Talk:Candidates of the 2022 Australian federal election

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

Sitting members[edit]

Noting that any sitting members need a citation that they have won preselection just like any other candidate. I'll give a bit of time but any uncited ones should be removed. I just did most of the Labor senators as vigorous preselection challenges are underway in many of the states. Frickeg (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Labor National Executive ruled that all sitting members in Victoria are re-endorsed, as well as endorsing Sam Rae for Hawke. So if you're going to include Rae you can also include all sitting members. Constant Pedant (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds are you including some Victorian Labor candidates and not others?[edit]

Let's try again. On what grounds are you including some Victorian Labor candidates and not others? All sitting members have been re-endorsed by the National Executive. It's true that this is subject to the ongoing court cases, but so are the preselections of Sam Rae and the other candidates you have listed. You should include either all of them or none of them. Constant Pedant (talk) 08:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of candidates for unregistered parties[edit]

Hey all, was just wondering what the consensus is with other editors about the inclusion of parties that aren't registered? Several parties (Drew Pavlou Democratic Alliance, The New Liberals, 'Team Baz Party', and The Local Party) are listed despite not being registered as parties for elections, and they don't have existing registration applications (indicating that they'd be registered in time of the election). There are also some questionable inclusions, such as the inclusion of a dedicated column for the Progressives despite having no declared candidates and currently undergoing potential de-registration. I'm personally a little iffy about the inclusion of unregistered parties that don't fit the notability requirement for their own page, as it could cause precedent for any attempted party to use the page as a form of promotion/advertising despite being non-notable. I'd rather seek consensus first before editing, especially due to the popularity of this page before the election. Catiline52 (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What has been the rule of thumb in the past? If we can't establish that then I'd go with what is the most likely way the AEC will mark the names on the ballot. For the house, definately only put a full column for parties that we expect to run a full(ish) ticket in the state and are a major party. Most likely means not a Progressives column in ACT or a UAP/PHON column in most states. Tbyrn21 (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There hasn't previously been a standard set, mostly because these pages usually end up simply reflecting what's on the printed ballots once they are released. Given that, I'd argue that parties that are promoting a ticket but either aren't registered or are awaiting registration with the AEC should be removed for now and listed separately to avoid confusion. That way, it's a simple matter of restoring them to the main section once the registration has gone through, or removing them entirely once close of ballots has passed. Proutk (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Similar query, why does UAP get a column to themselves when at the moment they only have 11 candidates in those columns, but there's far more independents. Should this not be changed to independents and UAP moved to other? GxJackson (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for unregistered parties is to list them as they appear on the ballot paper, either as (Ind) or as (-) depending on how they nominate, and then to have a section at the bottom of the page called "Unregistered parties and groups" (e.g. here) detailing those endorsements. This is particularly important as once nominations are released there is a consolidation of references into citing the official data, and these endorsements need extra citations.

Regarding the UAP and Independents column, I would strongly oppose the idea of an Independents column as it implies a relationship between Independent candidates that does not exist. UAP nominated enough candidates last time that I think it's reasonable to assume they will do so again, but no objection if people want to suppress the column until they do. There is no minimum number of columns we need - if not enough parties nominate reasonable slates of candidates, then we just have fewer columns. There is generally an upper limit of around five or six columns (not counting "Seat", "Held by") for accessibility reasons.

It's best not to be too rigid on the rules for giving parties columns. Running in more than half the seats in a state is a bare minimum. But if, for example, One Nation ran in 28 Queensland seats and some micro party (say, Legalise Cannabis) ran in 30, I'd be giving the column to One Nation as the more significant party (i.e. has senators, regularly included in polls, etc.). This can always be discussed if there are disagreements. Frickeg (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment there are quite a number of smaller parties trying to get registered. I think that for the moment we can keep their names as it is on the page. Once the election is called and ballots are printed we can amend the names as needed to reflect the ballot papers. Playlet (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal candidates are wrong[edit]

None of the safe Labor seats have been preselected for the Liberals and Tim Smith as UAP? If there's no Twitter reference from Sam McQuestion or Facebook link for the candidate, remove it. 218.215.242.245 (talk) 08:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced Liberal candidates[edit]

Most of the Liberal candidates for Labor-held seats in Victoria are unreferenced and cannot be verified by Google searches. Unless they are referenced I will delete them. Constant Pedant (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be checked and added[edit]

Other candidates, Sydney, NSW: Andrew Chuter - https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/housing-public-transport-campaigner-stands-seat-sydney—Preceding unsigned comment added by BenAveling (talk • contribs) 05:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] 

 Chuter is now running for the lower house seat of Sydney, but we're still showing him as running for the Senate.  https://socialist-alliance.org/elections/federal/2022/election-candidate/nsw-andrew-chuter-seat-sydney
 FWIW, web.archive.org indicates that he was previously running for the Senate and has since switched to the lower. https://web.archive.org/web/20220215004931/https://socialist-alliance.org/elections/federal/2022/election-campaign/people-and-planet-profit
 Ben Aveling 04:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Giving Jacqui Lambie Network a Tasmanian column[edit]

I was just looking on party websites for Lower house candidates we missed from registered parties and notice the Jacqui Lambie Network have announced their candidate for Franklin, TAS. This means they are now running in 4/5 of the Tasmanian lower house seats. Should we consider giving the party its Tasmanian column as the JLN is one of the 4 parties with Tasmanian representation?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afropenguin (talk • contribs) 10:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Xenophon[edit]

Nick Xenophon is running as a below the line Independent, not before Stirling Griff for the CA SA Senate ticket (https://www.singletonargus.com.au/story/7672068/nick-xenophon-seeks-senate-return-in-sa/). I will restore the CA SA Senate ticket to its correct order.--Mrodowicz (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophon is running as a grouped independent ticket (not below the line / ungrouped, but still no party name) with Stirling Griff as a supporting candidate. The AAP release seems to have gone out without checking the details. Catiline52 (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LDP in Victoria[edit]

Does anyone know if LDP are planning to run candidates in all Vic seats. At the moment they are only running in two thirds of seats which from past elections does not warrant a column of their own, but I am happy to leave it if they are going to fill out most of the seats by election day Playlet (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One Nation column[edit]

@Donnapikecoffs: Please do not add in a One Nation column for the states where there are not significant numbers. The columns are generally set up for parties with candidates in all, or almost all seats in a state Playlet (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please STOP deleting my work, its insane that I spent hours working on it only to have you deleted it all. We are not communist china just yet. There are more than enough candidates in many areas to have a column and excluding a party of fair advertising shows just how "controlled" wikipedia really is. 2001:8003:3537:3D01:3CD7:1D2D:7D3B:A750 (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what your objection is. One Nation candidates are not being deleted, and Queensland and Tas where they are running in almost every seat has a column for ON. But when there is 1 ON candidate in SA they don't get their own column. Like I said, if there are more candidates preselected for ON and creating a separate column becomes necessary I won't object, but as things stand at the moment there is no justification for the new column Playlet (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One Nation just announced today that they're running a candidate in every seat (151), so it's probably a good idea to pre-plan a dedicated column for them as we did with the UAP. Catiline52 (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can find an announcement from last year about this, but nothing recent. Do you have a more recent source? I would rather wait until there are more numbers to make the separate columnPlaylet (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only source I see for ON re candidates is that George Christensen is now standing for them https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/apr/13/george-christensen-says-he-will-be-a-candidate-for-one-nation-at-federal-election Tbyrn21 (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
actually no this source does say it plans for 151, right down the bottom Tbyrn21 (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with that, if I have time I will help set that upPlaylet (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is news about the LDP running more candidates in Victoria, I propose we replace that column with a column for PHON, otherwise the table becomes too big Playlet (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, no indication that the LDP is running more candidates. Also the AC column in WA should probably be removed. Catiline52 (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change of candidates[edit]

What is the general rule of thumb with respect to when we change the listed candidates here? For example, Ryan lists Bernard Wong as the UAP candidate (and he was so when Clive ran the full page adverts a while back) but the UAP website now lists Kathryn Pollard as the candidate. I imagine this has happened for a few parties. Tbyrn21 (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates of the 2022 Australian federal election - the change of the LDP name that I had reverted, with my reversion being reverted[edit]

Previously, the issue of the name of the LDP had been dealt with, and, with the name Liberal Democrats not being allowed to be used, and the application for the name to be changed to the Liberty Democrats, the name to be displayed on the Wikipedia web page was settled on being LDP, as a compromise, as it stood for both the Liberal Democrats Party and the Liberty Democracy Party, to which they had applied to change their name.

However, the application to change the name of the party, was a fraud, and was fraudulently designed, to cause the effect that it has had, whereby the party is now fraudulent, having fraudulently overturned the High Court of Australia decision, the determination of the AEC, and, the Electoral Act.

So, your overturning of previous actions relating to this party's name, gives effect to, and, implements the fraud that is the LDP.

Your "consistency" is not - parties like the UAP, still have their acronyms applied.

The use of LDP, on the Wikipedia web page, was an amiable compromise.

Now, the web page is tainted by fraud.

What now happens, and, whether, after the election, all of their candidates and their officers and members, are prosecuted for defrauding the commonwealth, and, for electoral fraud, is yet to be seen.

But, as is shown, in the election, as executed by the LDP, fraud prevails.

It is an unfortunate consequence of shoddy legislation.

Your choice to do what you have done, regarding the LDP, is unfortunate, and, has eroded the goodwill that had previously been involved in the page. Bret.busby (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bret.busby: Regardless whether the Liberal Democrats name is a "fraud", it will be the official name used for this election (writs were issued on Monday). And your claim that "parties like the UAP, still have their acronyms applied" is clearly wrong because in the same edit, I changed UAP to United Australia for Western Australia, consistent with the other SENATE lists. I have made it clear in the edit summary that I only changed for the SENATE candidate tables, not the whole article.
I have been making edits based on facts (what the name will be in election etc.) in a neutral sense, while yours are clearly biased against the LDP. Marcnut1996 (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the past the general practice has been to abbreviate where there is not a one-word (or very brief two-word) version of the name. So "Greens candidates", "Democrats candidates", "One Nation candidates", but "LDP candidates", "UAP candidates", "DLP candidates". The Senate tables are getting a bit bloated with all the extended names. Frickeg (talk) 08:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This practice sounds fair and logical so I am happy with that too. Marcnut1996 (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An issue I find with over-using acronyms for minor parties is that for most people, the acronyms mean nothing and provide no information. I agree that party names should be reduced down to 1 or 2 words (filler words such as 'Party' and 'Australian' (unless relevant to the party's beliefs) aren't necessary). I agree that acronyms should remain for the House of Representatives section due to size constraints, but the senate section isn't that large compared to previous elections senate papers or the HoR sections. There's plenty of room to provide shortened names. The issue I find editing this page is that the senate section tends to get bloated when not properly formatted and maintained, not that they have a name listed. Catiline52 (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We should, in the Senate section, avoid unnecessary expanses of white space, which is what the longer names generate. Given we are careful to link each name, I don't see much of an issue with reader confusion. Frickeg (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tasmanian lower house columns[edit]

Both the liberal democrats and the Local party have announced they are running in at least 4 Tasmanian lower house seats (Local said they are running 7 candidates overall which means either 4 lower and 3 senate or 5 lower and 2 senate). this means both parties should be eligible to gain a collum in the future. Currently Local have announced 2 candidates (Franklin and Braddon) and liberal democrats have announced 3 (Franklin, Clark, and Braddon) are we wanting to make collums now to make it easier when they announce whos running or wait till the names have been announced. or will that be to many collums and instead put one or both parties in the other collum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afropenguin (talk • contribs) 02:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be too many columns. Honestly the seven we have already is pushing it a bit. LDP and Local are both fine in Others. Frickeg (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we have to stay at 7 I would be of the thinking that local should replace PHON or UAP's column. As local has more Tasmanian influence by the evidence one nation and United are not registered to run for state elections in Tasmania but Local is. Not any of the three parties have representation in Tasmania (Lab ,Lib ,Greens & JLN have representation so should keep their columns), Though one of locals lower house candidates (the only local candidate at the time) was endorsed by siting MP Andrew Willkie, though Willkie is not a member of the party and seems to have no other affiliation with the party. Both UAP and PHON (and LD) do have members of parliament within mainland states but this does not easily reflect their support in Tasmania. Afropenguin (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Legalise Cannabis Party Candidates in Victoria[edit]

Hello I am the Candidate for the Legalise Cannabis Party in Victoria and have not been added to the Victorian list. We are number 5 on the ballot. I don’t want to mess up the page but editing it because I don’t have experience in do that. Can somebody please edit it to include Legalise Cannabis Party with Elissa Smith as first listed candidate and Wayne Taylor as second candidate Thanks Elissa Weedfairy (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. --Canley (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Candidate" in table headings[edit]

Leaving a note here that I intend to remove the word "candidate" in table headings, i.e. "Coalition candidate" --> "Coalition". Doing so would help with the table sizes by reducing column width, and it is already clear that this is an article listing candidates. Ideally this would be replicated across the other candidates lists. (cc: Frickeg) Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent idea and will allow us to reduce the amount of abbreviation we have to do, a real win-win. Frickeg (talk) 07:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting a discussion relevant to this article[edit]

Please see Talk:Candidates of the 2023 New South Wales state election#Having a solid quota for a column in Candidates article tables for a discussion relevant to the formatting of Australian candidate list articles. J2m5 (talk) 07:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Candidates_of_the_2022_Australian_federal_election&oldid=1207094714"