to back up your supposition that a minor party could win the election?" You do not need for a "reliable source" because it's obvious, see? it's obvious: you can't predict the future. From what I understand, when things are obvious there is not need for a "reliable source" in Wikipedia. (I have to say I respect your comment, when I say it's "obvious" that's no way to disrespect you, it's just saying what I think). Besides, is it not seen in history that opinion polls have changed sometimes? Abcdudtc (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• No, it's not obvious to me that a minor party could win the election. Now it's a contested statement, and you need a reliable source. When a source is required is contested, I will concede that (see the two sky essays WP:SKYBLUE and WP:NOTBLUE), but it is accepted that if someone challenges a statement, a citation must be provided. ColonialGrid (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

About the statement: "We can't predict the future", do you think that is obvious or not? Just say YES or NO. Abcdudtc (talk) 09:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I don't need to be able to predict the future to know that: the Liberal National coalition is in government; their leader, and the state premier, is Mike Baird; Labor, as the largest non-governing party, are in opposition; the Labor leader, and therefore leader of the opposition, is Luke Foley; and that Labor will challenge the Liberal National coalition for government at the upcoming election. No opinion polls will change these facts, and even if a third force wins the election and forms government, the aforementioned facts will still be true. Additionally, these issues not withstanding, I still don't see how it is obvious that a third party could win the election. Possible? Sure (however unlikely). Obvious? No. ColonialGrid (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"a third party could win the election". Obvious? Yes. Meaning: It's obvious that that COULD happen.

"Coaliton could win the election". Obvious? Yes. Meaning: It's obvious that that COULD happen.

"Labor could win the election". Obvious? Yes. Meaning: It's obvious that that COULD happen.

"North Korea could become a democracy next month". Obvious? Yes. Meaning: It's obvious that that COULD happen.

They way I understand the word "could" is about possibility. So this whole discussion goes around how we understand the words. "Obvious" doesn't change the word "could" to "will", pay attention to that. Abcdudtc (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Obvious is not a synonym for could or possible, it refers to something that is plainly understood or self-evident. I assert that this statement is incorrect: "do you have a reliable source to back up your supposition that a minor party could win the election?" You do not need for a "reliable source" because it's obvious, see? it implies that it is obvious that a minor party could win the election; that is not correct, it is possible but not obvious. However, this line of argument is quickly going round in circles, enough is enough. ColonialGrid (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, obviously we can't use the proposed sentence, because it implies that we can't give a definitive answer on who's leading the Opposition, but the opinion polls tell us it's this John Robertson fellow (or Luke Foley, as the case may be). That would need a grammatical workover.

Secondly, the entire premise of your argument rests on WP:POV. It is not our job to worry about whether we are "helping to preserve the duopoly", only whether we are reflecting what the sources tell us. If you find a serious source that suggests that anyone other than the Coalition or Labor has even the remotest chance of winning this election, then we can discuss that. Frickeg (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

And how about this:

"The incumbent centre-right Liberal/National Coalition government, currently led by Premier Barry O'Farrell, will be challenged according to opinion polls by the centre-left Australian Labor Party opposition, currently led by John Robertson."

About your second argument, please read my response to ColonialGrid. Abcdudtc (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• The other problem here is that opposition has a very specific term in Westminster convention; it is not an arguable point that Labor are in opposition based on the parliamentary definition and Australian convention, and opinion polling will not change this. If you would like to alter the sentence to add that other parties will also contest the election and may win seats, I have no problem with that, but to argue over who is in opposition is tendentious. ColonialGrid (talk) 07:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Still grammatically wrong: it now suggests that Labor might challenge the Coalition - at least that's what opinion polls are telling us - but that, you know, circumstances might intervene and they might decide they'd rather open a pie shop. Of course there is no problem here with the current situation. As with ColonialGrid above, I have no problem with finding a way to mention other parties (by which I mean those with parliamentary representation, i.e. Greens, Christian Dems, Shooters) in the lead, but we reflect the way things are, not the way things we might like them to be. And the way things are is that winning actual government is still between the Coalition and Labor. Hey, I wish it was otherwise too, but it's not, and Wikipedia is not the vehicle for that campaign. Frickeg (talk) 08:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

And how about this:

"The challenge to the incumbent centre-right Liberal/National Coalition government, currently led by Premier Barry O'Farrell, will come from the centre-left Australian Labor Party opposition, currently led by John Robertson and 17 other small parties." Abcdudtc (talk) 10:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC) And we could add one of these phrases to please you guys: "And there is a very high probability that winning the election is only between the Coalition and Labor." Or we could say: "The only parties that have any practical chance at forming government are the Coalition and Labor." Or we can just say: "One of the two main parties will win the election for sure." Abcdudtc (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I agree with Frickeg. But have i come through a timewarp? The leaders' names are out of date. Can we please leave the right–left thing until later in the article, where more detail can be used to describe them? Calling the NSW Branch of the ALP anything-left is weird. Centre-right for the Coalition might be less misleading, but really, nowadays these parties are mapped onto a number of different boundaries (if they differ much at all, at state level ... I remain to be convinced). Also, can we leave the very wordy phrasing to say which house each leader is in until later in the article? Doesn't seem to be a primary concern to me, and the outsider reading this article (even people within NSW) probably want more important information upfront. Tony (talk) 08:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Given the concerns and discussion above, I propose that we replace this:

The incumbent centre-right Liberal/National Coalition government, currently led by Premier Mike Baird, a member of the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, will be challenged by the centre-left Australian Labor Party opposition, led by Opposition Leader Luke Foley, currently a member of the Legislative Council of New South Wales (the upper house).

With this:

The incumbent Liberal/National Coalition government, currently led by Premier Mike Baird, will be challenged by the Australian Labor Party opposition, led by Opposition Leader Luke Foley, with a number of minor parties also contesting the election. Foley, who is currently a member of the Legislative Council of New South Wales, will be contesting the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales seat of Auburn so he will be eligible to be premier if Labor win.

I have removed the left right labels to address Tony1's concerns, and have mentioned minor parties to appease Abcdudtc, but have intentionally left the number vague as we don't actually know how many will run (it may be 17, it may be more, it may be less). I only added the second sentence as I thought it helped explain, in a simpler way, Foley's change from the Council to the Assembly, but am not welded to it and am happy for it to be cut. Thoughts? ColonialGrid (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If we switch "Legislative Assembly of NSW" to "NSW Legislative Assembly" (and same with the Council) then I'm good with that. I think the sentence about Foley is a good idea. It's also possible that we should mention at least the Greens by name, considering they hold a seat in the lower house. Frickeg (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. Just one more thing. I was reading on the subject and found that also independent candidates can contest the election and win seats, but we don't know how many candidates will be because they have until nomination day to nominate themselves (Source: ). So, for the accuracy of the facts, I would just change "with a number of minor parties also contesting the election" with "with a number of minor parties and independent candidates also contesting the election". Abcdudtc (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Frickeg, I mulled this over to a while as I thought it could be seen as POV to mention only one minor party, however, I tend to agree as the Nationals are mentioned, the Greens are consistently an option in polling, and the Greens are by far the largest (non-coalition) minor party by way of voting base (their voting base is comparable with either the Nationals or all other minor parties and inds). Abcdudtc, agreed, I was actually thinking the same thing later, but haven't had the time to get back to this. In light of these suggestions I know propose we insert this into the article:

The incumbent Liberal/National Coalition government, currently led by Premier Mike Baird, will be challenged by the Australian Labor Party opposition, led by Opposition Leader Luke Foley. Additionally, The Greens, a number of minor parties, and independent candidates will also be contesting the election. Foley, who is currently a member of the NSW Legislative Council, will be contesting the NSW Legislative Assembly seat of Auburn so he will be eligible to be premier if Labor win.

Is this ok with everyone? ColonialGrid (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't agree, let's keep it as it was in your previous suggestion: ", with a number of minor parties also contesting the election" but this way: ", with The Greens, a number of minor parties, and independent candidates also contesting the election". Do you see what you did with your new text? You are saying that the only one that is challenging the Coalition is the Labor party. Read the initial request by Jamesjansson. You see it? That's the issue, after all. This is a good example where the progress is undone.

So what I suggest is this:

The incumbent Liberal/National Coalition government, currently led by Premier Mike Baird, will be challenged by the Australian Labor Party opposition, led by Opposition Leader Luke Foley, with The Greens, a number of minor parties, and independent candidates also contesting the election. Foley, who is currently a member of the NSW Legislative Council, will be contesting the NSW Legislative Assembly seat of Auburn so he will be eligible to be premier if Labor win. Abcdudtc (talk) 05:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• I broke up the sentence because I thought it got too long. However, I don't think you're right in your assumptions. The minor parties and inds will not be challenging the LNP exclusively, they will be contesting seats across NSW regardless of incumbent politicians. The Greens are more likely to win seats from Labor, not the LNP (which is argued inside the ALP as helping the LNP), other minor parties and inds are similar, they can support either side of parliament. To say that they are challenging the LNP government means they all want to unseat the LNP, this is blatantly untrue, just look to Queensland where KAP look to want to support the LNP. Having said that, I have no factual opposition to joining the sentences up, I think the message portrayed in both is that minor parties/inds will contests the election. I simply think it is too long and a little ungainly. ColonialGrid (talk) 07:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand "I have no factual opposition to joining the sentences up" as consensus and I updated the article. I acknowledged that ColonialGrid has said some valid issues in relation to this phrase:

- "I simply think it is too long and a little ungainly." Yes, but it is still worth to make it impartial.

- "To say that they are challenging the LNP government means they all want to unseat the LNP, this is blatantly untrue, just look to Queensland where KAP look to want to support the LNP". Yes, that is true. I look forward to more edits to this phrase to solve that problem. But, ... but, ColonialGrid also needs to admit that his previous phrase also suffered from the same problem because there will be *more* parties in addition to Labor that will challenge the Coalition, it could be that the Greens is not going to challenge the Coalition, it could be, but his previous phrase was also not correct.

Ok, but, any sacrifice in the redaction of the phrase is ok if it's for the sake of impartiality, so I am updating the article with this phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcdudtc (talk • contribs) 06:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Semantically both versions say the same thing: that the Coalition are in government; that Labor will challenge them; that others will also contest the election (my point is that the 'others' will challenge all seats, not just Coalition ones; can you actually deny this?). But, as I said, I don't really care either way, I just think as two sentences reads better; the meaning is exactly the same both ways. ColonialGrid (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no particular issues with the new version. I made a few minor adjustments (removed "NSW" from the Legislative Council and Assembly as it's an NSW article), and also adjusted the wording regarding Foley's move to the lower house (he would still be eligible to be premier in the upper house, it's just against convention). Frickeg (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you, my bad. ColonialGrid (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

BP polling in the infobox

Last field: is it really 56%–8%? Tony (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Left–right

In this context, left and right are starting to be meaningless, or even misleading. What is remotely leftwing, even tinged with the lightest pink, about NSW Labor? Seriously. Anyone from another country reading these epithets is being given the wrong idea. Why not drop these epithets? Tony (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. We have been excluding them from the party infoboxes for some time; no reason not to do the same with the prose. Frickeg (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect Wikipedia links to NSW Political parties

I've noticed that this article is incorrectly linking NSW political parties to each of the Federal party's Wikipedia pages, its quite confusing especially if someone from overseas is reading this. There are clear distinctions between State and Federal parties in terms of governance and where their MP base is made up from. Can we begin the discussion to remove the wrongly link parties names from the Federal versions to the State versions please? Soundmaster91 (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The pages you're talking about currently cover both the federal parties and their state branches. The only state parties that anyone has ever broken out into their articles are a) NSW Labor (which still needs work), and b) the state branches of the Greens, which are more autonomous. I don't think you'd receive an objection if you did create these articles - it's one area where Wikipedia's Australian political coverage is way behind North America - but you can't link to something that doesn't exist. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

New Section: Policy Proposals

How about adding this to the article?

____________________________________________________

Policy Proposals

Infrastructure

Party	Cost of Plan	Sources of Funds
Australian Labor Party (NSW Branch)/Country Labor Party	$10 billion	By taxing business (keep taxes that are due to be abolished in 2016: on business assets, mortgages and unlisted shares.) = $5.1 billion, using money from the state government's privatisation fund = $ 4.9 billion,
Liberal/National Coalition	$20 billion	Selling the state electricity assets
The Greens	$4.581 billion	Cancelling the WestConnex and NorthConnex toll roads, the Newcastle rail removal and the F6 Feasibility Study.

Infrastructure projects

Party	WestConnex	NorthConnex
Australian Labor Party (NSW Branch)/Country Labor Party
Liberal/National Coalition
The Greens	They will cancel it	They will cancel it

Thinking and policies in relation to transport

Party	Thinking	Policies
Australian Labor Party (NSW Branch)/Country Labor Party
Liberal/National Coalition
The Greens	"Toll road projects like WestConnex and NorthConnex are well known to induce congestion and become financially unviable. The way to remove congestion in Sydney is ... by rolling out effective and efficient public transport options to underserved areas. "	Reduce the number of people that use private vehicles to go to work from 67% in 2011 to 50% in 2030.

Fiscal Finances

(The state government's privatisation fund is the Restart NSW fund, in which proceeds from previous privatisations have been placed. )

Party	Statements in relation to Fiscal Finances	Will it use the state government's privatisation fund?
Australian Labor Party (NSW Branch)/Country Labor Party	The budget will be kept in surplus and NSW AAA credit rating will be maintained.	Yes
Liberal/National Coalition	It reaffirmed NSW AAA credit rating while in office and reduced past debt	It has been reserved but has not been put in the budget
The Greens	They have the principle that says that "government finances must be sustainable over the long-term"

Reorganisation of the State

Party	Will it sell the electricity network?
Australian Labor Party (NSW Branch)/Country Labor Party	The support for it is meant when Former Labor premier Morris Iemma said governments should not shy away from unpopular decisions to privatise public assets. But Labor's budget doesn't depend on money from its sale.
Liberal/National Coalition	Yes
The Greens	No

Measures to improve transparency

Party	Measures
Australian Labor Party (NSW Branch)/Country Labor Party
Liberal/National Coalition
The Greens	"Publicly release business cases and comparative cost benefit analyses of alternatives for major transport projects"

Other policies

Party	Policies
Australian Labor Party (NSW Branch)/Country Labor Party
Liberal/National Coalition
The Greens	"Plastic bags of less than 35 microns thickness would be banned. This includes lightweight single-use plastic bags such as grocery bags with handles and other lightweight bags used to carry away products from retailers, such as take away food or alcohol." "The Greens NSW will establish an Independent office of animal welfare under the Department of Premier and Cabinet to monitor, enforce and drive change in animal welfare law and practice in NSW." "Create a Minister for the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence tasked with ensuring integration and coordination across government agencies, the community sector and the justice system." and other measures to prevent the domestic violence They will introduce a Renters Rights Act that will not allow more than one rent increase a year, cap rent increases at no more than CPI and end "no grounds" evictions.
Shooters and Fishers Party	Loosen restrictions on firearms. Loosen protection to environmental resources in favor of the agriculture, forestry and mining industries. Increase the power of the regions in decision-making, recognise Shooting and Fishing as 'appropriate' sports for all public schools, abolish Ethics classes in NSW public schools. Open Marine Parks to sustainable recreational fishing, increase the amount of public land declared for hunting, support and promote hunting tourism industries.
Socialist Alliance	Replace the present voting system with proportional representation, introduce publicly-funded election campaigns, allow voters to recall elected representatives from all levels of government if 10% or more electors petition for a recall election, all elected representatives be paid an average worker’s wage, and receive an average worker’s retirement pension, lower the voting age to 16 years old. No privatisations. No WestConnex, no second airport at Badgerys Creek. Strong measures in support of renewable energy. Expand public housing. Stop cuts to public education. Support educational anti-racism programs in schools and other institutions. Introduce a state-based marriage equality law. Boost funding to special programs and centres to assist young people. Close Villawood Detention Centre and process asylum seekers' and refugees' applications while they live in the community. Support land rights and a treaty that restores land and decision-making power to aboriginal communities. Access to free dental health care for all. Remove abortion from the 1900 NSW Crimes Act.
Voluntary Euthanasia Party	Legalisation of voluntary assisted dying. Ensure palliative care facilities are fully funded.

____________________________________________________

This is what I have up to this moment. You can suggest changes.

I based it on these articles: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/mike-baird-promises-300-million-to-untangle-sydneys-roads-20150218-13hvnl.html

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nsw-state-election-2015/nsw-state-election-2015-alp-reveals-modest-infrastructure-plan-20150219-13j13e.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/nsw-election-2015-labor-reveals-10-billion-infrastructure-plan/story-e6frgczx-1227225340710

There is more information there, let's see if that can be put in this article. The idea is not to be biased in favor of any of those parties and to put things that are concrete and easy to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcdudtc (talk • contribs)

• I have two major problems with this. The first is that this contains plagiarism: "continuing business transaction taxes on business assets, business mortgages and unlisted shares which are due to be abolished in 2016." and "These funds have been reserved by the state government but not yet put into the budget." is lifted verbatim from The Australian, while "Former Labor premier Morris Iemma implied support for it when he said governments should not shy away from unpopular decisions to privatise public assets" is too closely paraphrased from The Sydney Morning Herald (from SMH: "former Labor premier Morris Iemma said governments should not shy away from unpopular decisions to privatise public assets, in a message that implied support for the government's main re-election pitch."). This is unacceptable, everything you add to Wikipedia needs to be in your own words, please refer to WP:COPYVIO and WP:PARAPHRASE. The second problem is that this is not encyclopaedic; it is borderline tabloid and comes off more like an election scorecard than an entry in an encyclopaedia. I could support a policy section that was entirely free from plagiarism, covered issues pertinent to the elections (seriously, what party is going to say they don't support a surplus or won't build infrastructure?) and was written as prose in a neutral tone. As it stands I oppose your suggested entry in its entirety. ColonialGrid (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

What ColonialGrid said. Table form is also a bad idea; the main, significant policies of the major parties could easily be outlined in a few paragraphs. Frickeg (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The section about Labor having a policy to "maintain the state's triple-A credit rating" and "keep the budget is surplus" is unnecessary – surely no political party, particularly the Liberal Party, is going to announce a policy not to at least attempt those. Also, the Liberal Party is specified here, but they are in coalition with the Nationals, so should they be combined? I agree the tabular format is not a good idea – I think the electricity privatisation policies are worth mentioning but would be much better as prose. --Canley (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

"the Liberal Party is specified here, but they are in coalition with the Nationals, so should they be combined?" No, I don't think so, if they are different parties is for a reason or else they could be merged into a single party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcdudtc (talk • contribs) 14:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC) ... After reading the information on the NSW Nationals website I think they may need to be combined because they seem to be pushing for the re-election of the Liberal government when they say, for example, "NSW Deputy Premier Troy Grant said regional NSW would benefit from a re-elected Baird Government’s container deposit scheme", they don't seem to want to win on their own, but want to share power with the liberals, mean: they don't seem to CHALLENGE the Liberals, they are very happy with the Liberals. I can't find policies made by themselves on their website. Abcdudtc (talk) 10:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC). ... Something similar happens with the "Country Labor Party" so that when you click on the link "Join our campaign for the 2015 Election" you are redirected to the website of the Labor party. I don't understand why they are created as a different party if they don't have policies on their own. Also "Country Labor Party" is not in Wikipedia, should we create it? Abcdudtc (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

"Table form is also a bad idea" I acknowledge that a table can't be suitable for ALL policies, for example, the Greens have a policy to end cruelty to animals and other parties may not have that policy, and may not be interested in that topic much, so a table may not be good for that. But for the main information a table is good, for example: how much they will spend on infrastructure or things like that. Abcdudtc (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I changed the table in relation to the first problem that ColonialGrid found. I think the second problem is not an inconvenience, for example, knowing how much they are going to spend in infrastructure and the source of funds is useful for everyone, so I'm looking forward to analyse this better and hear your criticisms on it to make it better. Abcdudtc (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• I haven't gone through to check if the plagiarism concerns are absent, but, I still oppose anything that isn't prose. I will reiterate: a table is more of an election scorecard than an encyclopaedic entry. You need to take on the feedback from other editors and write a policy section in prose if you want it included. ColonialGrid (talk) 10:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I went to website of the Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group) and I can't find their policies. . The wikipedia page for Christian Democratic Party says that "These groups had sought to mobilise conservative and evangelical Protestants as an electoral force." Well, let's see if in the future the party put their policies online. Abcdudtc (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Abcdudtc, can you stop adding to this table and instead write a policy section in prose? As it stands there are three editors (all that have responded) opposing the table. Consensus so far is against displaying parties' policies in this manner and you need to recognise that and adapt your proposed additions accordingly. ColonialGrid (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

But "Consensus" is based on arguments, have you (and the other two persons) replied to my arguments? I am open to change the organisation of the tables but I think the tables make the information easier to understand. That is what I stand for: to make the information easier to understand, what do you stand for? Abcdudtc (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• You're right, consensus isn't a vote. I have made an argument that the table appears tabloid, like an electoral score card, and unencyclopaedic. Your only retort to this is that you disagree; disagreement is not a good line of argument and nothing you have said directly addresses my concerns. I disagree that tables are an easier way to display this style of info, and think that a written analysis using reliable third party sources is the right way. Policy also agrees with this, with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables#Prose stating that "[p]rose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain." the same source MOS:TABLE recommends tables for "presenting links, data, or information in rows and columns. They are a complex form of list, formatted into a systematic grid pattern. Tables might be useful for presenting mathematical data such as multiplication tables, comparative figures, or sporting results. They may also be useful for presenting equivalent words in two or more languages; for awards by type and year; complex discographies; etc." ColonialGrid (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you think the tables make the information easier to understand than prose? Just say YES or NO.

Do you think the tables make the article more useful for people than prose? Just say YES or NO.

Say that many people say they want to see the information in prose, I'm fine with that change, but must include more people than you and your friends. I'm just thinking of your answers to the previous section on this talk page that maybe you have your own agenda, since you wanted the article to say that only Labor would challenge the Coalition, not the other parties, you know, that would favor Labor, so people think "I do not want the Coalition, have to vote Labor". So suggests: What do you really want with this change? If it's for good, I have no objection to make changes for the better, but I really think that the tables are useful and easy to understand. And the layout of the tables is not over because I'm still looking for more information on the Internet. That means we will see later how to present information in the best way.

It seems that the discussion is about the following:

1. You say that that the table appears tabloid, like an electoral score card, and unencyclopaedic.

But later said "prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not.", so in the end, it seem that your inconvenience with tables is that the information presented in that way maybe confusing for people.

2. I say that the tables make the information easier to understand.

How can we find a way to settle the argument? I am the only one who is researching this now, so let me try to finish all the main policies of each party. What if we finish a first version of the information and then we find a way so that it's clear that the information it's not confusing? Abcdudtc (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• The answer to both questions is no. The way to settle this argument is for you to submit a policy section in prose with no tables. My disagreement with your proposal is nothing to do with friendships, it is to do with what I feel would make a better article based on personal aesthetics and policy. I would also note that there are still serious close paraphrasing and plagiarism concerns with your tables. ColonialGrid (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I do not fully understand how wikipedia works but I think I have a solution: I created a Sandbox, I think I will add the information there and then, when it is complete and doesn't have problems with copyright I will post it here. I will think in changing it to prose, just to please you because I don't agree, but that's fine I could change it. You told that "can you stop adding to this table", so I think it's better if I edit the sandbox instead of the talk page. Abcdudtc (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I think this article was spin-doctored.

1. In this revision both candidates are looking ahead:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_South_Wales_state_election,_2015&oldid=540204293

2. This difference between revisions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_South_Wales_state_election%2C_2015&diff=541853905&oldid=540204293

shows that a user (who has made only one edit) changed the picture of the Liberal candidate so that he looks to the Labor one like with admiration. But the summary was “m (fixed dashes using a script)” but you can see that the summary provided is wrong, because it was not a minor edit and it changed something else in addition to the dashes.

3. This difference between revisions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_South_Wales_state_election%2C_2015&diff=608506725&oldid=608165347

shows that a user (who has made very few edits) changed the picture of the Liberal candidate so that he looks to the Labor one like with admiration. And it does not provide a summary.

I think this article was spin-doctored. This is something that everybody needs to pay attention to in the future.

NOTE: This is the first time I have changed an image in Wikipedia, I didn't find other images. If you think his face is too big in relation with the other candidate we could find other images. It's just I don't want to do anything that is wrong for the rules of Wikipedia like putting an image that has copyright or something like that. I don't know all the small rules of wikipedia.

Abcdudtc (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment:Edit two [1] was done by an IP editor from Singapore and left no edit summary (the summary you quote is actually from the edit before and was right). The photo that you just inserted in the article was only uploaded in January this year. When this edit occurred the only free image on Commons was this (this edit also done by a Singaporean editor). I don't see anything untoward and think accusations of bias or manipulation are probably unwarranted. ColonialGrid (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

To be honest I didn't really notice. But maybe we could find some photos of the leaders where they both aren't so dark in them? Soundmaster91 (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

How can you find images that doesn't have copyright to add here? Do you search in Google? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcdudtc (talk • contribs) 10:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Finding freely licenced images of people is difficult. You may have some luck on Google, but be sure that the site is reputable and can actually release the image under the licence they state it is available under. If you find images that you think may be freely licenced (but aren't sure) link to them here and I may be able to help figure it out. ColonialGrid (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Flickr is a good way to find usable images – that was where I found the current Mike Baird, Lara Giddings and Adam Giles photos. Search for the person you are looking for, and filter by Creative Commons, Commercial Use allowed. You can upload them to Wikimedia Commons with the source link and a bot (or an admin) will check that the image is under the correct licence. --Canley (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• In fact, I just searched for Luke Foley just now and found a good quality image by Kate Ausburn released under CC-BY 2.0. --Canley (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  

  Luke Foley, leader of the Labor Party in New South Wales. Taken June 2014 in the Domain behind NSW Parliament.

I added The Greens to the infobox as they have 11% of primary vote polling, I think it's fair to add them here. Also the Primary vote polling. It's the best for the democracy. Like in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005 . But I wasn't able to find a picture CC-by_SA of their leader using Flickr, I found this in Google but I'm not sure if it can be used in Wikipedia: http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/3081256493/36c1f9ec0197b2d4cf139765ca233b9c.jpeg&imgrefurl=https://twitter.com/hallgreenland&h=500&w=488&tbnid=ImDbAO3ean1_wM:&zoom=1&docid=Ek0Q0HerkJrkrM&hl=en&ei=jyvzVMCjAoWO8QXT2IL4AQ&tbm=isch&ved=0CBwQMygBMAE . Can we use that image in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcdudtc (talk • contribs) 15:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I agree or disagree with this (gotta think about it). However, I don't think you have put the right person in the infobox, the leader in this context would be the parliamentary leader. I'm still trying to figure out who that might be, does anyone else know? And no, that image is not suitable for upload as it is from twitter without a free licence. ColonialGrid (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Ok, based on this paper, the NSW Greens party has no formal leader, the closest being a 'Convener of the Party Room'. I haven't been able to find out who that is, and it probably still isn't properly analogous to leader in a traditional sense. This means that the Greens column in the infobox is currently as filled out as it can get. I'm still unsure, the ACT and Tasmania election articles include Greens, but their electoral system makes minority governments with Green balance of power much more likely; conversely, Queensland which has an optional preferential system and no upper house does include One Nation in the '98 and '04 elections, but not '01. Where is the line, and if there isn't one, should the matter of including minor parties in electoral infoboxes be raised as a RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics? ColonialGrid (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I think (and don't quote me on this) that it's a rotating position? Shoebridge is probably the most prominent, but I don't think it's been formalised in any way. Possibly Parker would be appropriate as the only lower house MP, but I'm not sure. We've had a few discussions on this kind of thing in the past, but never really reached a firm conclusion. My view has always been that parties with lower house seats (that they've actually won, as opposed to being held by defectors) either before or after the election should generally be included. (I find it very bizarre that One Nation is included in 2004 but not 2001, in which they were far more prominent!) But that's never been firmly decided. Frickeg (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• My bad, 2001 does have One Nation, but the formatting is different, so I missed it when I skimmed. ColonialGrid (talk) 10:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Looks like an RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics is probably the best idea then. I'll see if I can get one going later tonight and compile a list of articles which would be affected, placing notices on their talk pages. ColonialGrid (talk) 05:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we should put the Green's in the info box because they only have 1 seat and generally the leader of that part is said to be the one likely to become Premier of the lower house. As high as the Green's vote is at 11%, most elections it is around that number. The argument for democracy is a good one, but the lower house doesn't use proportional voting, only the upper house does. If the party had say 3+ seats then I would start to consider having them there, as they may then move into a position where they could help form minority government; thus warranting status in the info box.124.168.159.214 (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• I tend to agree that it seems a bit odd placing the Greens in the info box. In NSW the Nationals are a separate party so really if we wanted the Greens there we might as well add the Nationals. They aren't formally one party like in Queensland. 1 seat is a bit low, and even considering that they many in fact win more, this view is about the current state of play in NSW for 2015 based from 2011. I don't think we can yet compare the Greens with Labor and Liberal. If in fact on election night the Greens win say 4+ seats and its likely that they may help for minority then we can add them on based on the results. But for now I disagree that we keep them there, based all on conjecture this early in the race.Soundmaster91 (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm still unsure about adding them (even though I just put them back, after they were taken out as I think it was a mistake judging by the edit summaries). However, Soundmaster91, the Nationals aren't listed separately because they contest the election in coalition with the Liberals, if they weren't in coalition they should be separate, as in Victorian state election, 2002 and Victorian state election, 2006. ColonialGrid (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm yeah I see your point, but I do still feel like its too much having them there at this stage. If they in fact had more seats than 1 then I would consider it, and if they did in fact have a lower house leader even more so. But I don't think we can add them in yet; even based on a future assumption that they could potentially win several extra lower house seats this election. I'd like to remove it based on the fact that most people feel uneasy about it. It looks too bland and empty at the moment too.Soundmaster91 (talk) 11:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

There's a simple solution to the Baird photo issue: someone email the Baird campaign and tell them that if they don't want a photo that looks like he's gazing at Luke Foley they should release a better one under CC-by-SA. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Undecided as to whether at this stage the infobox needs to retain the binary model (Liberal–National vs. Labor). Two Green members in the lower house, is it, and the upper house will be a slippery slope if we start highlighting every party there (green triangle "needs 46 seats more to govern", in the infobox symbolism, doesn't seem helpful—and I vote Green first pref. usually). Not thrilled about the raft of initialisms in the infobox (TPP, BP), but it's hard to see how that can be avoided. I've linked "percentage point", piped to "point", on first appearance. Do editors not agree that "two-party" as the pipe for "two-party-preferred vote" is neater and pretty understandable? I've edited through many Australian politician articles, and the two-word term is quite common—and not usually piped/linked. Tony (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC) PS on the dark pics—it's easy enough to brighten and update them. Please let me know if you want me to do that. Tony (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • One Green at the moment, but the redistribution gave them a notional second seat. I would certainly be opposed to adding parties with only representation in the upper house - that would open the floodgates. As very few parties have ever won seats in lower houses I think it would be much more manageable to have lower house representation as the threshold - but not wedded to this idea. Agreed on the "two-party" stuff. Frickeg (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• I've started a RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#RfC addressing the inclusion of minor parties in Australian election article infoboxes regarding this issue, as I think a wider discussion would be beneficial. ColonialGrid (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Current balance of lower house and upper house seats

I feel like that we should add in some tables of the current balance of lower house seats among all the parties and for the upper house seats also. This I feel will give a good preview to readers about the current state of play in NSW, and a basis for what may change as a result of the election outcome. Thoughts?Soundmaster91 (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• How's this suit you? ColonialGrid (talk) 11:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks great! haha, thanks. Adds a bit more visual representation to the page about the current status of the parliament going into the election. Also highlights the other parties and how they make up the political debate in NSW.Soundmaster91 (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Please stop turning this article in to a soapbox for the minors/indies

Minors/indies don't form government, the major parties do. Articles should overwhelmingly concentrate on the government and the official opposition. Edits like this show the true intentions of some editors, they are here to get on a WP:SOAPBOX for minors/indies. We have more or less a standard formula for election articles in Australia, we certainly shouldn't be getting off-track with the slow decline of major party support throughout the country, and the world, in this or any other election article. Perhaps the editor might want to bring his suggestions here rather than have them reverted from the article. Discussion appreciated. Timeshift (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I was a bit surprised that was added to this article. What concerned me was the source of their arguments, was from the greenleft.org or something like that; it didn't seem like an impartial source of statistical analysis. And the graphs only highlighted the Greens, what about comparing other previous minor parties, Aus Dems, Family First, Christian Dems, Shooters & Fishers etc. Something like those graphs and analysis is probably better suited to its own article about trends in Australian elections or something like that, not in an article about an up-coming state election. Just my thoughts anyway. Soundmaster91 (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You're dead right. And I didn't even notice the greenleft references. The argument to revert it was strong enough on its own without bringing up the use of greenleft :) Timeshift (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball

"Wikipedia does not predict the future."

we can't assume in wikipedia what you said: "Minors/indies don't form government, the major parties do."

Why do you guys keep hammering on that point? we can't assume that the major parties will form government. You guys ought to have an agenda because it's so obvious that any party can win in australia, this is not North Korea. So let's put it a consensus, but a real consensus, let's put a notice on the main article that we want consensus on that, so people will give opinion if that is a good assumption for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcdudtc (talk • contribs) 12:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

First line of WP:CRYSTAL reads: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." I don't see what is speculative about stating that NSW (and Australia more generally) has a two party Westminster system where the LNP are the current government and the ALP are in opposition; that there is an upcoming election in NSW; and that at this election the LNP government will be challenged by the ALP opposition, with other parties and independents also contesting. Nothing about this is unverifiable speculation. I get that you think that anyone can win, but that doesn't change the aforementioned facts from being facts. You say you want to change consensus, but you never really state what you want it to change to. Can you state in one short sentence what you desire, and then maybe we can discuss it. However, you must accept that your view may not be the consensus view and that after that discussion you might have to walk away. ColonialGrid (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I am editing a version of the article to be put to a consensus between the current version and the version I am editing. Abcdudtc (talk) 11:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with these concerns. Tony (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Party omission from iVote issue

NSW election 2015: NSW online ballot paper error 'disadvantaged' parties, court action flagged. --Canley (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Done Mqst north (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Changing seats

There are three tables in this section that add a lot of length to the page without adding a lot of clarity for people who aren't already familiar with the NSW system. I replaced them with a summary:

Following the 2013 redistribution (see below) the ABC recalculated the 2011 election results based on the new boundaries. Comparing this "notional" result with the 2015 result, 16 seats switched from one party to another.

Ballina switched from the Nationals to the Greens. Blue Mountains, Campbelltown, Charlestown, Granville, Londonderry, Macquarie Fields, Maitland, Newcastle, Port Stephens, Prospect, Rockdale, Strathfield, Swansea and Wyong switched from the Liberals to Labor. Northern Tablelands switched from independent to the Nationals.

Immediately prior to the election, however, Charlestown and Newcastle were already held by Labor courtesy of by-elections; Macquarie Fields was already held by Labor courtesy of the old boundaries; Northern Tablelands was already held by the Nationals courtesy of a by-election; and Londonderry, Port Stephens, Swansea and Wyong were held by former Liberals sitting as independents. Miranda, held by Labor courtesy of a by-election, returned to the Liberals.

As of 31 March, results for the seats of Gosford (Liberal), Lismore (Nationals) and The Entrance (notional Liberal) were still in doubt.

Readers who wanted more detailed results for each seat could then click through to the electorates' pages, and the results pages. I think this is a better way to present the information than getting all the seat primary vote, swings, name changes, retirements, candidate names and whatnot in there. I understand that User:ColonialGrid disagrees, but I'm not sure why from the changelog comment. Thought we could talk it out rather than revert. Mqst north (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I also think User:DestinationAlan and User:Canley may have some views. New here... assuming linking to them lets them know I've referred to them? Mqst north (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Cheers for starting a discussion, I was about to start one after the potential rift in the editing regarding the page. I only put in the tables to make it more akin to the "style" of other Australian election pages such as the Victorian Election which also had redistribution issues and the Queensland Election which had a lengthy "seats changing" table. Previous Federal elections have also included this table. These pages can be seen here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_state_election,_2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensland_state_election,_2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_federal_election,_2013

DestinationAlan (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I have to say I think both of these have their pros and cons - the table is probably clearer and more instantly readable, but it isn't able to convey the complicated situations that the prose can (resignations, defections, byelections, etc.), which leads to them sometimes being a bit opaque. So I'm really fine either way. A few minor points on the proposed prose: 1) I would prefer we didn't use the word "switched", because it's not really in common use; we should say "gained", as in "The Greens gained Ballina from the Nationals". 2) Newcastle, Charlestown and Northern Tablelands should not be embedded amongst the "changing hands" seats, as they were in no possible sense "gains" at this election. They can be discussed later on. 3) Should probably mention retiring MPs as a factor when discussing defections and byelections (specifically with regards to Miranda and Swansea). 4) The Entrance is not "notional Liberal", it's "Liberal". Frickeg (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate the feedback. I've rewritten below, grouping the changes into Government seats lost (11), seats that changes hands at by-elections (4), and seats that changed hands on a notional basis (2).

Eleven seats won by the Liberals and Nationals in 2011 went to other parties. Incumbent Liberal MPs were defeated by Labor challengers in Blue Mountains, Campbelltown, Granville, Rockdale and Strathfield. Incumbents Don Page (a National) and Robyn Parker (a Liberal) retired, with the Greens taking Page's seat of Ballina and Labor taking Parker's seat of Maitland. Londonderry, Port Stephens, Swansea and Wyong, won by the Liberals in 2011 but considered independent since their MPs quit the parliamentary Liberal party, returned to Labor.

Miranda, won by the Liberals in 2011 and lost to Labor at a by-election in 2013, returned to the Liberals. Northern Tablelands, won by an independent in 2011 and lost to the Nationals in 2013, was retained by the Nationals. Charlestown and Newcastle, won by the Liberals in 2011 and lost to Labor at by-elections in 2014, were retained by Labor.

Following the 2013 redistribution (see below) the ABC recalculated the 2011 election results based on the new boundaries. These calculations deemed Macquarie Fields, a Labor marginal, notionally Liberal. The new seat of Prospect, which replaced Liberal-held Smithfield, was also considered notionally Liberal, albeit by a reduced margin. In Macquarie Fields, incumbent Labor MP Andrew McDonald did not re-contest and Labor candidate Anoulack Chanthivong defeated Liberal Pat Farmer. In Prospect, the sitting Smithfield MP, Andrew Rohan, was defeated by Labor candidate Hugh McDermott.

As of 3 April, results for the Liberal-held seat of Gosford and The Entrance, Liberal in 2011 but considered independent since 2013, were still in doubt.

I also linked to the results pages rather than the district pages, given the context in which each seat is discussed. This text takes up about a quarter of the page length of the tables, explanations and footnotes. Let me know what you think. Mqst north (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that is better, by and large. I don't think I agree with linking to the results pages though; those are subpages of the main article which is the appropriate target of the link. I do not think we should say Londonderry et al. were "considered independent"; that is highly debatable. We should just say that they were held by ex-Liberal independents, and note that except in Swansea they all retired. Finally, I don't think anyone has called Lismore yet. Frickeg (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, will incorporate your feedback. The ABC has called Lismore for the Nationals. Mqst north (talk) 04:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree with removing all charts re seats changing hands, and have reverted again, a conversation with three people over less than a day does not make consensus; and even then I don't see a clear consensus for their removal. The tables are easier to read and follow than prose, and can be glanced at to show pre and post election margins of seats changing, there is no size limit to articles, and as long as information is educational there is no real reason to remove it. The text you have added compliments and helps to explain the charts, but so too do the charts compliment the text. If you want to tweak the footnotes of the charts or even some of the content, go ahead, I support that, but removing all the charts is deleterious to the article; saying people can go to other pages to find the info is simply cumbersome and a disservice to readers. ColonialGrid (talk) 07:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Look, I respect your opinion but I think having a revert war is the wrong way to express it. If you look closely at the material you've re-inserted, you'll see it has mistakes and repeats stuff from the "Redistribution" section. It's not clear to a lay reader what it all means – it's just lists of numbers and names. And, while you are right that there's no length limit, it's good practice to reduce readers' need to scroll. Mqst north (talk) 07:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not getting into an edit war, I'm following consensus building procedures, which state to leave an article at a stable form and discuss changes from there. If you want to trim out some of the info from the tables to clear it up go ahead, but there is no current consensus to remove them completely. ColonialGrid (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge Mqst north (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

---

I propose that Proposed partial lease of NSW electricity network assets be merged into New South Wales state election, 2015. The proposal only existed as an aspect of the election campaign and can only really be understood in this context. (A summary could also be added to the businesses' pages, Ausgrid, etc.) Mqst north (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

We can mention it in the page, but only briefly; like a summary. We can link the full page in that section. 137.147.146.3 (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Good lord. Yes, support, obviously. Given the author, I was shocked at the quality of the article, only to find Aronzak had entirely rewritten it. Full credit to him for that, but I still think this would be better covered in a paragraph or two here. Frickeg (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support Just looked up the original editor's additions on talk. It was a horrible article, I didn't make it much better - it still had OR, unsourced sections and POV issues that I didn't fix. With only a few editors, quality won't improve, need to strip it down to a section in the main article. -- Aronzak (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

A previous, related AFD discussion -- Aronzak (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support—given that the specific article is not all that long. I came to the talkpage to say that this article is looking good, even if an unfolding event. Tony (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support ColonialGrid (talk) 07:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pre-election standing

The "Background" section contains a diagram showing the standing of the various parties. I realise this style is common to many election pages, and is more like what viewers are shown on TV on election night, but I have some concerns about it:

• it's designed to look like a seating chart but is not accurate in that sense – in the actual parliament, the Libs and Nats are mixed in
• the Nats and Greens are both shown as very similar shades of green – that seems to be mainly serving those parties' own branding preferences, rather than making things clear for the lay reader
• it's not obviously clearer than just a table with numbers

I've had a crack at something different:

• allocating the Greens and the Nationals completely different colours for clarity (and so no-one could accuse me of favouring one over the other)
• increasing the text size of the seat tallies
• giving readers a better 'at a glance' sense of the the proportions in each chamber – by party and also left vs. right
• can be edited within Wikipedia.

I realise this is a big change so keen to hear feedback. Again, apologies if I've overstepped the mark here. Mqst north (talk) 06:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree with this addition for a number of reasons and have reverted so it can be discussed here. The colours make Greens look like a lesser member of a Labor Coalition; it doesn't represent the crossbench; it's far too big visually for the amount of info it shows; and finally, it doesn't add anything that the old diagrams missed. ColonialGrid (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Look, I realise you've been here longer than me, but it's very disheartening if you just revert my edits without discussing them first. It's even worse that you're dismissing my contribution with "it doesn't add anything that the old diagrams missed" when I have carefully listed what I consider to be the benefits. I would invite you to address those specifically rather than just claiming nothing is added. Mqst north (talk) 07:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

As you don't want me editing the graphic, I have removed it per WP:BRD until agreement on it can be established. Simply put, it is completely incorrect to display the Greens as a minor party in a Labor coalition, which is exactly what that graphic portrays. The Greens are a member of the crossbench, not the opposition. If you can't agree that the graphic should show that it shouldn't be included. Further, compiling CDP and Shooters into one grouping of Ind is retrograde compared to the existing graphics which showed them as distinct parties, which they are. ColonialGrid (talk) 08:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Mqst, is there a way the graph can be edited to address CG's concerns? Tony (talk) 08:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Potentially. I don't like the way s/he is going about putting his/her concerns, so I'm going to take a breather and wait to hear what other people think before re-engaging. Don't want to get caught up in a flame war. Mqst north (talk) 08:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Tony1, sure it could, but when I did change it so the Greens were on the crossbench and not pink I got reverted, hence why I've simply removed it; it's worse to have something wrong or misleading than to have nothing at all. ColonialGrid (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Mqst, sounds like something even better could come out of this feedback. Pity it had to be reverted, but that's the nature of WP. Can we agree on what to change, then? Tony (talk) 08:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Redistribution

User:ColonialGrid would like to make some changes to the redistribution graphic. I thought it best if we discussed those first, since we clearly want to take it in different ways. Perhaps there's some common ground? Mqst north (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Replied above. ColonialGrid (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I've listed the parties of the left on one side, the parties of the right on the other, and the cross bench (made up of smaller groups that are too little to meaningfully distinguish in a % graph) in the centre in the same "other" colour. While it's true the Libs and Nats are in government together, they are not always in alliance. And while it is true the Greens and Labor are not allied in NSW, they have been in other states (and federally). Thinking in terms of a lay reader, it would be useful to see at a glance the relative parliamentary strength of the the left and right of politics, even if they need to read the accompanying text to understand the relationships between parties.

Yes the Greens and Nationals (and media) would generally use the colour green... but this is a matter of branding, which is not our concern here. (Readers interested in party branding can visit the parties' entries.)

So my thinking in summary is: (1.) What is the most important thing to convey visually? Relative strength of the two left and two right parties. (2.) What information would people also want from the graphic? Actual numbers of seats. Mqst north (talk) 08:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The Greens and Labor have never been in coalition in NSW, conversely, if Labor were in government and the Liberals and Nationals were not in active coalition it would also be wrong to list them as in an opposition coalition. There is no good reason that Greens and Nationals couldn't be displayed in different shades of Green, and absolutely no reason why Greens should be shown in coalition with Labor. The change I made, which you undid, moved the Greens (rightfully) from opposition to the crossbench. ColonialGrid (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Results tables by district

The Legislative Assembly results are now final – Final NSW Election Results, Preferences and a New Pendulum. I will run out the results tables for each district tonight for checking and transfer to the articles. --Canley (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay, the NSWEC stopped updating the XML media feed I was relying on so I had to get the data from elsewhere. I have run out the results tables here: Results of the New South Wales state election, 2015 (Legislative Assembly). --Canley (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

No TPP swing in infobox?

It appears the swing component of the infobox has been taken up by the primary vote, and has thus left the TPP swing-less? Timeshift (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New South Wales state election, 2015. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402093832/http://tenplay.com.au/news/sydney/2015/3/26/election-turns-nasty to http://tenplay.com.au/news/sydney/2015/3/26/election-turns-nasty

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)