Jump to content

Talk:2016 Australian federal election

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 1.144.96.234 (talk) at 02:53, 28 March 2016 (→‎Article name: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Newspoll

This is a really silly question but recently Newspoll's operation has been taken over by Galaxy Research Should we call any future polling from Newspoll as "Newspoll/Galaxy" or "Newspoll-Galaxy" or just keep it as it is? If we do decide to change, what will happen with any future Galaxy polls? DestinationAlan (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would be good to wait and see what other sites do. Tony (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polling dates need fixing

It seems in the past couple of months, those who add polling have ignored how it's added. Polling dates are when it was conducted, not released. Anyone fancy doing a cleanup? Timeshift (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2PP

Also, i'm pretty sure until now we've added the headline 2PP calc'd from prev-election pref flows rather than resp-alloc pref flows. The Ipsos poll was changed to reflect resp-alloc. I'm not really fussed either way but the one we use should at least be consistent. Timeshift (talk) 10:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ColonialGrid: Ipsos seems to prefers prev-election pref flow: "The national poll of 1,402 respondents, interviewed from 13-15 August 2015, shows Labor with 54% of the two-party preferred vote" (Ipsos). Stickee (talk) 04:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've said on my talk page, if we have TPP based on peoples intentions I think we should use them over TPP based on last election flows. People's votes change, and I think it's sensible to assume that peoples preference flows will also change, therefore TPP based on peoples intentions seems more reliable than preference flows assumed by previous trend. However, if consensus is to use TPP based on last elections preference flows over what those being polled state, I will accept that. Also, I wasn't the one that first changed the TPP figures, that was another editor, I just restored them (after changing them to TPP based on last election results the self reverting). ColonialGrid (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Missing or empty", and "Check date values". Anyone know what's causing this? Tony (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "missing or empty" error comes up because there's nothing in the title field. The "check date values" error comes because the system doesn't like "day/month/year" dates - I changed it to "day month year" and it went away. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go through them and fix them all up tomorrow. Stickee (talk) 12:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Stickee (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Federation seats

  • As Hunter is a federation seat, first contested at the inaugural 1901 federal election, the name of Hunter is required to be retained.

Where in the law is this requirement specified? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not required, and we shouldn't say that it is. The guidelines specify that federation names should be retained where possible, but it is by no means a hard-and-fast rule. Frickeg (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Can we have a link to those guidelines? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[1]. Frickeg (talk) 08:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad someone caught that. Division of Gwydir is a recent example of why it's not true at all. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A note on adding polls

Sigh... as long requested, before an editor adds a poll, if they can ensure they come to grips with: attribute the correct pollster and date of poll conducted and not duplicate polls and notice that some pollsters don't post votings and approval at the same time (essential does voting weekly but approval monthly), wouldn't that sort of rudimentary accuracy be just lovely? Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown Liberal Party history

  • This was only the second time in North Sydney since federation that the successful Liberal candidate did not obtain a majority of the primary vote, and had to rely on preferences.

Except, the Liberal Party did not exist till the late 1940s. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty unimportant point in this particular article, but one easily enough fixed by making it "only the second time in North Sydney since the creation of the Liberal Party in 194x that the successful candidate did not obtain..." The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be cantankerous, but I'm really not a fan of these seat-specific "records". North Sydney has had widely varying boundaries over that time, so it's a meaningless factoid. It's also, as far as I can tell, uncited - so let's turf it altogether. Frickeg (talk) 08:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No objections here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 10:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the polls

I figure that a separate polling page was necessary, but we need a formal "consensus" to remove all those polls from this one (it IS an election year after all). So is it okay? Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely necessary - those tables are getting huge. I think we need some sort of summary still on this page - maybe just the graphs? It would be nice to have some sort of much, much smaller table in the article, but I'm damned if I know how (hopefully someone has some ideas!). Frickeg (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we should keep the graphs and introductory paragraph, but the giant tables should be moved. An additional option could be to keep them, but have them collapsed by default. Stickee (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this idea (splitting the polling info off into another article would be consistent with WP:SPLIT's guidelines based on size alone). I reckon we should keep the graphs here and an intro paragraph that outlines major shifts in polling trends. Maybe a much smaller table which shows the most recent polls (say the last month or so) could also be kept in the article (kind of like how the most recent results are shown on articles about electoral divisions)? ColonialGrid (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2 July date in infobox

I've removed the 2 July date for a 'tentively scheduled' election, and have been reverted, hence this discussion to determine consensus. I oppose it being included in the infobox as it's purely speculative and primarily based on media reports. Turnbull has asked the GG to recall the Senate to deal with the ABCC bill, and has stated that if that fails, he will call a double dissolution. However, the Senate is yet to be recalled, and they have yet to reject the bill for a second time, and, 2 July is just one of three dates available to Turnbull to hold a double dissolution election (if he doesn't get cold feet and drop the idea that is). Given this, I think having a date, tentative or not, is WP:CRYSTALBALL and something that should be discussed in the article body, rather than stated as fact in the infobox. But, consensus isn't just what I think, so what do other editors reckon? ColonialGrid (talk) 06:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. "Tentatively scheduled for 2 July 2016" is completely wrong. It's a possibility, that's all - admittedly one that's been given some weight by Turnbull's announcement, but still just a possibility. A lot of water has to flow under the bridge yet before we have any clear election date. The election has not yet been "scheduled" at all, tentatively or any other way. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I can't believe ColonialGrid has been forced to raise something as obvious as this. There is no question that it's WP:CRYSTAL. Frickeg (talk) 07:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to pile on, I agree. 2 July looks very likely, but is far from certain. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

Given that the election has to be held by 14 January 2017, and with no chance of a summer holiday campaign, is it now time to bite the bullet and rename the article Australian federal election, 2016 to stop links being added to Next Australian federal election that will then need to be amended so as not to link to the page for the following election? 1.144.96.234 (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_Australian_federal_election&oldid=712270125"