![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The article has {{ use dmy dates}}, however some references are displayed with publish or access dates in ISO format. At least one recent edit with the summary "fix" converted several dates from dmy to ISO. Is there an explanation I haven't seen somewhere? Thanks. -- Scott Davis Talk 07:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
The Parliamentary Library has just released a paper on redistributions during the current term of parliament.
Some highlights:
-- Canley ( talk) 06:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Quote from article: South Australia is the least-populated state where the number of seats can change, as Tasmania and the territories are constitutionally guaranteed a consistent minimum number of seats regardless of population shifts and quotas.
The Senate table layout flows through in to the Retiring MPs/Senators section and all subsequent sections. I've had a look at the article source but can't seem to locate what is causing it. Can someone better with this sort of thing please rectify it? Thank you. Timeshift ( talk) 10:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
What about the YouGov poll? It uses a replica of the actual ballot paper to conduct the poll and gets the voters to choose their own preferences. Tri400 ( talk) 11:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Can somebody UPDATED the Graphical summary its been a long time since its been updated. Torygreen84 ( talk) 08:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Anything. Torygreen84 ( talk) 05:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Can somebody UPDATED the Graphical summary. Torygreen84 ( talk) 07:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Can somebody UPDATED the Graphical summary. Torygreen84 ( talk) 07:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
YouGov poll is done fortnightly. I tried to add the poll results for 7 Aug 2017, but someone reverted my edit!
Here are the figures for 3-7 Aug 2017:
https://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2017/08/09/yougov-fifty-acres-50-50-2/ Tri400 ( talk) 17:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Why is the infobox displayed with two parties per line as opposed to three (as usual), which would be more vertically compact? Mélencron ( talk) 21:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I know this was discussed last year, but it's time to raise the matter again. Whatever rule is used for the inclusion/exclusion of portraits in the infobox, we have:
The numbers are 76–69–1–1–1. There might be more rationale to this allocation of pics if the major parties splintered, and governments formed by post-election negotiations of coalitions, Euro-style. But in the foreseeable future that doesn't appear to be likely.
The current emphasis on crossbenchers who happen to call themselves part of parties is very misleading to anyone who doesn't follow Australian federal politics closely. With numbers like this (76–69–1–1–1), it would be less slanted to keep the PM and the opposition leader pics in the infobox, plus:
In my view, it is appropriate to display down in the main text pics of crossbenchers who are not in a formal arrangement to support the government.
Let's hear your views. An RFC might be necessary, I suppose, but only if there's significant dispute about finding a way out of this.
Tony (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I would be inclined to support Tony1, and go a step further and suggest we remove all minor party information from the infobox all together. They have no chance of ever forming government and the main contest is obviously between LNP and ALP. Moreover, the leaders of some of the parties do not even sit in the House of Representatives, making the "Leaders' seat" part look very awkward. Andreas11213 ( talk) 09:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Should Andrew Bartlett be listed in the Retiring Senators section if he has stated he intends to seek preselection to contest a House of Representatives seat (Brisbane)? I can't remember the convention, but I seem to remember waiting until Clive Palmer confirmed he wasn't running for the Senate before he was added in 2016. -- Canley ( talk) 23:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Also, curious about the new format of these lists. I don't hate it, exactly, but I have some concerns we use these lists in a ton of articles so I think it warrants discussion. One concern is that as these lists inevitably get much longer, we will find ourselves with yet another giant table in an article that will already have very many of those. What is the purpose of the changed format? Pinging @ JDuggan101: Frickeg ( talk) 10:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Next Australian federal election. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
For those interested, heads-up FYI for today's draft release ( AEC SA redistribution website link). Featuring a reduction from 11 to 10 seats, "The Australian Electoral Commission will on Friday release a draft redraw of South Australia’s federal seats..." Advertiser article: 12 April 2018. Timeshift ( talk) 15:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
The person who wrote this for the ABC is a nong and a drongo. The voters would be pissed off and irritated by a separate half-Senate election and would treat it like a huge by-election, electing all sorts of obscurities and wackjobs that would have no hope in a regular half-Senate election. The last time a government tried this, in 1970, the DLP won 11.11% of the vote and elected five Senators. Paul Benjamin Austin ( talk) 01:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I wonder whether we could have an update. I can't remember the name of the hard-working editor who does it. Tony (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The ReachTEL poll dated 6 August 2018 is referenced to a twitter blog post (albeit a quality twitter source that is almost always correct: @GhostWhoVotes). I have googled more generally and cannot find any published reference to this poll's national results. However, there are published references to a ReachTEL poll of national voting intention in Victoria at the same time - a poll commissioned by Greenpeace. For example: https://www.greenpeace.org.au/research/poll-victorians-want-renewables/
For me this raises two questions: First, is there (or should there be) a minimum standard of reference for poll (ie. it should be published somewhere) before it is added to the list on the Wiki page on the Next Australian Federal Election. Second, should the list include privately commissioned polls? OldBryan ( talk) 22:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
There seems to be a whole range of views as to who should be included in the infobox and how. I think the most sensible way is to have three in a row and then include all five parties, but if we're only going to have two in a row then we might as well keep it to just Coalition and Labor. We're also able to include the Senate results, there's no reason why we can't. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 00:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I wonder how many of us are technically able to update them? The editor who's been doing this, kindly, for some time, does not always have time to do updates on as regular a basis as will clearly be needed over the coming months. This page will become very popular with the public: let's not disappoint them. Tony (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't know enough about the table formatting, but it looks like Crewther and his seat Dunkley is listed as a Labor marginal. Is this because of a redistribution? Macktheknifeau ( talk) 13:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Canley The seat is Liberal, the margin is Labor. So the seat LIB and Crewther are marked in blue, but the margin is marked in red. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 07:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The article claims the election uses "full-preference instant-runoff voting in single member seats for the lower house, the House of Representatives" but I could not locate this information on the source given. If anyone could locate a source for that claim I'd appreciate that. Mateussf ( talk) 23:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Hogan has moved to the crossbench, but is still a member of the Liberal/National coalition parties. The Coalition has lost two seats in this term of parliament, but the government has lost three. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 22:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
He is seated on the crossbench, But gives the gov confidence and supply, Hes in the Nationals, But does not sit with them, he does not sit with the gov, So therefore the coalition should be classified as having 73 seats not 74. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8000:1AEF:DF00:34D7:DD3:FE8E:8574 ( talk) 02:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Re this: Why is it necessary or important to state that the 2016 election was a Double Dissolution election? Whether it was or wasn't a DD has no bearing on the next election, does it? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Even though the election hasn't even been called yet, this article is already approaching the size of the 2016 article and has exceeded the 2010 and 2013 articles (almost double the size of 2010). Once we add the campaign info and results it's going to be absolutely gargantuan and very difficult to read. Could we consider spinning out some sections into separate articles? We have a separate National opinion polling for the 2019 Australian federal election, but we still list every opinion poll in the main article. We go into quite a lot of depth about the redistribution, perhaps this could be a separate article along the lines of Sixth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies. We have listed every change in parliamentary composition since the last election, but this is a total duplicate of information found at 45th Parliament of Australia and at the lists of MPs and senators articles. None of the previous election articles have this list. Ivar the Boneful ( talk) 11:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Should she be listed with the retiring members? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
To whoever it may concern, I've been compiling a list at User:Onetwothreeip/Candidates_2019 for candidates with a significant chance of winning who do not yet have Wikipedia pages, though I make no claims of completeness. There are some existing articles of people with the same name, but some of these are small and very unpopular articles which can easily be moved to make way. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 06:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
This article has a lot of technical details, but seems to be lacking information about the election campaign, or policies presented by the parties, if there were any. See 2017 United Kingdom general election#Campaign for an example. ghouston ( talk) 00:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Is this the first federal general election held on a full moon? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
After the dust settles, I do suggest we revisit this issue. In particular, foreign readers are likely to get a false impression by seeing a raft of independents' thumbnails and names in the infobox. Tony (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
There is nothing in the article to clarify that currently all of the figures as provisional, until the AEC returns the declaration of results to the Governor General, and State Governors for the Senate. Gnan garra 09:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm just wondering, what are the criteria for showing parties in the senate results table? HEMP, SFF, and Animal Justice all got higher results than Democratic Labor but aren't in the table. I understand parties like Centre Alliance due to their sitting senators, but I'm confused about why the DLP gets included over other minor parties. Catiline52 ( talk) 23:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
The summary is too cluttered. For foreign readers like me it takes a while to even figure out who won? Could the summary be more crisp?
It's really difficult to summarize it well. For starters, the Liberals are the conservatives, and it all goes downhill from there. EllenCT ( talk) 20:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I wonder why the zero isn't enough in the tables. The minus sign is confusing. Tony (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Manee593 ( talk · contribs) has twice made edits [2] [3] to state that the Sunday Age "leaned towards Labor and Greens policies". I have twice reverted the edit as it is not supported by the source cited. -- Find bruce ( talk) 11:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The article has {{ use dmy dates}}, however some references are displayed with publish or access dates in ISO format. At least one recent edit with the summary "fix" converted several dates from dmy to ISO. Is there an explanation I haven't seen somewhere? Thanks. -- Scott Davis Talk 07:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
The Parliamentary Library has just released a paper on redistributions during the current term of parliament.
Some highlights:
-- Canley ( talk) 06:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Quote from article: South Australia is the least-populated state where the number of seats can change, as Tasmania and the territories are constitutionally guaranteed a consistent minimum number of seats regardless of population shifts and quotas.
The Senate table layout flows through in to the Retiring MPs/Senators section and all subsequent sections. I've had a look at the article source but can't seem to locate what is causing it. Can someone better with this sort of thing please rectify it? Thank you. Timeshift ( talk) 10:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
What about the YouGov poll? It uses a replica of the actual ballot paper to conduct the poll and gets the voters to choose their own preferences. Tri400 ( talk) 11:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Can somebody UPDATED the Graphical summary its been a long time since its been updated. Torygreen84 ( talk) 08:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Anything. Torygreen84 ( talk) 05:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Can somebody UPDATED the Graphical summary. Torygreen84 ( talk) 07:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Can somebody UPDATED the Graphical summary. Torygreen84 ( talk) 07:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
YouGov poll is done fortnightly. I tried to add the poll results for 7 Aug 2017, but someone reverted my edit!
Here are the figures for 3-7 Aug 2017:
https://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2017/08/09/yougov-fifty-acres-50-50-2/ Tri400 ( talk) 17:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Why is the infobox displayed with two parties per line as opposed to three (as usual), which would be more vertically compact? Mélencron ( talk) 21:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I know this was discussed last year, but it's time to raise the matter again. Whatever rule is used for the inclusion/exclusion of portraits in the infobox, we have:
The numbers are 76–69–1–1–1. There might be more rationale to this allocation of pics if the major parties splintered, and governments formed by post-election negotiations of coalitions, Euro-style. But in the foreseeable future that doesn't appear to be likely.
The current emphasis on crossbenchers who happen to call themselves part of parties is very misleading to anyone who doesn't follow Australian federal politics closely. With numbers like this (76–69–1–1–1), it would be less slanted to keep the PM and the opposition leader pics in the infobox, plus:
In my view, it is appropriate to display down in the main text pics of crossbenchers who are not in a formal arrangement to support the government.
Let's hear your views. An RFC might be necessary, I suppose, but only if there's significant dispute about finding a way out of this.
Tony (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I would be inclined to support Tony1, and go a step further and suggest we remove all minor party information from the infobox all together. They have no chance of ever forming government and the main contest is obviously between LNP and ALP. Moreover, the leaders of some of the parties do not even sit in the House of Representatives, making the "Leaders' seat" part look very awkward. Andreas11213 ( talk) 09:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Should Andrew Bartlett be listed in the Retiring Senators section if he has stated he intends to seek preselection to contest a House of Representatives seat (Brisbane)? I can't remember the convention, but I seem to remember waiting until Clive Palmer confirmed he wasn't running for the Senate before he was added in 2016. -- Canley ( talk) 23:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Also, curious about the new format of these lists. I don't hate it, exactly, but I have some concerns we use these lists in a ton of articles so I think it warrants discussion. One concern is that as these lists inevitably get much longer, we will find ourselves with yet another giant table in an article that will already have very many of those. What is the purpose of the changed format? Pinging @ JDuggan101: Frickeg ( talk) 10:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Next Australian federal election. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
For those interested, heads-up FYI for today's draft release ( AEC SA redistribution website link). Featuring a reduction from 11 to 10 seats, "The Australian Electoral Commission will on Friday release a draft redraw of South Australia’s federal seats..." Advertiser article: 12 April 2018. Timeshift ( talk) 15:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
The person who wrote this for the ABC is a nong and a drongo. The voters would be pissed off and irritated by a separate half-Senate election and would treat it like a huge by-election, electing all sorts of obscurities and wackjobs that would have no hope in a regular half-Senate election. The last time a government tried this, in 1970, the DLP won 11.11% of the vote and elected five Senators. Paul Benjamin Austin ( talk) 01:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I wonder whether we could have an update. I can't remember the name of the hard-working editor who does it. Tony (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The ReachTEL poll dated 6 August 2018 is referenced to a twitter blog post (albeit a quality twitter source that is almost always correct: @GhostWhoVotes). I have googled more generally and cannot find any published reference to this poll's national results. However, there are published references to a ReachTEL poll of national voting intention in Victoria at the same time - a poll commissioned by Greenpeace. For example: https://www.greenpeace.org.au/research/poll-victorians-want-renewables/
For me this raises two questions: First, is there (or should there be) a minimum standard of reference for poll (ie. it should be published somewhere) before it is added to the list on the Wiki page on the Next Australian Federal Election. Second, should the list include privately commissioned polls? OldBryan ( talk) 22:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
There seems to be a whole range of views as to who should be included in the infobox and how. I think the most sensible way is to have three in a row and then include all five parties, but if we're only going to have two in a row then we might as well keep it to just Coalition and Labor. We're also able to include the Senate results, there's no reason why we can't. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 00:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I wonder how many of us are technically able to update them? The editor who's been doing this, kindly, for some time, does not always have time to do updates on as regular a basis as will clearly be needed over the coming months. This page will become very popular with the public: let's not disappoint them. Tony (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't know enough about the table formatting, but it looks like Crewther and his seat Dunkley is listed as a Labor marginal. Is this because of a redistribution? Macktheknifeau ( talk) 13:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Canley The seat is Liberal, the margin is Labor. So the seat LIB and Crewther are marked in blue, but the margin is marked in red. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 07:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The article claims the election uses "full-preference instant-runoff voting in single member seats for the lower house, the House of Representatives" but I could not locate this information on the source given. If anyone could locate a source for that claim I'd appreciate that. Mateussf ( talk) 23:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Hogan has moved to the crossbench, but is still a member of the Liberal/National coalition parties. The Coalition has lost two seats in this term of parliament, but the government has lost three. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 22:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
He is seated on the crossbench, But gives the gov confidence and supply, Hes in the Nationals, But does not sit with them, he does not sit with the gov, So therefore the coalition should be classified as having 73 seats not 74. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8000:1AEF:DF00:34D7:DD3:FE8E:8574 ( talk) 02:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Re this: Why is it necessary or important to state that the 2016 election was a Double Dissolution election? Whether it was or wasn't a DD has no bearing on the next election, does it? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Even though the election hasn't even been called yet, this article is already approaching the size of the 2016 article and has exceeded the 2010 and 2013 articles (almost double the size of 2010). Once we add the campaign info and results it's going to be absolutely gargantuan and very difficult to read. Could we consider spinning out some sections into separate articles? We have a separate National opinion polling for the 2019 Australian federal election, but we still list every opinion poll in the main article. We go into quite a lot of depth about the redistribution, perhaps this could be a separate article along the lines of Sixth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies. We have listed every change in parliamentary composition since the last election, but this is a total duplicate of information found at 45th Parliament of Australia and at the lists of MPs and senators articles. None of the previous election articles have this list. Ivar the Boneful ( talk) 11:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Should she be listed with the retiring members? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
To whoever it may concern, I've been compiling a list at User:Onetwothreeip/Candidates_2019 for candidates with a significant chance of winning who do not yet have Wikipedia pages, though I make no claims of completeness. There are some existing articles of people with the same name, but some of these are small and very unpopular articles which can easily be moved to make way. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 06:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
This article has a lot of technical details, but seems to be lacking information about the election campaign, or policies presented by the parties, if there were any. See 2017 United Kingdom general election#Campaign for an example. ghouston ( talk) 00:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Is this the first federal general election held on a full moon? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
After the dust settles, I do suggest we revisit this issue. In particular, foreign readers are likely to get a false impression by seeing a raft of independents' thumbnails and names in the infobox. Tony (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
There is nothing in the article to clarify that currently all of the figures as provisional, until the AEC returns the declaration of results to the Governor General, and State Governors for the Senate. Gnan garra 09:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm just wondering, what are the criteria for showing parties in the senate results table? HEMP, SFF, and Animal Justice all got higher results than Democratic Labor but aren't in the table. I understand parties like Centre Alliance due to their sitting senators, but I'm confused about why the DLP gets included over other minor parties. Catiline52 ( talk) 23:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
The summary is too cluttered. For foreign readers like me it takes a while to even figure out who won? Could the summary be more crisp?
It's really difficult to summarize it well. For starters, the Liberals are the conservatives, and it all goes downhill from there. EllenCT ( talk) 20:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I wonder why the zero isn't enough in the tables. The minus sign is confusing. Tony (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Manee593 ( talk · contribs) has twice made edits [2] [3] to state that the Sunday Age "leaned towards Labor and Greens policies". I have twice reverted the edit as it is not supported by the source cited. -- Find bruce ( talk) 11:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)