Talk:2022 Australian federal election

Katter's Australian Party leader

Since Robbie Katter doesn't even sit in Federal parliament, it seems odd to claim that he is the federal leader for KAP, even though he is considered the "national leader" of the party as a whole. Additionally, Bob Katter is the only federal representative for KAP, so it makes sense for him to be considered the federal leader. I don't quite understand whether "leader" has some prescribed meaning we're trying to adhere to, or we're just going with vaguely what the party have explicitly stated about themselves and what RS (news articles) have to say about the handover. RS (e.g. 1, e.g. 2) don't seem to mention that Katter is still the federal leader because they aren't reporting about that, and it should be obvious given he's the only federal representative. I can't find any news article which refers to Bob Katter since he stepped down as national leader. DpEpsilon ( talk | contribs ) 08:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

This article has undue weight given to the single-seat parties in the infobox. Why are the Greens on the top line? Why aren't the Nationals (15 seats) represented? Why aren't the independents there? They each have 1 seat too. --Surturz (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The Nationals are represented, under the "Liberal/National coalition". If the Nationals were split off, the Liberal Nationals & Country Liberals would also need to, and that'd be too complicated for a Coalition that hasn't split since 1944. The criteria for minor parties for inclusion should be standardised, sometimes independents and minor parties are included, but sometimes not. Catiline52 (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not complicated at all. We have boxes for the Greens, Katter, and Central Alliance, we can easily add the component parties of the Coalition, rather than hide them. Either that, or we are talking about Coalition vs ALP in terms of who can form government, so we should only have two boxes, for the two groups that are included in the two-party-preferred counting. The current infobox gives undue weight to the non-Coalition parties. --Surturz (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Describing the inclusion of minor parties in election infoboxes as undue weight is pretty laughable considering it's almost universal practice, including in other Westminster two-party systems such as New Zealand, the UK, and Canada. That said, I think it would be great to put this whole thing to bed by removing KAP and Centre Alliance and simply including the Coalition, Labor, and Greens in a single neat row. Simple, easy, pleasing. I don't think anyone would dispute that the KAP and CA, on the federal level, are now one-man and one-woman shows respectively. Unless there's a hung parliament, they're not substantial enough to be worth including. I don't think it's undue weight, but it is unnecessary fluff. What might actually qualify as undue weight is portraying the Greens as equally insubstantial as the other two by arbitrarily placing them on the same row when the Greens win 10% of the national primary vote and have the potential to win multiple seats (not to mention their Senate presence). Erinthecute (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not saying that the minor parties should be excluded from the infobox, but rather that they have undue weight because they are included, but the National Party is not. The underlying problem is that the infobox tries to show both the two-party-preferred contest AND show the party-based contest. They are incompatible views of the election. We should choose one or the other, and I support showing ALL parties with a lower-house presence. --Surturz (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Polling Info in Infobox

An unknown editor has added polling info into the infobox. I have reversed this as I believe that information should not be there for a number of reasons, and that if it is to be placed there it should be following discussion. The reasons I believe that it shouldn't be included is that; a) it is not the norm in upcoming election infoboxes sitewide, b) the inclusion of a TPP figure requires either simply taking the TPP figure from the most recent poll, which might not be representative of the trend in polling and thus give the public a false impression, or the use of an aggregator, which, while not original research, is not entirely reliable vis-à-vis updating quickly and would require consultation about which aggregator to use, c) the inclusion of the preferred PM metric is one heavily biased to the incumbent (http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2020/04/why-better-prime-ministerpremier-scores.html) and in foregrounding it it can create a false impression in the reader as it implies an importance the metric doesn't have, and d) there is a very obvious link to the opinion polls in the infobox that, imo, removes the need to place polling information in the infobox, in addition to that link providing more information, that might be ignored if the headline figures are included in the infobox. Of course if the consensus is against me I will not stand in the way of including this information --Not Another NPC (talk) 01:16, 04 April 2021 (UTC)

I support not including polling information in the infobox, for the reasons above. --Canley (talk) 09:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Frickeg (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

While we are on the topic of giving a false impression, please can we move The Greens to the second row in the infobox, with the other single seat parties? The infobox uses a Two-party-preferred vote structure to omit the Nationals, and to be consistent with that, the minor parties should be grouped together on the second row as 'Others'. --Surturz (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Very happy with moving the Greens to the second row. While having parties with elected lower-house representation in the infoboxes is good, distinguishing those that have a genuine chance at government is good too. Frickeg (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Do we believe this should be done for the previous elections that put the Greens in the top row (2010-2019)? I support such a move, for the reasons above and for consistency. --Not Another NPC (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

It should be immediately obvious to anyone looking at the seat and vote tallies that the Greens are not a major party. The presence of the TPP sections already singles out the two major parties as special anyway. Also, the Coalition is displayed as a single force because that's how both the AEC and media report it, and they operate as a unit in both elections and in parliament. It doesn't have so much to do with the infobox using a "TPP structure" as much as with reflecting political reality. In any case, relegating the minor parties to the second row has very little impact on how people actually take the information in, and to be frank, looks awful. There's a big white gap on the top row. This debate has always baffled me. Which row the minor parties placed on is such a strange technicality to fight over. No other country, nor even any other Australian federal or state election infobox, reserves the top row for major parties only. There is no tangible benefit to doing it. It just looks odd. Erinthecute (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Next Australian federal election

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Next Australian federal election's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "AEC1":

• From Division of Fraser (Victoria): "Names and boundaries of federal electoral divisions in Victoria decided". Australian Electoral Commission. 20 June 2018.
• From Electoral system of Australia: AEC, Enrol to vote
• From Division of Bean: "Map: Division of Bean" (PDF). Australian Electoral Commission.
• From 2010 Australian federal election: "First Preference by Party". Australian Electoral Commission. Archived from the original on 23 August 2010. Retrieved 21 August 2010.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Andrews and Laming

I appreciate that losing party endorsement is usually a retirement in all but name. But not always, as we saw with Laming's attempt to get re-endorsed. And there have been other cases where a member who formerly represented a party went on to continue as an independent, or tried to. So, we need to make a distinction. Disendorsement is a decision of the party; retirement is a decision of the member. All we're saying about Andrews and Laming at the moment is that they've been disendorsed. Have they made any statements about not contesting the election? If so, I think the dates of those statements are more relevant than the dates of their disendorsements. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Andrews and Laming has not stated they will contest as independents and can be assumed to be retiring from federal politics. Contesting as independents would see their memberships revoked which is usually not preferred. Therefore, it can be assumed that their disendorsements are equivalent to not contesting the election, unless they announce otherwise. Marcnut1996 (talk) 06:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Generally we have required a specific announcement that a person is not contesting the next election before listing them - losing preselection is not enough, as it is far from unknown for the person in question to run as an independent in those circumstances. Sometimes the person never "formally" announces they're not running, they just don't nominate, so the preselection loss is all we have (Bronwyn Bishop for example). I do think the date of preselection loss is relevant, but needs to be accompanied by a retirement announcement. I disagree with "assuming" their disendorsements are equivalent to retirements, as that is simply not the case. Frickeg (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense. Tony (talk) 07:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with assuming disendorsements are retirements, but the distinction should be written. I don't think an additional subsection is necessary or desirable. We should only assume a member who has lost preselection is retiring if they haven't announced they will contest the election as an independent or for a different party. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Following on from this conversation I can see this info was removed today "(Disendorsed on 12 April 2021 after refusal to withdraw preselection nomination)" regarding Laming. My reading from above is that this disendorsement was relevant because it indicates there was some attempt to continue to run for the seen after the official retirement announcement, especially as the link for the official retirement announcement is a third party saying they would resign. However I thought I would get consensus here before restoring the information. Dauwenkust (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I have restored it already before I saw this message, but I definitely agree. Marcnut1996 (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

As the one who removed it, I don't love it - these lists are very much meant to be bare bones and are not the place for the full story (where does it stop?). Given the strageness of this particular case (particularly given that it occurs after the date we are giving for a retirement announcement) a little extra is fair enough though. The text that was re-added was further expanded so I have reduced it back to its original form. Frickeg (talk) 06:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Weird ...

Just weird, having this pic of Robbie Katter as one of four at the top. He's not even a member of federal Parliament, and is virtually unknown. This formula for displaying pics at the top urgently needs to be modified. Tony (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Now this one I actually agree with. If Bob Katter is not referred to as the leader (and it seems he isn't), it should simply be "no federal leader" as it is with CA. Frickeg (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Better than nothing. Let's agree that this article should be readily understood by foreigners – that would be a good benchmark, no? In that vein:

The structure of the lower house – Labor, Liberals, Nationals, one Green, and independents – seems likely to pertain for the foreseeable future. A reasonable compromise would be that a party should have a minimum of five seats for their "leader" to be pictured at the top. I note, also, the arbitrary decision not to feature the Nats separately; I don't mind, but it's arbitrary. So there's no perfect way to do this – just worse ways and better ways.

Two other issues concern the display of a percentage after the number of seats. It looks at first as though "77 seats" comprise "41.44%" of the total seats, though attentive readers might work out quickly that it's not the case. We don't help them by keeping it a secret that the "41.44%" is the proportion of first preference votes (suddenly important a while ago among journalists and some party folk pushing their own agenda, and strangely the LP and NP first prefs were never expressed separately, when they stand against each other in some seats). Then TPP percentages (all that really matters in the end) are buried at the bottom with an acronym for "two-party preferred" that most foreigners (even Australians) will need to go elsewhere to distinguish from the unexplained percentages that appear above. We confuse by presenting too much complex information where it can't be explained.

I query the need to display each leader's seat and state in an infobox, which should be rationed to the most important information for a bird's-eye view.

What are the poor readers to make of Adam Bandt's "1 seat, 10.40%" ... does that mean he somehow won his seat with that percentage of the vote?

At the top: "On or before 21 May 2022 (half-Senate)/On or before 3 September 2022 (House of Representatives)" will cause stomach cramps for most Australian readers, let alone foreigners. Then we have, row by row, a noun group, a grammatical sentence, and a noun group: "All 151 seats in the House of Representatives/76 seats are needed for a majority/40 (of the 76) seats in the Senate." Really?

Why is there a gaping hole above "Centre Alliance" (which again creates problems by distinguishing between independents who form a "party" and those who don't)? It makes zip difference in the larger scheme. Why not list all members who are not members of parties with five or more seats at the bottom, without pics? Bandt and Katter would go there.

Incumbent Prime Minister is stuck right down the bottom (and is "incumbent" not redundant?).

We should discuss how to fix this messy and unhelpful infobox. It's in marked contrast with the rest of the article, which is very good. Tony (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

If we aren't going to take a party-based approach (i.e. include the Nationals), I say we just remove everyone except the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition. --Surturz (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

So, a few things here. First, pretty much everyone wanted to include the Nationals, but no one was able to come up with a sensible way of doing so. The problem here is the LNP and to a lesser degree the CLP, who complicate matters enormously. Either you have to (a) treat the LNP as a third Coalition party and give them their own box, despite them having no separate federal identity (yet), (b) include LNP totals and vote figures entirely within the Liberal totals given they are registered with the AEC as a Liberal branch, notwithstanding the fact that many LNP members are prominent Nationals and in the past have been Nationals leaders, or (c) divide the LNP vote between Liberals and Nationals based on the LNP agreement, despite the fact that not a single source does this. Much, much more discussion on this point can be found here. Including the Coalition as a single box was the least worst option - but if someone now can come up with something better, let's hear it!

Many of Tony's other points I more or less agree with, but I would argue they need to be discussed more broadly than merely here at the Australian project. The seats/percentages thing, the leaders' seats, the text at the top - these are all encyclopedia-wide standards. I'm not one for unthinking consistency, but I think here an international reader could well be more confused if they come to Australian pages having seen certain standards apply for every other country's elections and we're just doing our own thing.

I continue to oppose the exclusion of non-major parties from the infobox. I could see a way to supporting an adjusted set of criteria, but "more than 5 seats" certainly isn't it (assuming that means House seats). Exactly two non-major parties in Australian history (Nats, Lang Labor) would qualify under that definition. In fact, to my mind the single biggest problem with the infobox is that it includes no useful information whatever about the Senate. If a way could be found to include the Senate, I would strongly support a reconsideration of inclusion criteria (potentially excluding e.g. KAP, CA), as obviously we would need to include the DLP and the Democrats (excluded under current criteria) for elections where they won seats. Frickeg (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

It is indefensibly misleading to include a picture of Robbie Katter, who is not even in parliament, and exclude the National Party from the infobox. If we get rid of the photos entirely, that would give us space to do use a table (something like in Next United Kingdom general election) and include ALL parties. We could possibly have a background or thick border around the Coalition parties. --Surturz (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of including the National Party if a way could be found to style it within this infobox structure, because Suturz makes a fair point. I'm not opposed to something like that UK table in principle, but I don't see the point of having completely different tables on pending elections to those used on past elections, which still leaves the issue live in every past election. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

On the question of how to include the Senate, I would suggest a system similar to that used for Italian elections (see 2018 Italian general election) . YttriumShrew (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I've temporarily boldly made Bob Katter the parliamentary leader in the infobox, with a note stating that the official party leader isn't within parliament and isn't contesting the election (based on what the 'Parties and leaders' section stated). I do agree with other editors that the inclusion criteria needs to be refined. Rebekha Sharkie is treated similar to the independents (who are not included in the infobox) in the media and even is labelled as an 'independent'.[1][2] Maybe the inclusion criteria could be having official parliamentary party status (More than 5 members in either chamber)? This could be a way to include historically significant parties like the Australian Democrats in the infobox. Catiline52 (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with some criteria like this, maybe three seats in the whole parliament. We shouldn't give Centre Alliance and Katter's Australian Party similar prominence in the infobox as the major parties or the Greens. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I've reinstated Bob by undoing an edit made that put it back to Robbie yesterday. The only comments I can see on this talk page all seem to agree that Bob's photo is more appropriate than Robbie's, though it seems both discussions quickly change topic and get side-tracked. I can't see anyone who has made an argument against showing Bob in this context (unless I've missed it), so accordingly have restored Catiline52's approach. Rob.au (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Katter's Australian Party says "In February 2020, Bob Katter handed the leadership of the party to his son Robbie Katter", indicating that Robbie is the leader. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

But how does that work in practice? When Bob K wants to ask one of his incomprehensible questions, does he have to seek the concurrence of his son? Really, I think we should regard the February 2020 declaration as a private matter, and regard the KAP as having a sole federal parliamentary representative without any formal leader. Leader in this context means "parliamentary leader", and someone who isn't a member of the parliament can't be a parliamentary leader of anything, by definition. Yes, I know we had Campbell Newman leading the Qld Lib-Nats before he entered parliament, but that was widely considered weird at the time, and still is. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Exactly - for a one-person presence in the parliament, any "leader" title is notional semantics. His son has no formal significance at all in the context of the election. Rob.au (talk) 10:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Weird 2.0

The simplest way out of the unsatisfactory distortions in the infobox is to have pics of the prime minister and the leader of the opposition only. Tony (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Suggest edit to include information for this election not last election

The subsection parties and leaders under candidates has a graph that shows the parties and leaders for the previous election (which is already included at the top of the article for some reason)

I edited it to include all the parties and leaders as it seems strange to have the parties who won seats in the 2019 election listed as the only parties contesting the 2022 election

Thought I would bring it up here suggesting removing graph and replacing with parties contesting the 2022 election Politically Minded Stoner (talk) 08:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The inclusion of only parliamentary parties in the 'parties and leaders' section is common amongst most Wikipedia elections internationally, as the most relevant parties are the ones elected at the previous election as they tend to be the only ones elected. Every other party is listed at the Candidates of the next Australian federal election page. Not including every single minor party, parties which are notable for being a party but not notable (by Wiki's standards) in relation to the election, makes the page far more readable. Catiline52 (talk) 12:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

leaving aside that its apparently the normal thing to do on wikipedia it was misleading before it said these are the parties of the 46th parliament, now its just irrelevant to the article, it makes about as much sense to list the parties who won the 1993 election. the section is parties and leaders, the article is the 2022 election, would the most relevant parties to put under the section parties and leaders on the article 2022 australian federal election not be the parties contesting the 2022 Australian federal election. if your worried about a list of parties somehow being less readable than an graph (i would argue a graph is harder to interpret than a list, particularly when the graph draws no relevance to the rest of the article) i would then suggest removing the graph and leaving the link to the registered parties article Politically Minded Stoner (talk) 06:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Double dissolution note b

Just wondering if note b in the third paragraph referring to a double dissolution should be removed, as a double dissolution is basically impossible now:

"That means that any double dissolution of the 46th Parliament will have to be granted by 1 January 2022. Allowing for the same stages indicated above, the last possible date for a double dissolution election would be 5 March 2022.[35] This can only occur if a bill that passes the House of Representatives is rejected by the Senate twice, at least three months apart." Jacsam2 (talk)

updated map?

I'd like to suggest the creation of an updated house electorates SVG image to use as a template. this is due to the removal of an electorate in WA and a new electorate in VIC. other minor changes have occurred such as the seat of Pearce getting considerably smaller. 2001:8003:9446:DA00:680E:1C6C:ED79:650D (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I will update the maps soon to incorporate the redistributions. --Canley (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

thanks 2001:8003:9446:DA00:680E:1C6C:ED79:650D (talk) 13:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Weird 3.0

See my earlier posts. Sorry to be a pest, but it's not only the infobox (which says inter alia that Katter needs another 75 seats to form government ... so important and informative); it's things like the second table, in which we're told that the Liberal party's ideology is liberal conservatism (read that article opening to see why it's a misleading link), and the National party's ideology is agrarianism (I had the impression that its donors and benefactors are chiefly the extraction industry, not food producers). I'm not sure Labor's link is accurate, either.

Whatever is in this article, it should not mislead foreigners who consult it for reliable information. What I see now contains significant faults. Can we at least decide on fixes for after the election? Tony (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

On the subject of Weird, why don't you mention two of the most wonderful things about our electoral system, which I consider to be one of the best in the world.

The first is how to avoid a fine if you fail to vote. (Remember I support compulsory voting.) What you do when you are sent a please explain is to reply that it was against your religion, as the act says that such an answer must be accepted as conclusive, and no further action will be taken.

The second is how to cast a valid vote whilst denying anyone the public funding associated with that vote. The senate is easy. Look to the ungrouped candidates at the right of the paper and select one at random. He gets your 1. Then vote as you wish. Reps is harder, depending on your seat.  Hopefully you will have a few independents, and use you judgement as to who is least likely to get 4% of the vote. A small number of candidates can make it very tricky. Unsurprisingly, my suggestion for solving the campaign funding and expenditure problems has never been taken seriously. I believe the problem can be solved by providing that only candidates can spend money on getting elected, and the only money they can spend is money raised by putting their daughters on the streets.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plerdsus (talk • contribs) 09:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC) 

Date of election

I think the Senate date and the House of Reps dates have been mixed up.

House of reps has to be march, 3 years from last election. Senate could conceivably be delayed till September, but very unlikely. 2001:8003:6D47:D01:21C4:483D:1BEF:2DD2 (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@2001:8003:6D47:D01:21C4:483D:1BEF:2DD2: No, the Senate election must be held by May (allowing for counting time) as the term expires in July. There is nothing in legislation that suggest house of reps election must be 3 years from the last election, but it must be held at the very latest, 3 years + a number of days since the first sitting of this term of parliament (which was in July 2019), so the latest the house of reps election can be held is in September. Marcnut1996 (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

In any event, the last election was in May, not March. But the timing of this one is, as Marcnut says, not as simple as "date of last election + 3 years". It can be held as late as September 2022, as our article explains in detail. That's for the H of R. The Senate election has to be held by May, and it would be silly to have a Senate election in May and a H of R election a few months later. That's why both elections will be in May. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

2-seat or 3-seat majority?

@Canley: How did the Coalition have a 3-seat majority in 2019, if the minimum for majority is 76 and the Coalition won 77? Marcnut1996 (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

It's stupid term, but it think it works like this:

The gov has 77 seats, and all other parties have 151-77=74 seats.

77 gov seats - 74 everyone else seats = 3 seat majority Micmicm (talk) 07:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that was it: Government seats minus all other seats (opposition + crossbench) so 77−74 = 3. 2019 Australian federal election says three-seat majority. I raised it at Talk:2019 Australian federal election#Majority in 2020 after several "corrections" to "two-seat" but there were no responses one way or the other – my preference was we should defer to the expertise of election analysts (e.g. Antony Green) and statisticians. There's also a BBC article that explains the formula, although that is slightly different: subtract half the number of seats in the chamber from the number of seats won by the government and then double it, so 77−(151/2) = 77−75.5 = 1.5, 1.5 * 2 = 3. --Canley (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

So if the ALP or L/NP gets 76 seats at this election, your view is that such an outcome should not be characterised as a "one-seat majority"? Because if it happens, that is how every journalist and Aussie punter will describe it. Global-Cityzen (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

No, of course not, because if you bothered to work it out, it would be a one-seat majority under that formula: 76 − 75 = 1. With an odd number of seats and a party getting a bare majority like that, both methods would give the same result. --Canley (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Senate

Where does a reader go to find out how many senators from each party are up for election, and how many are not? Tony (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I put it in Candidates of the 2022 Australian federal election in the Senate section. --Canley (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Why is this article only "Low-importance"?

Considering how often this article will be looked at in the next few weeks, why is the importance not something higher? Micmicm (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Map has many inaccuracies

Something is up with how the electoral boundaries map is produced.

Looking at Sydney in particular, the boundaries of Berowra, Bradfield, Chifley, Cunningham, Hughes, Hume, Lindsay, Macarthur, Macquarie, McMahon, and Parramatta are all distorted. The Division of Macarthur especially looks nothing like the AEC boundaries. Meowxr (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I will ping @Eric0892: who made the map. Marcnut1996 (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing these issues out. Seeing as there was no redistribution in New South Wales, all N.S.W. electoral divisions' shapes were copied over from 2019's map, so it's odd that there are inaccuracies! I'll look into it and try and fix the issues. — Eric0892 (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry that I'm late to this but the inaccuracies pointed out here also exist at the 2019 election map made by DrRandomFactor – currently working on reimporting the divisions back in from the ABS. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 14:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done – before and after —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 03:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Some of the issues have been fixed, but there are still many inaccuracies on the map.

I've taken a look at the shapefile from the ABS which @Twotwofourtysix linked above, and I can see what the problem is. I've observed this before in maps on the ABS QuickStats pages for electoral divisions. The ABS in its presentation of electoral boundaries aligns the electoral boundaries to meshblock boundaries. I can confirm this having loaded both the shapefile linked above and the meshblock shapefile for NSW into QGIS, and indeed this accounts for all the inaccuracies in this map. Electoral boundary data should not be sourced from the ABS. Meowxr (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I was looking for a shapefile from the ABS because the divisions in the AEC shapefile inconsistently includes the ocean in states like QLD but not in states like VIC, so I originally looked for the shapefile of Australia's coastline in general so I could clip it with the one from the AEC. If you could find a better source, I would appreciate it. As for the inaccuracies, it seems to just be minor tweaks like in Barker and Lindsay. Maybe I can fix this, but I have off-wiki things going on —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 08:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Another source you could use is Geoscape Admin Boundaries. It has the latest electorate data, and you can do a spatial intersection with the state boundary shapefiles. Let me know if you're too busy and I can try and fix it up. --Canley (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Even if I weren't busy, my device wouldn't be able to handle gigabytes of data from there :) —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 00:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, sorry I’m a bit late…yes, I’ve also noticed several inaccuracies with the ABS’ shape file, notably Barker and Gorton, that’s why I choose to go with the AEC’s shape files initially; however, as @Twotwofourtysix pointed out, the coast line is better with the ABS’ map. I’ll try Geoscape Admin Boundaries’ shape-file, and will upload it as soon as possible. Please let me know if inaccuracies persists. — Eric0892 (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

All right, I've updated the map by remaking it from the Australian Electoral Commission's shapefile of divisions, then clipping it with the Australian Bureau of Statistics' shapefile of the coastline of Australia. Again, please let me know if there are still inaccuracies. :) – Eric0892 (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

"COVID" or "Covid"

I recently noticed that a use of "Covid" was edited to "COVID".

Do we have a reason to prefer one over the other?

I personally prefer the lowercase version. Micmicm (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The article COVID-19 makes clear it is all caps. WWGB (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Campaign "launches" long after the campaign began

The Liberal Party held what they called their Campaign Launch at the weekend, well after many people have already voted. We have rightly reported that fact, but the language seems weird to me. I feel that we should have some sort of an explanation of how a party can launch its campaign so long after it obviously launched its campaign. (Which, realistically, was about six months ago.) Does anyone know the explanation? With a source, of course. HiLo48 (talk) 04:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not just the Liberals holding its campaign launch this late into the campaign by the way, the Greens are holding theirs this evening. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 05:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that there isn't really a good answer. I can find articles criticising the decision (https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/queensland/more-than-1-2m-australians-vote-early-before-pm-launches-campaign-20220513-p5al23.html) but nothing that really explains it, other then the parties seem to think it might help them some how. Dauwenkust (talk) 06:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

References

This has been a bugbear of mine for decades. Announce whatever you like, whenever you like, but calling an event held so close to the end of the campaign a "launch" is just stupid. Just like the Brisbane Ekka, which was always officially opened on Day 4 of 5, until an intelligent person in the 1970s (?) decided this was simply ridiculous, and ever since then the official opening has been held much closer to the start of the event. Time for our political parties to do likewise. </rant> -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

'Teal' Independents

I have an objection to the following phrase about the so called 'Teal' Independents.

"Climate 200 is contributing funds to several independent candidates running in this federal election under the name of 'Teal' Independents".

None of the 'Teal' Independents are running "under the name of 'Teal' Independents". the source used as reference (https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/a-secret-party-immoral-explaining-who-the-teal-independents-really-are-20220505-p5aio4.html) nor these other sources https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-20/teal-independents-who-are-candidates-what-electorates/101000412 and https://theconversation.com/why-teal-independents-are-seeking-liberal-voters-and-spooking-liberal-mps-182133 claim they are running under the name of 'Teal' Independents.

@Pa2chant.bis

P.S. looks like someone else has already fixed this on the page. Micmicm (talk) 08:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

That's right, "referred to as "teal independents"" or "referred as" is more appropriate. --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

Sorry to bang on again about the messy inclusiveness of infobox photos, but ... if a swag of independents are elected will the infobox be stretching down through half the article? And is the distinction between independents who have a "party" (Katter) and those who do not a rationale one in the design of the infobox here? I'm concerned not least about potential that foreign readers—as well as many Australian readers—might take away a distorted view. Tony (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

We could always do something like Next United Kingdom general election and omit the photos. WWGB (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Newspaper Endorsements

As someone who doesn't immediately recognize which newspapers are owned by News Corp, I was wondering if we could set up the table to specify if it's owned by News Corp or not? Micmicm (talk) 01:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, considering that all the Murdoch papers listed have endorsed Morrison and all the non-Murdoch papers have endorsed Albanese it's plainly a relevant distinction. Though the random opinion from Kevin Rudd in that section needs to go. Have Nine/Fairfax endorsed anyone this election? It's odd/unusual that they're missing from the table. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The Age, SMH and Fin Review are there now, all nine/Fairfax papers. HiLo48 (talk) 06:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done. WWGB (talk) 05:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Talking about the table for newspaper endorsements, is the table sorted in any way? It seems to be sorted alphabetically at the start, just like how it should be, similar to 2019 Australian federal election#Newspaper endorsements but then it falls apart at the end. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 06:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)