Talk:2018 Wentworth by-election

That Infobox....

....really is problematic. It tells the reader far less, in a more confusing manner, than they can get by reading the first two sentences of the article. Infoboxes are not compulsory, despite what another editor has claimed when reverting my removal of it. (And subsequently refusing to discuss the matter.) They are really not designed for the situation we are now in in Wentworth. It's a bit insulting to all the other candidates. (Editors here argued about who should be in it before the election.) Without resorting to the "We always have an Infobox" argument, can anyone really justify its presence? HiLo48 (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The obvious answer is that it coneys important information to the reader. We now know which two candidates belong there, and I intend on completing the information with results. It's clear now that Phelps has won. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't really like infoboxes for by-elections, and it's certainly never been standard to have them. I don't see that it adds anything useful. Frickeg (talk) 06:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't like most infoboxes, and I certainly don't like that picture of Phelps. It would be better to have nothing.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

"The obvious answer is that it coneys important information to the reader." Please do better than that. You're not even acknowledging anything that anyone else has said. HiLo48 (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The current infobox is ugly and uninformative. It may look better once results are finalised, and margins and swings are included. WWGB (talk) 10:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an argument. That the current infobox without the actual results data may be deemed as incomplete (and thus, useless, as it does not yet provide any data) is one thing; that the article should not use an infobox because some people don't like infoboxes is way another thing. The usefulness of infoboxes is unquestioned by the fact that they are widely used in Wikipedia for elections, as well as for by-elections. Impru20^talk 12:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

"The usefulness of infoboxes is unquestioned" - LOL. The usefulness or otherwise of infoboxes is one of the major ongoing disputes of Wikipedia, the subject of multiple arbitration cases. But in any case, I am not anti-infobox, I am just anti-useless infobox, and in this case I do not see that the infobox adds anything of use, even when data is added, nor has anyone even attempted to explain how it does. Frickeg (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

HiLo48, what kind of answer are you looking for? The infobox does what the infobox is supposed to do, conveys the most important information is an easily readable table. It has the date, the main two candidates, the swing, the location of the electorate, the winner. This does not replace anything in the article, it supplements it visually. You wanted the infobox to be justified, this is its justification. What else is anything on a Wikipedia article supposed to do? Frickeg, the infoboxes are never supposed to contain information that isn't contained in the rest of the article. Obviously this infobox is useful, people look at it and gain information from it. Honestly I didn't think this needed to be explained, or perhaps you think that an infobox has to do much more than that to be considered useful. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

"Obviously this infobox isn't useful..." That may be a Freudian slip, but it's clearly the way most people in this discussion feel. Time for it to go. If someone can later put together one that is not confusing, and helpful, come back to us then. HiLo48 (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I meant to say the infobox is useful. I think you are probably too used to not seeing the infobox on by-election articles. It's undeniable that it's useful, that can't be the argument made against it. It's the most used part of the article. If you feel that the current percentages should be placed there to make it more useful then I would agree and I would add those numbers in, but no doubt these numbers will be there after results are final. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

"It's undeniable that it's useful..." Please stop using Trumpisms here. Many clearly disagree with you. HiLo48 (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

This still brings us to the fact that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an argument to use in discussion talks. WP:CONSISTENCY (seeing how other by-elections do use infoboxes, proving wrong any claims against set down here) is. Arguments against the use of the infobox are just well into IDONTLIKEIT territory. Further, with the data we have as of now, I am wondering why the infobox is still empty. It could be completed and be made an actually usable thing. Impru20^talk 05:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying that nobody sees the infobox? Surely that's the more Trump-like assertion. Even if you disagree with it, obviously it has a use. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

"Are you saying that nobody sees the infobox?" Misrepresentation is a tactic of someone whose arguments have failed. HiLo48 (talk) 06:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

You're saying it's not useful but its use is demonstrable, people see it and read it. As for the "two-party-preferred", I have not included any 2PP results, I have only included 2CP results, and they are listed in the table as TCP. It's just that the link goes to the article for two-party-preferred because the encyclopaedic information for two-candidate-preferred is on that article. We could change the link to two-candidate-preferred but it would just redirect to two-party-preferred. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

"It's undeniable that it's useful" - clearly untrue. "It's the most used part of the article" - I highly doubt it. But anyway - I have never found that infoboxes work at all for individual, seat-level results. I have no particular problem with them for general elections, although even there they are far from perfect, especially for preferential elections. But as HiLo48 points out above, reducing it to only two candidates is misleading and unfair, while including all 16 is obviously ridiculous. This particular infobox also includes: a photo so awful it is worse than nothing, a map that would be much better just accompanying the "background" section, and a weird and confusing "previous/next" formulation. Using infoboxes for by-elections is a poor attempt to force in a template that was not designed to handle them, and just because others have succumbed to this temptation is no reason we should. (As for WP:CONSISTENCY, that is a policy about article titles and has literally no relevance to this discussion.) Frickeg (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Further, I notice infoboxes have been added to by-elections going back to 2008. I oppose all of these too (especially some truly dreadful ones like this and this), and would ask that no more be added until consensus is reached. Probably this should be discussed more centrally, at either WT:AUP or WP:AWNB. Frickeg (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm right with you Frickeg. That Infobox template simply doesn't work for this situation. The Phelps pic IS appalling. Sharma looks like a used car salesman. We seem to have got rid of the meaningless numbers, but what do the coloured bars under the candidates' pics mean? (If it's not obvious, and it's not, they don't belong.) And where is some mention of the fact that there were actually many more than two candidates? It's totally confusing and misleading. HiLo48 (talk) 05:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The Phelps pic IS appalling. Sharma looks like a used car salesman.

what do the coloured bars under the candidates' pics mean?

Either you are seriously joking, or possibly you are a clear case of WP:CIR. "What do the coloured bars mean?" These are the party colors, which is something you can discern from both the infobox template as well as the party names appearing just right below the bars. I'm starting to think this discussion is not serious at all. Impru20^talk 05:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that Phelps' party colour is grey. And who the bloody hell is going to know that's what the colours mean anyway? The Infobox should not be for people who already know all about Australian politics, and templates. HiLo48 (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

It is abundantly clear that Phelps' campaign colour is purple, not grey. Moreover, that terrible screenshot of Phelps goes against the MOS:IMAGES guideline: "Poor-quality images—dark or blurry ...—should not be used." It is amateurish and should be removed. WWGB (talk) 06:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

We use grey as the colour for independents. The picture of Sharma is most definitely not too old, that is quite simply what his face looks like. Now in general of course infoboxes can be improved, but people are pretending that its presence on this article is completely shocking, when most articles of any non-trivial length have infoboxes. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

"...people are pretending that its presence on this article is completely shocking". Misrepresentation again. We simply want quality content. And who the bloody hell is going to know that "We use grey as the colour for independents"? Infoboxes must NOT be only for people who know "our" conventions. HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I've never heard of this standard that something must be universally known before it can be added into an infobox. I don't know what the infoboxes mean for the classifications of plants either. It's nothing to do with the infobox either, grey is used for all independents in results. I'm actually surprised that you're surprised that we would use grey for an independent, it's clearly a colour in the absence of a party colour as independents are without a party. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Nobody has said "something must be universally known before it can be added into an infobox". HiLo48 (talk) 06:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Now we have an Infobox with a photo of only one candidate, the guy who came second out of sixteen. And a funny blue line under his pic. It really is ridiculous, and makes us look as if we love the Liberal Party. (For those few who know what the blue line means.) I want this to be a quality encyclopaedia. Right now that Infobox is rubbish. HiLo48 (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not just presumed that you should have competence for editing Wikipedia and to be able to communicate with others and present rationales when questioned by others; you should also have it to being able to correctly identify specific and serious issues, such as what vandalism is, specially when we have a very clear and specific policy on it.

This said, as far as I am able to discern from this discussion and your edits on the page, you initially sought to have the whole infobox removed on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT/WP:USELESS arguments. Then, for some reason the discussion moved to specific issues within the infobox (the images or the party's colours), which were not raised as issues for days yet somehow became the new central point of the discussion at hand. Nonetheless:

1. As for the image, sometimes we do not have high-quality and outstanding pictures of people to show due to copyright issues, but that is not an issue if the images abide to WP:IUP and WP:MUG.
2. Further, it is not others' fault if some people are not aware that grey is, indeed, universally used in WP as the color for independent candidates; so universal that there is even a template on it which is widely used in elections throughout the world (literally, tens of thousands of articles).

What it seems to me is that someone is seemingly interested in raising supposed flaws throughout the infobox as a red herring in order to try to justify the deletion of the whole of it. Which is also pointless, as appearance is ultimately not an argument to be used on such discussions, and it just exposes concerns on the competence of the people raising them. Impru20^talk 13:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

That info box is going to be pretty bloody useful when the last votes have been counted and the race is declared. Global-Cityzen (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

HiLo48, the arguments you are making against this infobox, which are more criticisms than arguments, would be the same against infoboxes for general elections. They too have coloured bars, picturing missing, and don't include all possible candidates. It was fair enough for the interest of balance that we don't show pictures if there wasn't a picture for one of the candidates, but now that the by-election is over this is no longer an issue. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I, and many others, disagree. "...you initially sought to have the whole infobox removed on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT/WP:USELESS arguments". Bullshit! I am getting rather sick of your misrepresentations. Try to comment on what is actually said, rather than (almost always incorrectly) attempting to paraphrase what others write. HiLo48 (talk) 05:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

You could start off by actually replying to my own arguments in this discussion. I (and others) have replied to the concerns that have been brought on the infobox, but the only responses we've got so far are of the like of "but I do not like it", "the infobox is ugly", "vandalism", "I do not understand what the colors mean" or the sort of. And "bullshit" right now, as well. Please, take a look at WP:AADP on how to properly construct arguments in a discussion. Impru20^talk 05:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

All that you have written there also applies to arguments on the other side. Many detailed and specific criticisms have been made. And NOBODY has said "but I do not like it". As soon as you misrepresent others' arguments, you lose. Please don't do it. Discuss what people have ACTUALLY said. HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall myself saying that at all, which is ironic for how much you go on about being misrepresented. You're just unhappy that your arguments are being characterised a certain way. Nobody is saying that you literally are saying "I don't like it" as an argument, nor are they paraphrasing you, that is simply what they are saying you are saying. Others aren't going to characterise your comments in the best possible way for you and you always have the opportunity to clarify what you mean. The more you go on about it, the less clear it is what you're actually proposing. Obviously nobody has "lost" upon any statement being made by anybody, that's absurd. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Discuss the issues, not other people. HiLo48 (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

That's what I'm appealing for you to do, but you have only said you are being misrepresented and things like that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

"...you have only said you are being misrepresented and things like that."

Obviously not true. Do have another read. HiLo48 (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

NOBODY has said "but I do not like it". Please, do have another read:

1. "I don't really like infoboxes for by-elections" by Frickeg. Add a bit of WP:USELESS here with "I don't see that it adds anything useful".
2. "I don't like most infoboxes, and I certainly don't like that picture of Phelps" by Jack Upland.
3. "The current infobox is ugly and uninformative" by WWGB (though, it must be acknowledged, this referred specifically to the infobox without the results, swings and margins).
4. "Obviously this infobox isn't useful..." by HiLo48.

And some others.

Specifically for you, HiLo48, your only bit of reasoning was in your first comment, when you demanded others to justify the infobox's presence (which in itself would be an argument from ignorance). From there, you have only resorted to a proof by repeated assertion-style, limiting yourself to repeat the same idea over and over again despite contradiction. Particularly, this behaviour shows that your intent in the first place was not to obtain a justification, but rather, to impose your own opinion regardless of any given justification. This couples to your repeated edit summaries of "misrepresentation again", yet you do not explain how is it that you are being "misrepresented", as you limit yourself to the same fallacies repeteadly. Impru20^talk 12:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

"From there, you have only resorted to a proof by repeated assertion-style, limiting yourself to repeat the same idea over and over again despite contradiction.". That's a perfect example of proof by repeated assertion-style. None of your examples above were simply "I don't like it" All were more specific. At no point have the specific concerns been addressed. An example. Looking at the state of the article right now, the quality of the Phelps pic is of massive concern. Are you REALLY happy about it? HiLo48 (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is happy with the Phelps picture. The question is whether to have a bad picture or no picture. Either way there will soon be a much better picture for us to use when she takes her seat. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@HiLo48: Huh, no, they were "I don't like it". The whole Frickeg's example is "I don't really like infoboxes for by-elections, and it's certainly never been standard to have them. I don't see that it adds anything useful" (this is IDONTLIKEIT+USELESS). Jack Upland's was "I don't like most infoboxes, and I certainly don't like that picture of Phelps. It would be better to have nothing" (just IDONTLIKEIT, no more specification). And WWGB's one was as I said: the comment of the infobox being ugly and uninformative, and the specification made (which I did point out) of it applying to the data-empty infobox.

Note that this came as a reply to your statement that NOBODY has said "but I do not like it". Thus, it is not just that you have been proven wrong on that, but now you have been proven wrong again on your new statement. But surely, you are going to accuse others of "misrepresentation" and resort to the proof by assertion-style all over again.

Seriously, if you have a problem with infoboxes in general, you should raise it at WP:WPE&R or somewhere else so that the wider community may have a say on this.

Looking at the state of the article right now, the quality of the Phelps pic is of massive concern. Are you REALLY happy about it? Absolutely. It is not that we have another image to choose, so the one we have is the one that gets used because no other one is available as of yet. It is perfectly fine and I'm perfectly fine with it, as it abides to WP policies and guidelines, and having a valid image is better than having no image at all. Further, it is not that we can't use a better image once it gets available (you're putting it like if this was a national drama, yet it is only a technical issue); it can be changed. Additionally, specific images have no connection with the infobox template itself. Thus, not a "massive concern". On the other hand, using a copyrighted image just to please your own, particular view, that would be a "massive concern" under WP standards. Having no image at all just for you to fulfill your own vision of removing the infobox bit by bit, that would be a "massive concern". Unless you can provide a better pic which is available, or justify under any WP policy why Phelps' pic is unnaceptable and sould not be used, I cannot see where the "concern" is, other than it happens that you find it ugly (I'm so sorry (irony)). Impru20^talk 23:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Geez. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a blanket prohibition on ever using the phrase. The issue is with the argument "I don't like it, and that's all that needs to be said", not with "I don't like it, and here's why". The whole IDONTLIKEIT thing is really a total distraction and an attempt not to engage with the actual arguments being made. The WP:USELESS argument is far more applicable to the various unsupported assertions that "of course it's useful!!!!" - that goes both ways - but is again a distraction.

I continue to believe that infoboxes are not appropriate for by-election articles, especially in a preferential voting system, and will shortly be raising this issue more centrally (the issue is not with this particular infobox, although it's a particularly bad example, but infoboxes for this type of article). In the meantime, anyone who thinks that Phelps image is in any way acceptable is reading MOS:IRELEV very differently to me. The idea that any image is better than no image is absurd, and clearly this image is a total mess. (For what it's worth, I find the colour question basically a non-issue. If the infobox is going to exist, the colours are fine - as long as they're not the only means of communicating the information, which they are not.)

@Onetwothreeip:, no, there won't be a better image of Phelps once she takes her seat unless she chooses to give us one, or unless someone goes out and takes one for us. The official parliamentary portraits, infuriatingly, are not free or fair use. Frickeg (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

General discussion started - I invite everyone to take non-Wentworth-specific points there. As a general suggestion to everyone (including myself), we might aim for a slightly less combative tone over there and I have attempted to keep anything that could be considered IDONTLIKEIT and USELESS and anything else like that out of the summary. Let's discuss the pros and cons and assume that we are all coming at this from a position of good faith, because getting all worked up about infoboxes is the kind of thing others (rightly) point and laugh at us for. Frickeg (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm assuming there will be more pictures of Phelps as a result of her election and profile. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

A reasonable assumption. So why not wait? HiLo48 (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

"I don't like it, and here's why" would still be IDONTLIKEIT since, in the end, you would be just bringing a personal preference argument. Nonetheless, if the why part is just "because I don't like it" or "because it's useless/not useful", then it is a pointless argument from the start.

Nonetheless, since this has now been brought to a general discussion page (which is the correct thing to do), I would say to await for the community's opinion on the issue (though I would think a proper RfC should be required in the end, and that since this affects election infoboxes, WP:WPE&R should also at least be notified as well). Impru20^talk 07:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Still Infoboxing

I thank User:Timeshift9 for removing some of the very unclear content from the Infobox, content that did not give instant, summary information, and demanded that readers click on links to find out what things mean. Sadly, debate on the broader matter of Infoboxes for Australian by-elections seems to have stalled, both here and elsewhere. Looking at what's left, I see a box showing two candidates. Those of us who are interested enough to have been working on this article know there were many more, but a random reader, from anywhere in the world, and at any time in the future, won't know this. This fact is not explained in this now longish article until around halfway into it. In fact, the massive early emphasis in the article on the choosing of the Liberal candidate gets far more, and much earlier attention. This makes it almost a certainty that readers will be misled. So, simple fact - this Infox showing two candidates simply IS misleading.

We still have an appalling image of Phelps, and mysterious colour bars under the pics. The justification for the former seems to be it will probably improve in the future. Yeah, right, and that's an excuse for including rubbish right now? Get serious. The latter is justified by "We always do it that way". Nah. That doesn't wash. How does that help my hypothetical, random reader, from anywhere in the world, and at any time in the future?

This Infobox is misleading, insulting (to Phelps), and contains content that is meaningless to most readers. It does not belong. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

None of this is new. There is already a discussion ongoing at WP:AWNB on this exact same issues, which are the exact same issues brought in the previous discussion here. I have specifically answered to the colour issue multiple times, whereas others have answered to other of your issues, yet you seem to act like if you did not hear that. Further, these issues you bring would affect all infoboxes throughout Wikipedia, not just this one for the Wentworth by-election, which was precisely the point of the discussion being centralized. Please, drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Impru20^talk 22:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

"There is already a discussion ongoing at WP:AWNB on this exact same issues..." Not really. It has clearly stalled. My concerns began with this article, and have not disappeared. I have addressed your points in my post above. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

It has stalled because you have refused to reply there any more. Your points are not new and have been already addressed elsewhere, so what is the point of this? Impru20^talk 06:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

"It has stalled because you have refused to reply there any more." Ah, of course, it's all my fault, for not completely agreeing with you. How outrageous of me to think that my points have not been effectively addressed at all. I guess I should go away and stop bothering you. HiLo48 (talk) 07:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

You were asked a specific question by Onetwothreeip. Obviously, it is your fault if you have not replied to what you were asked for. It's also your fault that you re-opened the discussion here under a different sub-section. Yes, that you think your points have not been addressed does not mean those have not been addressed. Nonetheless, I'm grateful that you now choose to discontinue this. For further debate, please go to the centralized discussion at WP:AWNB. Impru20^talk 12:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, no. I think I will be bold and fix the problems I see. You can discuss it here. The problems are here, right now, because this is the current problem area. Insisting on discussion elsewhere rather than fixing the problems here is unacceptable. HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so we can also be bold and revert your otherwise disruptive editing. That's what you mean? The only problem I see here is you wishing to remove the infobox, no matter the excuses brought to accomplish that end. Impru20^talk 10:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@HiLo48: Please, do not try to disrupt Wikipedia to force a point. Intentionally (and unilaterally) mutilating the infobox so that it gets truly useless is not constructive. Nor is it to keep doing it despite reverts by various users while redirecting them to the talk page. You are not addressing any of the arguments brought to you while deliberately imposing your own conclusions to others. Concurrently, you have abandoned the centralized discussion without addressing these issues, neither, nor without justifying why it is just the Wentworth infobox that is so bad, when the issues brought on images and colors would be appliable to all infoboxes throughout Wikipedia. If you think that what others do is vandalism, I commend you to report it in the proper venue rather than using it to attack others. Thank you. Impru20^talk 19:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The disruption here is from you, reverting my constructive change with no edit summary and without discussion here as requested. That's a perfect example of vandalism. The other discussion is going nowhere. Not enough participants. This is the article currently affected by the presence of an extremely clumsy Infobox. I make no apologies for wanting to fix the problem here, now. My concerns have not been addressed at all. "We always do it that way" (the colours, and only two candidate, etc) is one of the worst reasons for doing anything. You need to address the concerns I and others have about them. Here. Now. Many other problems exist. All have been described. None have been addressed. I am not alone with these concerns. You appear to have one friend sharing your views. Please discuss the issues, and be willing to compromise. If I was unwilling to compromise, I WOULD delete the whole Infobox. HiLo48 (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad you now want your issues to be addressed. When I asked you what they were, you told me that you would not repeat yourself. So I ask you again, what are the issues you would like addressed? Make sure you have a look at it again, since some things have changed since you first brought up issues. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@HiLo48: You are in fact aiming to delete the infobox by making it useless, by trying to depict it as if there were insurmountable issues with images and colors and whatever. The "extremely clumsy" infobox is the exact same infobox used for thousands of articles in Wikipedia, yet it seems to only cause issues for you in this particular, specific article. You could (and should) explain why are you trying to block any progress on the infobox in this specific article while remaining contrary to addressing your issues.

"No edit summary?" You mean this edit, which had a more or less similar edit summary than this one? I particularly do not see the difference, as you brought no justification for your edits; just attempted to give others the command of going to the talk page while (seemingly) having to accept your unilateral edits.

And again, if you think that was vandalism, then report it in the proper Wikipedia venue with the proper proof and justification for it so I can properly defend myself, or shut up. Wildly accusing others of vandalism just for the sake of it is disruptive and goes against Wikipedia's spirit, and you have done it several times already.

Now, please, address the actual issues rather than speaking of me. Impru20^talk 06:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

"You are in fact aiming to delete the infobox by making it useless..." I believe it's already close to useless, with much critical information missing or presented in a misleading way. For example, how many candidates were there? The Infobox tells the reader there were two. I don't care where else it's used. It doesn't work for this election. HiLo48 (talk) 09:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

That is the case with every single election infobox. Are there any other issues, or is this the only issue you have? Results information will be restored when the results are declared, if not earlier. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

"...is this the only issue you have?" No. The fact that you ask such a question tells me an awful lot. You really haven't been paying attention. HiLo48 (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so tell us what else. You said you wanted me to address your issues, so I'm asking again. Past statements don't count, the infobox has changed and there is a lot of text to go through. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

And the fact that once and once again you fail to respond to the particular questions issued tells us that you may be actually unable to provide an answer. Interestingly enough, you have not denied that your actual intention is to delete the whole infobox by mutilating it piece by piece...

But ok, to sum it up:

1. Initially, the issue was that the infobox was "not compulsory" and that it was "a bit insulting to all the other candidates".
2. After two days of discussing each ones' personal tastes on the infobox, the issue on images and colours was raised. This is, two days after the initial complains were filled, and right after they were addressed, the discussion moved its focus entirely from the infobox's purpose to the infobox's features.
3. That the Phelps' pic was "appalling" as described could be an issue. But that would be an issue with the pic, not with the infobox. And, given that the pic is no longer present, this is no longer an issue.
4. Then, there was seemingly an issue with colours, as it seems that you were unable to see the party's label just below the coloured bars identifying the party to which each candidate belongs. This is a competence issue, not an issue with the infobox. If you are unable to identify what the infobox says, it is your fault, not the infobox's.
5. Further, should this be an actual issue it would affect all infoboxes throughout Wikipedia (this was the reason for the discussion to be centralized, but then you abandoned it altogether), yet the only reason for it to be brought here is that "it doesn't work for this election" (according to you), because "the Infobox tells the reader there were two [candidates]". The infobox tells the reader these two were the two preferred candidates. Nonetheless, if this was really the issue, the discussion would be about the number of candidates and whether more should be added, not on removing it altogether as you intend. Thus, again, not justified.

Now, I hope you can actually address something. Impru20^talk 17:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I think you're beating a dead horse at this point, this is getting far too much an argument between two people than an editorial discussion. We can let HiLo48 bring up the issues they want, and if they do not we can just leave this discussion unless someone else wants to contribute. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

There are several editors who see problems with the Infobox in THIS article. Only two rather aggressive and insulting editors think it is great. The problems have been described. I will not repeat myself again. HiLo48 (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Well thank you for your input but if you can't tell us, then there is no issue here. If you believe anyone has partaken in poor conduct, I encourage you to report them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

By saying that I "can't" tell you the problems, YOU are obviously displaying poor conduct. There is a huge difference between "can't" and "can't currently be bothered". Do try to understand the difference, and my reasons. HiLo48 (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay well you can do so if/when you feel it's important then, feel free to ping me. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, you misuse words. It's important now, but this has become a battle of one against two. In this supposedly non-voting environment, your side currently has the most votes. That, of course, proves nothing about what is right. HiLo48 (talk) 04:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I have no intention of assuming a consensus is formed by a conversation with you, either with or without Impru20. If they want to claim there is a consensus as a result of the three of us, I will reject that. I also have no interest in "battling" you, I simply want to hear constructive criticisms regarding the infobox as it is used here. If still not, then apparently the issues are not important enough. Alternatively you can reach me on my talk page if you wish. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

What you have written says you don't accept the truth and reality of what I have written. That is insulting, but no surprise. HiLo48 (talk) 06:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

It is strange that, with all the votes are counted and the date for any new postals having passed, the info box isn’t being allowed to be updated. The AEC is declaring this on Monday 9.30am, so i presume timeshift and HiLo will be okay with the numbers being added then. WP:POINTY Global-Cityzen (talk) 09:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

WTF kind of post is that? Pre-emptive insults? We depend on reliable sources for content. There is a single reliable source we must depend on for election results, and that's the AEC. HiLo48 (talk) 09:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

No. User:Timeshift9 deleted the figures I added to the box because “it’s not final”. Which i thought odd, given there are no more numbers to count and the numbers come from the AEC, I didn’t make them up. So I’m now wondering if it’s ok to add the figures after Monday’s declaration. Global-Cityzen (talk) 09:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Your own posts here tell the whole story. The results aren't final until Monday. HiLo48 (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Right. Well the numbers are almost certainly not going to change between now and then. They come from the most reputable source, so I see no reason not to add them to the box now, as WP:IAR implies. Global-Cityzen (talk) 09:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

In fact, there is no rule stating that provisional results can't be included in the infobox (they are shown in the "Election results" section already, right? Why should the infobox go differently?). Further, it is frequent practice elsewhere to add provisional results to infoboxes, then keep updating them once they become final (as you will have to do to the results table, anyway). Why Wentworth must be given such special treatments is beyond my comprehension. Impru20^talk 09:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Why some of you are in such a rush and so certain of your position is beyond my comprehension. HiLo48 (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me? I was not even addressing you this time. Possibly, if you have nothing constructive to provide (as it becomes crystal clear from this comment of yours) just avoid making personal comments. Thank you. Impru20^talk 10:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:CHILL HiLo48 (talk) 10:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Adding the numbers to the info box helps fulfil its purpose (to summarise more in-depth info in the article), hope we can agree on that, even if we disagree on the merits of the box itself. I’m just doing my best to improve an article, can’t help it if others see it as being in “a rush”. Global-Cityzen (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources, particularly William Bowe, say the figures are final. Should be as good a reason as any to say these figures are final, and use them as the final result like we do for any other election that has happened. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:There is no deadline HiLo48 (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure it doesn't have to be added immediately, but it doesn't have to be removed immediately either. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Results are not likely to be final for at least another two weeks, and can and often do change. Some opinions with actual prior experience in this area would be a nice start? Timeshift (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure where the "precedent" for not showing results until they are final comes from, as I'm actually used to see it is actually the other way around: provisional results being added to the infobox (just like we have a table for the full detailed results in the article, even if those are not 100% final), then keep updating them if the figures change. I actually see nothing wrong with adding these, specially when it provides information to readers. Impru20^talk 10:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Look at previous federal by-election articles. It has long been precedent that only one area (the results table) displays results until final - meaning the infobox, the Division of Wentworth, and the Electoral results for the Division of Wentworth are left empty until final. This prevents contradictory results being displayed when inevitably a contributor updates the results table with new data but doesn't update other areas with said new data - and is only the case in what is in retrospect a short period between by-election day and final results a number of weeks later. It won't be long. Stop making up rules and realise that my reverting is how it needs to stay until such time as consensus changes, and that will take longer than it will for results to be final. Timeshift (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:IAR - “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.” The numbers (final or otherwise; and they are, there are no more votes to count!) added to the box improve the article and summarise important info. That something was done for the Spence article is no reason not to improve this one. The declaration is Monday 9.30am but there is no rule that says we have to wait until then, or for a further “two weeks” as you claim. Global-Cityzen (talk) 10:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Look at previous federal by-election articles. It has long been precedent that only one area (the results table) displays results until final. WP:IAR is irrelevant and furthermore incorrectly being overused by you for anything you disagree with. When the AEC results article says results are final, then results are final and changes can be had. I mean seriously, the fact you say that (paraphrasing) "there are no more votes to count means results are final", displays your complete lack of knowledge on the issue. Again, look at previous federal by-election articles. And their revision history, matching up corresponding dates - were previous by-election results final once the last day of postal votes had passed? Absolutely not! Were they subject to further changes? Absolutely! In the lack of actual experience on the issue, try doing some basic research...?! Timeshift (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

There is NO rule/guideline/precedent that tells us to not update the infobox, and even if there was WP:IAR would undermine it in this instance. The inclusion of sourced, relevant information that improves the article and the infobox is the whole point of the edit, and the whole point of this encyclopaedia. Global-Cityzen (talk) 11:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

You display complete disregard for long-term precedent and consensus. You also display complete disregard for other views - "it prevents contradictory results being displayed when inevitably a contributor updates the results table with new data but doesn't update other areas with said new data". Timeshift (talk) 11:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I may be misremembering, but don't we normally do the percentage but not the vote numbers? This seems like a useful compromise. In the meantime, I'll just point out that the ongoing fuss about the infobox is getting a bit out of hand. I mean, I have an opinion, but I am well past caring at this point. Frickeg (talk) 11:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Timeshift OF COURSE the count could change slightly between now and when they are final (which is either Monday 9.30am or late December when the writs are returned depending on your point of view) but we wouldn't wait to edit the infobox until the latter occurred. Your precedent is just a case of but other stuff exists. Even if they amended the count between now and Monday, there is ABOSLUTLEY NOTHING to prevent us from adding the results as they are at this moment in time to the infobox. Global-Cityzen (talk) 11:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Is it either Monday or late December? Really? No. Again, look at previous federal by-election articles. And their revision history, matching up corresponding dates - were previous by-election results final once the last day of postal votes had passed? Absolutely not! Were they subject to further changes? Absolutely! In the lack of actual experience on the issue, try doing some basic research...?! The final result will be around 2 weeks from now, and we wait until this has occurred before populating the results in places other than the results table, as per long-term precedent/consensus. Timeshift (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll bite. Can you please justify your statement "The final result will be around 2 weeks from now". What evidence do you have for this? What date? Why 2 weeks? There are in fact two confirmed, non-negotiable, factual dates we know of; one being the date the race is declared for one of the candidates (in this case Monday 5 Nov. 9.30am) and the other being the date the AEC submits the writs for the by-election back to the Speaker of the House. The latest that date can be is 26 December, but it is almost always submitted earlier than the last possible date. The whole point of the infobox and the lede is to summarise the critical information which is detailed in greater depth below. That is the very essence of an article's Manual of style. You consistently point to other cases as evidence of why the infobox shouldn't be updated here, without recognising that my point would stand for this article and others. That something was done on one or even multiple articles is not and and of itself a determining factor for how we should proceed here. All the candidate's numbers are revealed in the election results section, so why on earth shouldn't the infobox summarise those numbers accordingly, which is it's whole reason for existing? If, as you say, any numbers change (which is unlikely given the last votes outstanding have been counted, though of course it is possible) we would simply update the figures both in the box and in the article. So repeating your assertions of precedent and rules ad nauseum is what is truly irrelevant here. Global-Cityzen (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I've already answered your questions. For the third time: Look at previous federal by-election articles. And their revision history, matching up corresponding dates - were previous by-election results final once the last day of postal votes had passed? Absolutely not! Were they subject to further changes? Absolutely! In the lack of actual experience on the issue, try doing some basic research...?! It's not my problem if you refuse to listen. Timeshift (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The precedent of previous by-election articles is essentially being overruled. It's not as if other by-election articles exist in the same phase and we must strive to keep them consistent for readers, nobody is going to be confused that the results were published slightly sooner for Wentworth than for other by-elections. That is simply an appeal to doing something because we've done something in a certain way in the past. Precedents like this can certainly be useful, but you have to make the case why the precedent should continue, not just rely on the fact that it's happened in the past. If we really just relied on how things were done in the past, we would've written the Liberal-Labor swing as negative for both parties, as was done in the Mayo by-election article. There's no consensus for these things, they were simply done by an editor and nobody at the time reverted them. Although the results are final according to reliable sources and there is no real barrier to publishing them in the infobox, I have no idea why people are actually arguing this much about it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, it's being overruled is it? According to what guideline? What egotistical rubbish. A new consensus will need more than 3 editors (who fail to follow guidelines and ignore the other side's comments). And what utter nonsense... "the results are final according to reliable sources"? More of the same complete and utter generalistic non-specific comments. Who? Where? Nobody reliable has said they are final. They are most certainly not final and you won't find a reliable source indicating they are. Specifically, there are three more steps to go in this particular by-election result. I can name them. Can you? I can't wait for the last three steps of the by-election result... as each occurs I will make sure everyone here knows it - the silence will be deafening. I can't believe the repeated lies I keep reading here... it really is incredible. Timeshift (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

William Bowe of Poll Bludger, which I linked previously on this talk page. Leaving aside any astonishment I'm supposed to have about you knowing about the return of writs, the precedent you're talking about is only a guide here. There wasn't a consensus for or against it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

More importantly, isn't reverting the same thing five times in two hours a clear violation of WP:3RR? It seems pretty reckless to risk administrator action against yourself to remove something you say will be in the article tomorrow anyway. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you! I quote Bowe: "All that remains to be done is the formal distribution of preferences, which might yet turn up a few small anomalies". So pref distribution hasn't occurred. How then could the results possibly be final? You see his words "final result: Phelps 51.2, Sharma 48.8" and somehow translate that in to results are final? He demonstrates himself how results are not final. Also, the Labor-Liberal two-party-preferred vote is still to be calculated in the by-election result. Once these two things are done (in another two weeks or so), then like you see at this AEC link if you click on the question marks for Mayo by-election, it says results are final. But for now, like you see at this AEC link if you click on the question marks for Wentworth by-election, it says These results are not final - none other than the AEC's words. Those who have no prior experience or knowledge in this area really should learn to give the benefit of the doubt to those who do, otherwise they just end up looking the fool. In two weeks or so, when AEC changes results are not final to results are final, then the infobox can be populated. I do wonder though, when I am proven 100% correct and accurate over the next couple of weeks with the results process, will it be acknowledged, or will there be dead silence, or will there be claims that I "just got lucky"? I will make sure to keep everyone updated though! Timeshift (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Was about to comment on the 3RR issue. Further, 3RR applies to any revert on a single article within a 24-hour period (not just reverting "the same thing", though self-reverting is allowed), and I'm counting eight reverts here at least. Speaking of going against guidelines...

Nonetheless, it would be interesting to know which actual guideline is in breach here (aside from 3RR). And I have my doubts that there is any guideline supporting the removal of sourced content just because it is thought that it is "too soon" to add it (in fact, given a situation where we have to choose between showing this or nothing, WP:WIP would support showing it, because it'd be better than nothing at all), so it would also be interesting that an actual guideline is brought in support of removing results from the infobox. Available results could be final or not, but they are indeed official and provided by the AEC itself. There's no policy against adding official results.

And about the alleged "precedent", I've found that this is bogus at best. Batman by-election, 2018, for instance, didn't abide to such a "precedent", nor did Australian federal election, 2016 or others. Further, it is not that other by-election articles actually did: it is just that most of those did not see their infoboxes added until later. So, "that only one area (the results table) displays results until final" is not something actually established anywhere by anyone, nor does it come as a result of consensus. Impru20^talk 21:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

It has long been precedent for many federal by-elections that until the results figures are final, they are only entered in to one place to prevent wikipedia contradicting itself when editors inevitably only update the results table and not other areas. Editors would add results figures to places like "Division of -seat-" and "Electoral results for Division of -seat-" and more recently the infobox, but then as I said, editors would update the results table, but leave the others un-updated, which meant wikipedia contradicted itself with differing results. I've said this previously. Respond to the argument put forward, not the argument you are imagining. Timeshift (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The priority should be for secondary sources rather than the primary source. We did not wait until every election result was declared by the AEC for the last federal election. If you really must persist with claiming you have superior expertise, I will note that I have extensive knowledge about the processes of Australian elections. You are not persuading anybody by telling people that they should learn from you, and that is very arrogant and inappropriate for a collaborative project. The issue of inconsistencies is easily solved by placing hidden notes in the text source, and disclaimers that the results are yet to be official. I'm more concerned about the blatant edit-warring and disregard of those rules. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The fact that you say the AEC is a primary source and we must use a secondary source as to whether or not results are final is the most hilarious comment of this entire talk page. You are a laughing stock. Timeshift (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I haven't said the latter (although the AEC is definitely a primary source), but I will simply say that this is not at all conduct appropriate, even if you disagree. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is not a policy-based reason, nor there seems to be any written consensus nor evidence of this you say (other than you saying it and reassuring us that it is true even after a quick check shows it is not). This is already a reply to the "precedent" argument. There is no evidence of such "precedent" existing or being agreed by the community (and, much less, of it being applied universally as the given justification would require).

Then, you are not replying to which policy or guideline disallows having official and sourced results in the infobox. The content you have removed multiple times is verifiable. Are you worried that Wikipedia could "contradict" itself? That would be an argument to update/fix it, not for turning a given article into your own playground while preventing others from adding verifiable information. Specifically when practice elsewhere does not forbid users from adding provisional results (as long as they are official), which anyone can then update later on if required. Impru20^talk 21:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou so much Impru20 and Onetwothreeip for putting my reasons into much clearer words than I. It is exasperating to present arguments in favour of including verifiable information that improves the page’s readability, only to have another editor shout you down ad nauseum with the same disproven arguments and concluding it with telling me to “do some research”. What we’ve determined here is:

• There is NO precedent that prevents the updating of an infobox with figures at any stage, as long as it’s verified, accurate and updated when/if necessary
• Even if there was a precedent (which there isn’t) there would be compelling reasons to ignore it in this instance (the information is verified, accurate, improves the page) and is supported by multiple editors, as opppsed to one editor who consistently violates the 3RR with disproven justifications
• Wikipedia is collaborative project, not a personal kingdom. That editing an infobox might require someone to update another results table on this article or another article is not an argument to black-ban the editing of the infobox, it’s an argument to update all the relevant tables/articles; and no one is obligated to edit Wikipedia (though of course it would be welcome) Global-Cityzen (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is collaborative project..." I wish I could see more evidence of belief in that from those wanting maximum use of the Infobox here. Some of you could do well to look up the definition of the adjective there. HiLo48 (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I've asked what issues you have and you've refused to answer. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I have described my concerns many times. My sanity monitor tells me to ignore your insulting and dishonest comments for now. HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Fine! If your concerns have been described, then those have been addressed already, so no issues. Impru20^talk 06:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. HiLo48 (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Everything you have said has been addressed, either by Onetwothreeip, Global-Cityzen or myself, so unless you have any new concerns, these have indeed been addressed. Further, seeing how it has been days already without you raising new concerns nor addressing the answers to those you already described, I wonder what your purpose in this discussion is. Impru20^talk 06:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

To highlight the editing styles of the recently self-appointed owners here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You mean like the people conducting over ten reverts within a 24-hour period? I would agree with you, but you have spoken nothing about it, and in fact it is several days since you have been speaking nothing about anything at all. Remember that Wikipedia is not a forum: discussion is meant for constructiveness, not for entertainment. If you are unable to raise any new concerns or discuss those already addressed, there is no place for this discussion with you to keep ongoing. Impru20^talk 07:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

"...you have spoken nothing about it" Incorrect. Saying the same false thing over and over sadly seems to work for some politicians with dumb voters, but it doesn't change the truth. HiLo48 (talk) 09:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

"...Saying the same false thing over and over sadly seems to work for some politicians with dumb voters, but it doesn't change the truth". HiLo, three of us here firmly believe you and Timeshift were guilty of this very allegation. Feel free to have the last word if you like, but doing so doesn't change "the truth" of anything. Global-Cityzen (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, looks like we have an advocate of "the truth" here. It would help your argument that you did not actually say "the same false thing over and over". Either provide new concerns/expand on the ones exposed, or withdraw from the discussion. Talk pages are for content dispute resolution. If you are unwilling to keep communicating or discussing content, then this whole discussion is pointless. Impru20^talk 13:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

HiLo48 you have not told me the issues you have with the infobox "many times". You have only told me many times that you have already told me. When you first told us about your issues it was a different infobox, but it seems clear you're not going to talk about them again under any circumstance. The matter is thereby resolved. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

It's only resolved in the sense that other editors have given up in the face of a toxic editing environment. Consensus does not exist here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You said it HiLo. Timeshift (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh look, results aren't final/are still changing! I love being proven right...! :) Silly troublemakers proven wrong. Feeling very smug :D Timeshift (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Either you don't posses the required competence to edit/discuss here or you are being deliberately mischievous. NOT ONE of us here disagreed with you that the results/figures might change slightly and that a few votes might be reassigned or added. When exactly that ends is unknown. But the race is declared, the AEC has publicly stated that the writ containing the declared candidate has been returned to the Speaker and the outcome is not in doubt. Neither you or Hilo have pointed to a single reason why the infobox should be left blank, and in fact other editors like (including User:Canley) have collaboratively and progressively updated those figures when necessary. If your going to destructively edit with these kind of pointy edits, then I'll report you. Figures added back to the box. Global-Cityzen (talk) 05:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

"Neither you or Hilo have pointed to a single reason why the infobox should be left blank..." That is pure male cow manure. Either you are deliberately lying, or it's you who is incompetent. Neither is a good look. And the toxicity clearly hasn't abated here yet. HiLo48 (talk) 06:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

"Neither you or Hilo have pointed to a single reason why the infobox should be left blank" - until these repeated false claims cease, there is clearly and self-evidently no point discussing anymore. Timeshift (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and I completely support the changes Timeshift9 has made. I would go even further. The bars of colour under the pic(s) breach WP:INFOBOX where it says "...wherever possible...exclude any unnecessary content". The "parties" are shown in written form two lines below, so colours representing exactly the same thing are clearly "unnecessary content". (As well as being meaningless to most readers.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@HiLo48:, @Timeshift9: I've initiated a block request of you both. Also pinging @Onetwothreeip: and @Impru20:. Global-Cityzen (talk) 06:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

And I have requested a boomerang. Ignoring Talk page comments seems to have become a specialty of some here. Do you actually believe in policy and discussion? Or just in getting your own way? HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Your actions here demonstrate how guilty you are of those accusations mate. But given you both are only interested in getting your own way; this discussion is pointless and we're getting nowhere. The situation is intractable. So let the administrators decide. Global-Cityzen (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC about numbers in the infobox

Pertinent to the above discussions, should the infobox exist and should the figures for the two candidates in the box be included? Global-Cityzen (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Do I really have to state my views yet again? What a total waste of editors' time. HiLo48 (talk) 09:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yes we do it for other by elections Lewisham East by-election, 2018 so why is this one so special?Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Several reasons. Firstly, "We've always done it that way" has never appealed to me as a good reason to continue doing something silly. Secondly, voting methods vary a lot across the world. Australian and UK approaches are very different. Thirdly, a field those who those disagree with me want to include (as a cryptic abbreviation, no less), Two Party Preferred, or Two Candidate Preferred, is misleading, because the winner is an Independent, not in a party, and the guy who came second is rigidly in a party, a party where supporters vote for the candidate because of the party, not because they even know who the candidate is, and so do not actually support "him". There are more reasons. This isn't the place to raise them all. But you did ask. HiLo48 (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

None of which convinces me that is is all that different.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment No useful consensus will result from this RfC. Any editor who hasn't already watched this embarrassing episode unfold over the past two weeks will surely be put off by the staggering 77,000 characters of petty bickering, gloating, and accusations above to want to get drawn into this deeply stupid edit war. Whatever salient points or opinions any of you had have been squandered, over what I have to say is one of the most profoundly trivial topics I have ever seen. The three-revert-rule has been breached so many times by both "sides", it's beyond a joke. No-one has any moral high ground here. --Canley (talk) 09:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• Of course, but what use is this section going to be? The same people from last section are going to find it, and the saga will just continue. Canley, who do you have in mind for breaching 3RR other than Timeshift9? Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I love the deep reasoning in "Of course". Is that really a form of "We've always done it that way" that I mentioned above? HiLo48 (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not. I've never made that argument, ever. Stop accusing me of this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

So precisely what reasoning IS behind "Of course"? Those two words on their own add nothing to the discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I've asked you why you didn't like the infobox and you wouldn't answer, so why would I answer you? You have asked me before and I told you then. Ordinarily I would give my reasons to anyone who asks, even if they already have asked and I have already answered. I'm sure it's true that I asked you and you answered, but that was some time ago. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

On that basis, anyone who has said something in earlier discussions should not be repeating it here, and this RfC is a complete waste of time. I agree. HiLo48 (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree that editors should only make arguments once and then never repeat them, but I do agree this RfC is a waste of time. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

"I don't agree that editors should only make arguments once and then never repeat them..." Nor do I actually, and I might have been more willing to repeat mine had I not been repeatedly (and stupidly) told by you and your colleagues that I had never made any. HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You are my colleague as much as anybody else. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Ignore it. Impru20^talk 22:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support the infobox existing: infoboxes are an useful way of summarizing key facts within the article and improve navigation to other interrelated articles, though it is basically unneeded to reiterate this as this is perfectly covered in its own guide and manual of style. Not really caring about the number of candidates shown in it, actually. It could be two, but if someone thinks more relevant candidates should be added, I am not against such a proposal. Particularly, Australian federal election, 2016 already shows more than two candidates/parties in the infobox despite the 2PP/2CP system in place. If the infobox works for this electoral system for federal elections, why shouldn't they work for a by-election? Also worth noting is that anyone running for office at an election is a candidate, independently of whether they owe their allegiance to a party or just run as independents. As per the Australian voting system, electors vote for candidates, not parties (which is the same as happens in the UK, btw, with UK by-elections being a perfect example at this), so this is really not an issue at all. Impru20^talk 21:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

We know that many people always vote for the same party, rather than caring who the particular candidate is. "If the infobox works for this electoral system for federal elections..." Not a universally held view. But this was different anyway, because a major candidate, and the ultimate winner, was an Independent. That's not going to happen federally. We won't have an Independent government for a while yet, and by then, we might have rebuilt the Infobox template. "...if someone thinks more relevant candidates should be added, I am not against such a proposal." Would you accept 16? The fact that the Infobox does not tell us how many candidates there actually were is a problem. In its present form, an innocent reader would logically believe there were only two. HiLo48 (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

1) Stick to verifiability; basing our actions in Wikipedia on things "we know" without being verifiable goes against policy. 2) People vote for individual candidates, because this is how the electoral system gets it to work. Who are people thinking on voting or whether the top two candidates run under a 'Liberal' label, an 'Independent' label or a 'I Love Wikipedia' label, or whether they are angry, happy or depressed when voting is not the business of an infobox depicting election results. It is what they actually vote what matters. 3) Could be, but then your own view is not "an universally held" one either. 4) I said I am not against having more candidates, it is a matter of discussing how many. Also it is not just my voice what matters here. 5) There is no rule saying it should be just two, i.e. some UK by-elections use three or more. If your issue is that you want to see more, just propose it and get consensus for it. Impru20^talk 23:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I have proposed it several times, along with several other things, long before you and your clones began to repeatedly accuse me of not saying what I wanted in the article. The fact that many voters always vote for the same party, no matter who the candidate is, is ridiculously easy to verify. HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I did not see you proposing a discussion on whether multiple candidates should be added, despite you starting several discussions on the exact same issues. If it is easy to verify, then verify it and explain how is it the business of the infobox to cover that. I basically stand by the statements done in 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

"Clones"? If that is an implicit accusation of something, I commend you to report it at the appropiate venue. Otherwise, avoid personal accusations on others, thank you. Impru20^talk 07:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

"I did not see you proposing a discussion on..." At least that's better than the many accusations I have had of having never said things here. Things I have definitely said. Thank you. No, I have neither the time nor energy to dig it up. Rather than talking about history, how about discussing the issue. The Infobox does not tell the reader there were more than two candidates. In fact, it implies there were only two. The fact that we sometimes include more actually reinforces that impression. HiLo48 (talk) 07:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Uh not actually bringing any answer, so I will have to stick again to points 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Impru20^talk 20:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support the infobox and inclusion of multiple candidates. I agree with Impru20, infobox should portray the results of all notable candidates in the election. I also believe this should extend to more than just independents which win, but also independents/minor parties in by-elections that gain a sizeable vote within that election. This is done in other election pages (such as the aforementioned UK by-election), as well as on the federal election pages. However, I'm unsure about what criteria should be set on whether a candidate's vote is sizeable. 07:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catiline52 (talk • contribs)
• Support greatly I don't see why the election results cannot be featured on the infobox. It's used in every other election article where the data is available. I don't even see why there has been this large argument over it in the first place. —JJB^ers 15:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

discussion

OK simple question, what makes this by-election unique, not in comparison to the UK, or the USA or anywhere else. What makes it unique?Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

An independent won a seat that has been very safe for the governing party. This doesn't prevent it from being easily depicted in an infobox though. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree, the use of the infobox to represent independents is not unique. For example, for the US races where two major parties are running as well as an independent (2018 Maine senate election)) all three are represented. I'm unsure what is so unique about this by-election in particular that some people believe the standards should be changed. Catiline52 (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think comparisons to the US or many other places are necessarily that useful, probably why Slatersteven wanted to exclude them. Australia uses instant-runoff voting for MPs. It may be helpful to take a look at the last infobox design: [1]. Note that Kerryn Phelps is the winner. They may have received less first preference votes than Dave Sharma, but when all the preferences were done, they had the higher 2CP. While it didn't happen here, it's theoretically possible AFAIK that a candidate could win despite being far down on the first preference vote count. (Really any position but last I think.) As I understand it, an additional complicating factor is that two-party-preferred vote is often referred to in Australian politics, but it actually makes no sense here. Instead the two candidate preferred is what matters, since not only was the winner not from the two major parties, but was an independent. Note that I'm not saying this means the infobox should be excluded, simply explaining why it's different from the US. Nil Einne (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

So all this boils down to then is the infoxbox may need work, that is not an argument for deletion. I am sure if we had discussed that a result could have been achieved long before now, this really has been a waste of everyones time.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)