Talk:Candidates of the 2014 South Australian state election

No refs for independent upper house candidates

We only have a ref for about half the independent upper house candidates. Where are the others coming from? We need refs for them... Timeshift (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I've added refs for all upper independents, but I couldn't find one for Jeanie Walker that stated she was running at the 2014 SA election so for now i've removed her. Timeshift (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Jeanie Walker & the Democrats have now indicated they will not be fielding candidates via their Facebook page Screech1616 (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

What's the URL and does it state the 2014 election specifically? Timeshift (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed by InDaily http://indaily.com.au/news/2014/02/18/election-changes-pushed-labor-libs-cause-micro-party-massacre/ Screech1616 (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Good enough for me. HungryPseph (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the Dems or Walker at ECSA anywhere. And the indaily ref says the Dems aren't running. Timeshift (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep, as discussed prior Screech1616 (talk) 11:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Structure of LegCo table

I'm a bit unsure as to why one minor party has its own column but the rest don't. My view is that all minor parties and independents that don't have a sitting member should just be in alpha order in the right hand column. That would mean moving John Darley into his own column (he has a running mate, I believe) and moving SPGN into the "Rest" column. Opinions? HungryPseph (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

See Candidates of the South Australian state election, 2010 and Candidates of the South Australian state election, 2006. Parties listed in upper house get their own coloured column if they are a registered political party in SA. Once we know how the independent uppers are contesting and are published (group ticket or single ticket) we can then go about giving more group tickets their own columns too as per the 2010 example. Timeshift (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, exactly - we've got plenty of practice dealing with this kind of thing! In fact, in the past I think we've given everyone their own column, which is perhaps a little generous. At the very least everyone with a running mate has to get one. Frickeg (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, my mistake. Should have checked the previous election article. Cheers, HungryPseph (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

In terms of improvements to these pages, how about the change I just made where each group ticket has the alpha letter next to it as per the ballot order? I know it's a candidates article rather than a ballot article but it's extra voting info for very little extra add. If undesired due to previous candidate articles, feel free to revert. Timeshift (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

User Frickeg has gone through the LegCo table and removed all the order letters and changed all the ordering to random with the edit description "we don't do these in ballot paper order". I am considering undo-ing the change as there is no justification as to why this improvement should not stand, particularly as there is no logical ordering except that it makes the majors more prominent.Screech1616 (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, I didn't see this note on the talk page or I would have discussed it first. I still consider my change correct, though. The majors are more prominent because they are the majors. Labor and Liberal are clearly more important than the Multicultural Progress Party, and it's not our job to run some sort of egalitarian utopia where all parties are equal - they clearly aren't. Obviously it gets a little arbitrary further down the ballot paper (I did actually follow an order - parties with elected MPs in SA, then elected MPs anywhere in Australia, and then I did the rest in ballot paper order because there's no real differentiation).

There is an argument for ballot paper order to be listed somewhere, but I'm not sure it can really be incorporated into these articles. If we're going to consider it important, we need to consider it important for the lower house too, and we can't do that in this sort of situation. Ultimately I don't really think the information is that important - where it materially affects the result, i.e. NSW Senate 2013, it's noted in the article. Open to ideas on that front though.

I cut out the alpha letters because the table is bulky enough as it is and I don't think they're really necessary. It is, as Timeshift says in the initial comment, not meant to be an article about how the ballot looks; it's an article listing the candidates, in the most concise, helpful way possible. IMO, the new version is closer to that than the old one. Frickeg (talk) 12:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I liked the changes we had made from the standard presentation style... Timeshift (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Multicultural Progress Party

We don't "need" to match the ballot paper. We make decisions on what's better at our discretion. Multicultural Progress Party is much better as Multicultural Progress than just 'Multicultural'. Every other party has their words used except for "party" or "australian", there's no reason why Multicultural Progress should be any different. The wording, layout and design of this list is more or less perfect now. If you want clarifications for "FREE Australia" and/or "Nationals SA", please ask. Timeshift (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)