Talk:Candidates of the 2010 Australian federal election

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

Declaration of Nominations[edit]

The AEC will disclose nominations after 12 noon AEST on Friday 30th July 2010. At this stage I'm not sure if the candidates will be released in bulk or come out in dribs and drabs. The releases might be staggered according to local timezones. I shall endeavour to add all of it to this article. But anyone who wishes to add candidates themselves is certainly welcome to do so. To help keep editing easy, please state here which section you intending to (or are currently) editing (e.g. House of Reps/Victoria, or Senate/SA, etc) so that I may stay out of your way.

In the meantime, I've set up a bare shell of a layout based on the template that was used for Candidates of the Australian federal election, 2007.

Please use citations on all material entered - referring to AEC data, as much as possible. Thanks. Jherschel (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going by previous years they should come out in bulk. I've removed the Senate section - it was a complete mess, with candidates out of order and parties that no longer exist; it will be much easier to do it all in one go when the information is released. (I was hoping that this article would not exist until we actually had the official information, but this has been a forlorn hope in previous years and I'll admit I wasn't optimistic!) I've also made some formatting changes in line with previous articles. Frickeg (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can I also strongly suggest that no further additions are made to this page until tomorrow noon? This is purely a practical thing - otherwise it's going to be really awkward. The CDP, for example, has released candidates, but we don't know for certain how many there will be, and whether it'll be worth giving them a column to themselves. Likewise with Family First. Frickeg (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or, alternatively, you could all just go right ahead and let me clean up after you. It's no problem. I have nothing better to do, after all. Frickeg (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've written a script to output the candidates in the wikitable format used in these articles, so if the AEC release the list as a CSV file or similar, I can generate the tables in Wikimarkup in just a few seconds. Unfortunately I have a lunch meeting at work at 12 tomorrow, so I may not be able to run it out until 1.30 or 2.00pm–it will probably be done by then anyway (if the AEC release the files by then). I won't overwrite the article but I'll save it in my userspace and post a link here so people can use it for checking or filling in any gaps. --Canley (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing so - I'll be home tomorrow afternoon and will try to get the Senate tables done as quickly as possible so that they're done consistently with other pages (they're a pain to tidy up if done wrong). Could be useful for checking spelling though - Antony's been known to get them wrong here and there, and otherwise we'll have to go through everything we've got manually. Frickeg (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So it's taking a bit longer than anticipated. What's the bet it'll all be released as soon as I have to go? Frickeg (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AEC have released the statistics but aren't releasing the full list until "this evening". --Canley (talk) 10:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I suppose it proves that I really am tragic that I've been sitting here clicking refresh for the last half hour. (Doing other stuff as well, mind you. But still ...) Frickeg (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's live on the AEC website, I'm adding NT, ACT and Tas to start with as they are the easier ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.84.227 (talk) 10:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's down, now working on SA and WA HoR.
Yes, well, make sure you get them right - I just had to fix a few errors in the NT one. Frickeg (talk) 11:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stop there- I'm over tired. I didn't correct any of the already listed candidates or change full names to short names, etc. I was just adding previously unknown candidates and deleting ones that were listed but not contesting. Good luck with the rest! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.84.227 (talk) 11:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I'll run through those then. Senate, here I come! Frickeg (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of interest: either there's been a big split in the NSW LDP, or they're running a couple of feeder tickets; I've found at least two "independent" groups populated with former LDP candidates ... Frickeg (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Odd name for this article[edit]

I've never before heard the structure used for the title of this article. It would sound a lot more normal as "Candidates for the Australian federal election, 2010" HiLo48 (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. In over 24 hours since I posted the above, there have been 12 edits to the article, and no posts here. That suggests that either no-one has looked here, or no-one cares. I will move it. HiLo48 (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either that, or they disagree with your posting. My thoughts are that in a few weeks time, the 'for' will beocme 'of', but I'm not that hung up on semantics. I was following previous convention for the 2007 Election. Jherschel (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SIlence is an ineffective way of publicly disagreeing HiLo48 (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re re-moving of this article.[edit]

OK, I'll admit I was a little WP:BOLD in my initial move, but I now note that it has been moved back, with an Edit summary of "per request". I humbly ask - What request? And who has ever heard heard of a "candidate OF an election"? HiLo48 (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were more than bold, considering this - it's hardly sensible to change just one. It was my request to Rebecca that got it moved back, in line with the other 46 articles. Considering this was a new article (I only found it today), you can hardly expect a lot of traffic early on. I'll admit there's an argument for using "for" rather than "of" (although I'd argue that once the election is past the use of "for" appears to be problematic), but WT:AUP or even WP:AWNB are probably the best places to get a proper discussion going. Frickeg (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. You're using the excuse of not having seen this until today. My position is that I was unaware of that other articles, saw this one, and thought the title was nonsense. That several other articles have silly titles does not justify this one having a silly title. I ask again - who has ever heard heard of a "candidate OF an election"? I teach middle years high school. At the start of every semester I tell my new students that one of the most pathetic and unacceptable excuses for unacceptable behaviour is "But they're doing it too." HiLo48 (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point is not "it's OK because other articles do it too". My point is that it's clearly an entrenched practice that has had some agreement in the past, that as it exists across a number of articles it will need more widespread implementation, and that to make such a large change without broader discussion is rather unwise. I wasn't even saying that I oppose the rename - in fact at the moment I am leaning towards supporting it - but to have it on one article and not the others, and to implement it without wider discussion, is not the way to go about it. Frickeg (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point. And i'm not taking on that challenge right now. I'd love to know how such silly wording became so entrenched. Who ever thought that it made sense? It's a shame we can't just make this one right and move on gradually from there. Afte all, a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. HiLo48 (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea; although I created most of those articles, I was following earlier leads. I'd still suggest raising it at one of the aforementioned links if you feel strongly about it. Frickeg (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A good friendly discussion. I have no objections either way, as long as consistency is adopted. I did find it a little difficult to belive that "..My position is that I was unaware of that (sic) other articles, saw this one.." from HiLo48 given posting "Odd name for this article" at 19:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC), which (or is it that?) immediately follows posting stating that "...I've set up a bare shell of a layout based on the template that was used for Candidates of the Australian federal election, 2007"' at 15:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC). Jherschel (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? I didn't write that. I'm an ignoramus when it comes to templates. Must have been someone else. HiLo48 (talk) 11:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Establishing Criteria[edit]

Do we have an established criteria for which parties are given their own column? Does it come down to the number of party candidates contesting, and if so, what number of candidates justifies a separate column for that party in that particular state? Or are we just allowing, say 5 columns per state, with the most significant parties being given their own column? --Mrodowicz (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no more than five (excluding other), because otherwise the table doesn't fit. In general, it's kind of on an arbitrary basis, but it should be pretty clear. In NSW and WA, for example, where the CDP does comparatively well and runs a pretty comprehensive bunch of candidates, they get their own column. Family First has its own column in most states in anticipation that it runs a similar number of candidates as in 2007 (they can be removed if they don't). None of the rest even come close to qualifying at this point, though; the only two who have had columns to themselves in the past, the Democrats and One Nation, are unlikely to be making any impact this time, and probably won't run many candidates either. Frickeg (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FF and CDP columns in NSW[edit]

Both the Family First and CDP columns in NSW have ended up rather depleted, after neither nominated as many candidates as last time. We're now left with more than half of them blank. I'm tempted to move them into the "others" column, but then again that's going to make some of the rows quite tall. Both hold a seat in the NSW upper house (Moyes admittedly not elected as FF) and both will probably do moderately well in the Senate and in the seats they contest (the CDP probably better, if past performance is anything to go by). What are others' thoughts on this? Should we have both columns, only one, or neither? Frickeg (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The CDP would seem to have enough in my book. Not sure about FF, as they're rather more sparse. Rebecca (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked: Family First are running in 16 of 48 seats, and the CDP in 26. FF had better go in Other, then. As a random point of interest: it looks like a few CDP members followed Gordon Moyes over to Family First in the split ... Frickeg (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting[edit]

I had a crack at reinstating 'missing' horizontal lines in (W.A.) candidate lists but to no apparent avail in my Firefox. There seems to be no logic about how this template works, but it may just be lack of support in some browsers. Anyway, I'll leave it alone and hope that my consistency edits have not stuffed it up for others. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problems here. I've changed some of it back - the way the template works it's important to have the blank spaces; I know for a fact that leaving this out causes problems with some browsers. Frickeg (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge suggestion[edit]

While I agree that the Candidates and Seats page isn't really enough to warrant its own article, I oppose merging it here. There is more than enough information on this page (and others like it) already; the table, if it really is necessary, should be moved somewhere else. Frickeg (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps instead we could rename that page since "Candidates and Seats..." seems like it means exactly the same thing as this page. Barrylb (talk) 07:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The other page is silly... Timeshift (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The other page IS silly. It needs to be deleted. Jherschel (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with a merger, but as the creator of the respective page I wanted to point out that there is a precedent for it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candidates_and_Seats_in_the_2007_Australian_federal_election. I don't agree that the content of the page is "silly". Some previous election articles make no mention of which parties contested the election, other than those which won seats or polled a relatively high primary vote. In relation to this election, the only way one can find out about which parties contested and where, is to go to this page - Candidates of the Australian federal election, 2010. Trouble is, it's a rather arduous process to try to go through every seat HR & Senate on the page to try to establish which parties contested the election and how many seats they contested. The table I've designed, is a clear and simple way of accessing that information, and a big time-saver for anyone seeking these facts. --Mrodowicz (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there's a precedent, although I'd argue that that page is also of limited usefulness. Those previous election articles make no mention of the other parties because the primary internet sources - Psephos, UWA - do not. With any luck we'll eventually have them mentioning every party, but in any case there's no need for these pages on recent elections, which do list all the parties. Although I'm not altogether opposed to a "number of candidates" column or something similar in the election results tables, an entire page devoted to it when we already have this one seems like overkill to me. Frickeg (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am strongly in favour of including the relevant information. However, I am less fussed about where and how it is included, be it on a separate page or merged with another page.--Mrodowicz (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um ... how is the above consensus to move it here? I'd rather it was on the main election page, to be honest ... Frickeg (talk) 05:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the removal of the 2010 Federal election campaign page, information about disendorsed candidates was removed. This information is not on the 2010 Federal election page or this page. The 2007 candidates pages includes a "Former Candidates" page (but this is the wrong title for the section since many of these candidates still contested the election). Maybe "Withdrawing, Demoted and Disendorsed Candidates"? Didactik (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Candidates of the Australian federal election, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Candidates of the Australian federal election, 2010. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Candidates_of_the_2010_Australian_federal_election&oldid=1207094490"