![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Can this nomination for review be withdrawn until the article is ready? Especially since much of the article was blanked immediately before nomination, it is unlikely to be accepted in its current form.- DilatoryRevolution ( talk) 04:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Retiring MPs are typically placed on "Candidates" pages (see 2019, 2015, 2011, Victoria, SA). They were recently removed from this page. I am happy to review whether they belong on these pages but a consistent approach should be taken. - DilatoryRevolution ( talk) 11:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I removed the retirement of Mark Pearson from this article as the source used ( https://drive.google.com/file/d/1asrx1v3eeQS0b_WuBQp65VvsZ60_tiJW/view (pg5)) did not explicitly say that he was indeed retiring. I've since found another source ( https://www.echo.net.au/2022/11/ajps-lead-candidate-is-alison-waters-from-lismore/) to indicate that the AJP will be nominating a different lead LC candidate. However this doesn't necessarily mean that Pearson won't be on the ticket - if the AJP hasn't made any substantiative media release to say that Pearson won't be on the ticket (in a winnable spot or not) then it is probably inappropriate to list him as having retired, even if there is a new lead candidate. A recent example of this would be Tien Kieu's placement on the ALP ticket in SE Metro in Vic upper house in an unwinnable spot, not being listed as a retirement as it is still a nomination. I've written this section just to notify watchlisters of this reasoning. J2m5 ( talk) 05:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
An excellent example of this foxy malarkey is David Elliot (DE), who in his bye-bye speech left open the door to have a run in Castle Hill as his seat of Baulkham Hills was abolished in the 2019 redistribution. Logic at the time was he would move into Castle Hill and the incumbent there Ray Williams (RW) moves into the new seat of Kellyville. Simple, reasonable, both well known locally. Then at the Local Government elections all of those on The Hills Shire council, who were part of the DE group failed to receive endorsement from their own party. The new endorsed ones were from Dom the Premier's lot and they sailed in with a significant holding over the chamber. The Mayor & Deputy needless to say are aligned with the Premier, so therefore one of their own (not on council) would be endorsed for CH, a Mr. McCoy who then had his own issues to sort and wisdom was he was too hot a potato to parachute in - passing the 'chute to Dep. Mayor Hodges who will be the new member for Castle Hill. Historically the hills district, known as the bible belt, is blue ribbon heartland although the federal election has seen 2PP in Mitchell (Alex Hawke) and Berowra (Julian Leeser) returned to that of the 2007 election, those 2 federal seats now surrounded in a sea of red and teal. Other notable characters in the hills at a state level are Matt Keen (Hornsby) and Dom the Premier (Epping) and Ms. Preston (Hawkesbury), a previous Hills Shire Councillor around the same time a RW.
Moral is that don't believe anything (all is 'pending') until nominations close and the fields declared. 120.18.43.67 ( talk) 03:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi all. Problematically, candidate list articles seem to not have a hard barrier in ascertaining which parties qualify for their own column, and which parties are instead listed in the "other" column. I'd like to propose that a number expressed as a percentage of seats that a particular party contests is agreed upon as the quota for having a dedicated column. While picking a number will obviously be arbitrary, I think we can pick a number which emphasises readability, minimising blank space, and allowing readers to quickly find a candidate from a particular party. I think a low barrier might be 60% of seats, and a high barrier might be 85% of seats. A potential problem with a number approach is that it may exclude parties which field a low number of candidates but have high political relevancy, for instance the National Party of Australia (WA). J2m5 ( talk) 07:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Can this nomination for review be withdrawn until the article is ready? Especially since much of the article was blanked immediately before nomination, it is unlikely to be accepted in its current form.- DilatoryRevolution ( talk) 04:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Retiring MPs are typically placed on "Candidates" pages (see 2019, 2015, 2011, Victoria, SA). They were recently removed from this page. I am happy to review whether they belong on these pages but a consistent approach should be taken. - DilatoryRevolution ( talk) 11:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I removed the retirement of Mark Pearson from this article as the source used ( https://drive.google.com/file/d/1asrx1v3eeQS0b_WuBQp65VvsZ60_tiJW/view (pg5)) did not explicitly say that he was indeed retiring. I've since found another source ( https://www.echo.net.au/2022/11/ajps-lead-candidate-is-alison-waters-from-lismore/) to indicate that the AJP will be nominating a different lead LC candidate. However this doesn't necessarily mean that Pearson won't be on the ticket - if the AJP hasn't made any substantiative media release to say that Pearson won't be on the ticket (in a winnable spot or not) then it is probably inappropriate to list him as having retired, even if there is a new lead candidate. A recent example of this would be Tien Kieu's placement on the ALP ticket in SE Metro in Vic upper house in an unwinnable spot, not being listed as a retirement as it is still a nomination. I've written this section just to notify watchlisters of this reasoning. J2m5 ( talk) 05:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
An excellent example of this foxy malarkey is David Elliot (DE), who in his bye-bye speech left open the door to have a run in Castle Hill as his seat of Baulkham Hills was abolished in the 2019 redistribution. Logic at the time was he would move into Castle Hill and the incumbent there Ray Williams (RW) moves into the new seat of Kellyville. Simple, reasonable, both well known locally. Then at the Local Government elections all of those on The Hills Shire council, who were part of the DE group failed to receive endorsement from their own party. The new endorsed ones were from Dom the Premier's lot and they sailed in with a significant holding over the chamber. The Mayor & Deputy needless to say are aligned with the Premier, so therefore one of their own (not on council) would be endorsed for CH, a Mr. McCoy who then had his own issues to sort and wisdom was he was too hot a potato to parachute in - passing the 'chute to Dep. Mayor Hodges who will be the new member for Castle Hill. Historically the hills district, known as the bible belt, is blue ribbon heartland although the federal election has seen 2PP in Mitchell (Alex Hawke) and Berowra (Julian Leeser) returned to that of the 2007 election, those 2 federal seats now surrounded in a sea of red and teal. Other notable characters in the hills at a state level are Matt Keen (Hornsby) and Dom the Premier (Epping) and Ms. Preston (Hawkesbury), a previous Hills Shire Councillor around the same time a RW.
Moral is that don't believe anything (all is 'pending') until nominations close and the fields declared. 120.18.43.67 ( talk) 03:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi all. Problematically, candidate list articles seem to not have a hard barrier in ascertaining which parties qualify for their own column, and which parties are instead listed in the "other" column. I'd like to propose that a number expressed as a percentage of seats that a particular party contests is agreed upon as the quota for having a dedicated column. While picking a number will obviously be arbitrary, I think we can pick a number which emphasises readability, minimising blank space, and allowing readers to quickly find a candidate from a particular party. I think a low barrier might be 60% of seats, and a high barrier might be 85% of seats. A potential problem with a number approach is that it may exclude parties which field a low number of candidates but have high political relevancy, for instance the National Party of Australia (WA). J2m5 ( talk) 07:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)