Talk:2019 Australian federal election

Infobox rows (Greens top row or not top row?)

There seems to be good reasons for both options, the Greens in the infobox being in either the first or the second row. We should be able to figure out how we want it before election day, and we don't need to rely on what we have decided previously. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Notifying recent editors @WWGB, LeoC12, ScottDavis, Erinthecute, Global-Cityzen, Catiline52, JosephLincoln081072, Kwanhr, and JDuggan101: Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Bottom/middle row (i.e. as it is now). The two parties with a realistic chance of forming government should have the top row alone. Frickeg (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Frickeg I think in the interests of discussion it would be helpful if you outlined why you think the top row should only be parties who can form government. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

This is pedantic. Does it really matter? All that matters is it’s correct. If I had to say, I’d agree with Frickeg because that way the box isn’t too wide taking up space for text in the lede. Global-Cityzen (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

If the infobox showed Senate seats it would make sense to have the Greens higher than KAP and CA. However, since the infobox is centred around only the lower house, it is, in my opinion, unreasonable to place the Greens above them. The Greens, KAP, and CA all have one seat and are all equal in legislative power in the lower house. The Greens should be moved to the second row alongside the other minor parties but placed first of all the minor parties due to its voting share. To be honest, due to the Senate having effectively the same legislative power as the lower house (except without the ability to legislate with regard to money), the Senate should be mentioned in some way in the infobox. It's insane that parties with more influence than KAP, such as One Nation, aren't represented. Catiline52 (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

It is laughable to place The Greens on the same level as Labor and the Coalition. They have no hope of forming a government in their own right. The Greens belong on the second tier. WWGB (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The amended infobox will look like this: [1]. WWGB (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep the infobox narrower. I see no reason that the Greens need to be presented as "just as important" as Coalition and ALP, since it clearly isn't. I would have thought that ranked by importance, Centre Alliance might be in front of Katter, too. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I think we really should consider placing the Greens and One Nation on the second row, and omitting Centre Alliance and Katter. Reliable sources are not giving consideration to CA or KAP as national parties, but are giving more weight to Greens and PHON. The implicit criteria can be one that includes either polling results, or Senate results from the previous election, as well was House of Representatives results. If the Greens only had one seat in the lower house and about 2% of the popular vote, I doubt they would be included in the infobox. It seems we're only including Katter and CA because they meet the same lower house seat threshold as the Greens, but that is not the reason why we do or should include the Greens in the infobox. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

We're finding an issue where there isn't one. Put aside subjective views on which parties are more important than others. Put the Greens in the second row along with KAP or CA, and have a third row for whichever of the two latter parties are not placed alongside the Greens, for purely presentable reasons. We literally squeeze the lead becomes by having a row of three in the box. As for talk of including parties with only Senate representation and/or a presence in the polls, that would set a terrible precedent. Six parties have Senate representation going into this election, but no seat in the House. Including One Nation (which has 2 Senate seats and a statistical presence in the polls) invites partisans to demand that other parties with representation in the Senate get in the infobox. Parties with representation in the House, before and/or after the election, should belong there. That's been the de facto standard in all election articles on wiki. Why fix what ain't broke? Global-Cityzen (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Centre Alliance has more seats across both houses than PHON does.That demonstrates that changing "the rules" will lead to all sorts of interpretations to pick between. We have a current objective measure, let's keep it to not let the infobox grow too wide. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a separate problem to which row the Greens should be placed, which I think consensus is deciding the second row is appropriate. Likewise, the status quo invites editors to "demand" that One Nation (which had four senators after last election) be included in the infobox when parties of lesser importance are included. Including Katter and Centre Alliance sets a terrible precedent. Just as the infobox shouldn't be too wide, it also shouldn't be too long. The strongest argument by far is that One Nation and the Greens are getting the most coverage of any non-major party by far, and if readers are to be given a summary of information in the form of an infobox, it should include those two parties and the major parties. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Honestly I really don't see a problem with most of this, (I have always preferred Template:Infobox legislative election but I feel that most people would refuse to use it) it is just I think that that how many the first row has is the maximum, i.e. if the first row has two then the second row must have two. Otherwise, the layout looks clunky and like it has not been formatted correctly. JDuggan101 ^{talk. | Cont.} 13:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Greens shouldn't be on the list at all. I think people should take a step back and consider what the point of the box was and its history - it was clearly to show an overview of the election to highlight the credible candidates who will be leading government. We seem to all agree that a indepedant is not credible to PM, but for some reason a party with 1 seat is? Why? Makes no sense. It also makes zero sense at all to show the leader of the party - rather than the leader of the lower house. Richard from the Greens cannot be PM, the GG would never let someone from outside the lower house, not answerable in question time, to be a PM. So he is a not even a practical candidate to lead government. I notice that if you view history of these pages there was pretty much consensus over it being a 2pp box with leader of the lower house.... until greens won that 1 seat in melbourne, and since they just demand to be shown everywhere. Just look at the history of the 2009 2013 2016 election pages. Once the greens won that one seat, someone went around and added the Greens box as the '3rd' party, even though other 3rd parties had won seats before. We need to revert this because the box is frankly ridicuolous. The way the 2013 box was retrospectively changed to add the Greens senator is even more absurd since greens had no seats at time of the election!

Think about it: If someone from a party other than the 5 on the current box wins a seat, we now go and change the box to include them? Does that make any sense to anyone? That they suddenly retrospectively become an important leading candidate? We should remove anyone/party who is not credible to win government PM position. See the USA federal election box. Don't include anyone unless they have a credible way to at least gain as many seats for their party as their are cross benchers. Dacium (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Emma Husar

Should she be listed with the retiring members? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Frickeg (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Promotional section: 'newspaper endorsements'

I just removed this as it appeared to be promotional. Please discuss if there is some justification for it or reliable third party sources which discuss this. The sources cited were partisan. --Last intellectual (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

At this stage of proceedings, I am inclined to agree. Once the major newspapers start endorsing people, they can be included, but I see no reason to include fringe publications like this. Frickeg (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)