Talk:2019 New South Wales state election

NSW polling

Should a separate column for One Nation be added? Several polls have included them separately from other/IND. Catiline52 (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

There is an error of the number of seats that the Liberal and Nationals are currently occupying. The Liberal and Nationals currently have 52 seats, not 51 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.227.51 (talk) 11:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I wonder why Latham is pictured in the infobox? Tony (talk) 07:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree One Nation should be added in the polls. MroWikipedian (talk) 07:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Labor Leadership Election/Spill, 2018?

Hey everyone,

Following the resignation of Luke Foley, I was wondering if it is in the interest to create a NSW Labor leadership election page? It is confirmed Michael Daley will run but there's also the prospective candidates based on the media hoo-ha. I know there was a page created for the 2015 one after the resignation of John Robertson.

DestinationAlan (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

It's a contested vote (Daley v Minns) so yes, would make sense. I'm not sure we've been in the practice of creating them for state leadership contests in the past, but there's no reason not to. Australian Labor Party (New South Wales Branch) leadership election, 2018, perhaps? The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely if there's an election. If there's no other candidate, there's no election. Also a good opportunity to write about the Foley resignation. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Minns has confirmed he will be running for the leadership tomorrow. I'll go create the page now. Thanks all. DestinationAlan (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

It is called a spill as Foley's resignation was not exactly voluntary and "leadership election" is non-existent in the Australian language. 122.106.83.10 (talk) 09:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Daley's photo

I've called his electorate office to point out the need to upload a free portrait image of him. There's nothing on WP or Commons. Tony (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. This is something we should get around to doing more often. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I've searched as best I can for one on Flickr, but can't find a free one unfortunately. Kiwichris (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Advance Australia Party

It appears that the Advance Australia Party that was recently registered is a merger of the Building Australia Party and the Motorists Party, instead of a direct successor like previously believed. Should we create a new page for it, or just rename the Building Australia Party page and detail the merger? Catiline52 (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

If there's no Motorists Party article then I would just rename the current article and explain the merger briefly. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

My mistake, I linked the wrong page. It's the Australian Motorist Party. Catiline52 (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

If it's a merger of two parties, new article. To do otherwise makes a confusing mess. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Retirements

Some very low profile retirements here (for some quite high-profile figures) - I was able to find articles obliquely referencing what happened with Ernest Wong, David Clarke and Rick Colless, and quite a few talking about what is "about" to happen ("Ernest Wong is set to lose preselection"), but nothing reporting on what actually happened. If anyone can find some better sources that would be great - I've just left it at "did not renominate" for now. Frickeg (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

This certainly is an odd one. I've been through Factiva (I'm noticing more and more Australian newspaper content dropping out of Google, which is a real problem in a whole bunch of ways) and was able to track down two of them. It seems Clarke essentially was always likely to retire - the reports just switched from "may" or "probably" to "retiring" when Tudehope needed his seat. There was no big announcement, but it was essentially confirmed in September 2018, and there is no sense that he was pushed. I was able to get an exact date for Wong losing preselection, thanks to the Daily Telegraph. Colless, however, is baffling - I couldn't even find a Factiva hit that acknowledged that he was retiring at all. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Odd indeed. Only confirmation I could find is on Antony Green's retiring MPs page. JennyOz (talk) 06:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for chasing down sources for Wong and Clarke. On Colless (about whom I generalised rather above), I do recall reading something along the lines of "Rick Colless, who is retiring" quite some time ago and thinking, huh, weird, but I presume we'll get more info closer to the time considering he's a 19-year incumbent, but apparently not. Now, of course, I can't remember where I read it, although I have a vague feeling it had something to do with the Orange candidate mess. Frickeg (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

"In doubt" etc.

I'd like to start discussion now rather than when this article gets really busy. Can we do away with having a table for "in doubt"? I think it's fair enough that we may only consider a seat to have changed hands if more than one source has said so, but what is or isn't included in any "in doubt" category is far too subjective, especially since that is usually just taken from the ABC projections. I think the general consensus here is sceptical of when the ABC website "calls" a seat, so surely for us to report that a seat has been called as in doubt is completely untenable. We should also figure out what standard we use to consider seats called, but two of the main four sources (ABC, Poll Bludger, Kevin Bonham, Tally Room) should do? Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with this - our usual practice here works well. Our results table will be including a number of seats as "in doubt", and it is important that we have a table laying out which seats those are. And our usual way of determining this works well too - keeping an eye on the sites you mention, with a healthy dose of common sense, makes things pretty clear. I wouldn't like to do an actual numerical standard because I think it needs context - if a seat disappears from the ABC in-doubt list, and Poll Bludger briefly says it's done, but at the same time Kevin Bonham posts an update explaining in detail why it should be in doubt, then obviously we go with the detailed explanation. If KB and the ABC both pull a seat out of in doubt, but PB and Tally Room still have it there - but haven't updated in a couple of days - then we likely go with KB/ABC. In general, after long experience, we err on the side of caution. Let's not fix what ain't broke. Frickeg (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

It's just a broken system and really impossible, as we've seen in the past with problems we've had. If a seat is not listed in doubt by the ABC, but we know that it's likely to be considered in doubt, but unlikely to actually change hands, we're stuck in an impossible situation as has happened before. Having a table for seats in doubt is really just trying to get as much information as possible as if this were a news website and not an encyclopaedia. The example you've given would not be appropriate in any other instance, to say that one reliable source is correct but two other reliable sources are incorrect. Instead we can simply say that certain seats are considered to be in doubt by certain sources, without the use of a table. Erring on the side of caution should surely mean that we don't consider a seat to be in doubt without strong enough evidence to think so. It's not as if the lack of evidence that a seat is changing hands is enough, and this is all really trusting the "in doubt" list that the ABC has anyway. We shouldn't have to make all these determinations in order to know which seats we can consider to be in doubt, it's hard enough doing that live for seats that we can consider to have changed hands. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Given that the NSWEC is notoriously terrible with election counts, and is highly unlikely to even have prepoll primaries counted on the night, we're going to have a long period of seats being in doubt, and we need to present useful information about which seats those are. From what I can gather, your proposed alternative is leaving the table out altogether - but we are still going to need to treat certain seats as in doubt, because otherwise we can't list any seat totals in the results table, which is clearly unhelpful. So the choices before us, when it comes to the table, are whether we state that there are X seats in doubt but don't specify which ones they are, or we do specify them. So unless you are proposing that we do not include any kind of seat count until all the seats are decided, I do not see how we could possibly exclude the in-doubt table.

We rely on sources, but we are allowed to use our brains when interpreting them. We have four main sources that we can use (although in my experience Tally Room is rarely very helpful here as it's only updated very occasionally with these). By looking at those four (three) sources, editors should be able to come up with an intelligent assessment, through consensus, of when a seat is realistically in doubt. I cannot understand the impulse to want to call seats when we have reliable sources saying they are in doubt. You are correct that we are not a news service, so there should be no rush to call things prematurely (which we have done in the past, and want to avoid doing in the future). I would much rather we had a seat listed in doubt a little longer than most other sources, than have us join most (but not all) sources in treating a seat as won when it turns out not to be (which, again, we have done before, so we are learning from experience here). Frickeg (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, to leave out the table entirely, especially since we are unlikely to get analysis from William Bowe tonight. That leaves us essentially with two sources if we consider Tally Room to be not updated promptly. What I am saying is that it is impossible to make an intelligent determination as to when a seat is "in doubt" and the particular level of doubt. The seat totals are a separate matter and we shouldn't have a table for in doubt seats simply to have seat totals, but we can make totals based on where both ABC and Bonham agree, with the rest being unallocated. If we were to have such a table it would combine seats that were perhaps a 95% chance of being one way, and other seats which could be described as 50-50, and this is further complicated when the doubt regards the 2PP count, the order of distribution, or both. The point is that listing seats in doubt is very much the hasty option here, it's not simply something we do before we call seats as having changed hands or not, it is very much calling the seats as in doubt. I am absolutely not saying we should call seats when there is some doubt over them, rather we should not be calling them as in doubt at all, and certainly not calling them one way or the other. Just as it would be possible to get it wrong as to whether a seat is properly allocated to a party, it is just as easy (if not easier) to get it wrong as to whether the seat is in doubt or not. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this makes zero sense. "I am not saying we should call seats when there is some doubt over them, rather we should not be calling them as in doubt at all" - what? Either a seat is "called" (i.e. not in doubt), or it is in doubt. We don't "call" seats as in doubt, we just list the ones that are not yet "called". Right now, in the main table, we are telling our readers that 3 seats are "in doubt", but we are not telling our readers which three seats those are (I presume they are East Hills, Lismore and Dubbo, but I haven't checked). I cannot support this - it is uselessly withholding information that we are already using. As it turns out Ben Raue is doing detailed work for the Guardian which we can probably use, and his calls are very cautious indeed (he still has 7 in doubt), but the ABC, Bowe and Bonham all agree on 3 in doubt (those listed above), although Bonham notes "low levels of doubt" in Upper Hunter, Wollondilly and Penrith. (Ben's extra seat is Coffs Harbour, which is a bit of an outlier, and Bonham and ABC have both explicitly called that one.) I propose immediately including a table of the three seats in doubt on which all our sources above agree. Frickeg (talk) 04:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

When we make the claim that a particular seat is in doubt, we are absolutely calling that seat to be in doubt. It is not as if we have started with 93 seats in doubt as others such as the ABC have, we are making a determination about what we consider to be in doubt, as you have demonstrated by winnowing the potential doubtful list to three. I am against making a table for seats in doubt, but we ought to write that the seats of Lismore, East Hills and Dubbo are considered to be in doubt by reliable sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

("Called" is literally the opposite of "in doubt". "Called" means that a winner is being recognised, "in doubt" means that one is not.) Wait, so you are only arguing against the table, but you still want us to treat the seats as in doubt? Why? What is the downside of providing more information? Let me be clear - we have only two options here. Either we treat a seat as won by one party or another, or we do not - in which case we are by definition treating it as in doubt. There is no third option. If you want to add a sentence before the table along the lines of "The following seats are regarded as in doubt by reliable sources", I would have no objection. Frickeg (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes I am aware what called and in doubt mean, I have been saying that the way we have been treating the in doubt table has been a manner of calling them as in doubt, which is the issue. I have been advocating for the third option, to treat these seats as neither called or in doubt, by omitting such table. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

No, that's what I've been saying. A seat is either called or in doubt. It is a binary situation - there is no third option. Seats cannot be neither called nor in doubt, because either we know who won them (in which case they are called) or we don't (in which case they are in doubt). For what it's worth I don't think we need the sentence I suggested above now either, since Canley's table includes a citation in the header. Frickeg (talk) 07:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

It's all rather redundant now but I have been saying that there is a third option we can take. What I was saying was not what you were saying, so I agree that it wasn't what you were saying but it was not my intention to say what you were saying. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I've added an In Doubt table with the three seats Dubbo, East Hills and Lismore. I'm sorry Onetwothreeip, I'm really struggling to comprehend what your objection is. I agree with Frickeg, I don't think it's helpful to omit information like this. You say it is "broken", "impossible", "completely untenable"—I disagree, it is fairly simple to maintain, the number of instances are usually minuscule, and it is a temporary system in place for a very short time until the results are finalised. I also don't see why the table is so objectionable but it's fine for them to be listed in prose, which is still a determination of inclusion or exclusion in the seat tally. --Canley (talk) 06:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Redirect request

Could someone please make 2019 NSW elections a redirect to this page? 101.180.80.244 (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Legislative Council

The ABC is misleadingly suggesting that the Legislative Council is much more settled than it actually is. They are still not at 10% counted so we are nowhere close to being able to call it. We know there will be at least 7 Coalition, 6 Labor, 2 Greens, 1 One Nation, 1 Shooter. Beyond that, it is a mystery and will be for weeks. Frickeg (talk) 07:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I’m tempted to believe Antony Green ahead of Wikipedia editors. WWGB (talk) 08:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not Antony Green, it's a computer that clearly has "7.9% counted" at the top. If you know the first thing about proportional elections, you know that's nowhere near enough to be calling seats. See here, here and, I don't know, the Electoral Commission itself. With these counts, almost invariably, we cannot know the final result until "the button is pressed" - i.e. all the votes have been received, and a full distribution of preferences (computerised these days) can commence. Last election, everyone thought No Land Tax was most likely to win a seat right up until the moment they pressed the button, when Animal Justice surprised everyone to win it instead. As the NSWEC clearly states, we cannot and will not know the outcome until 10 April. Frickeg (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

More here. Note "the result will not be known for weeks". Frickeg (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

NSW LegCo

(copied/pasted from my talk page to discuss here): Hey, I've undone your edits on the upper house. The ABC computer is calling things off an incomplete, unrepresentative count, as Kevin Bonham makes clear here. Sorry if I caught some legitimate edits in there but I already had to undo all of this stuff twice. Frickeg (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I very much understand your concerns - I do, and am more than happy to discuss and amend if needed - but the bottom line is that we have provisional seats won with one in doubt, provided as per usual by the ABC's/Antony Green's election computer, an unquestionable reliable source. Kevin Bonham is not. We did the provisional seats a few days after the 2016 federal election (others too?), there's no reason why we can't here. As such, I vehemently disagree with the removal of said data and have reverted it - but: on reflection, I immediately concluded that the argument could have easily been made that the previous wording I used was insufficient in how inherently speculative provisional upper house seat results are. I've reverted, but i've expanded the upper house lead section to indicate as such, and also added the text, including the amendments, below the LegCo result table. I've also changed the table column heading wording and added a footnote to both that and the 'in doubt' cell. If you want further disclaimers or other tinkering to add, please do suggest. But based on what i've said (past use, reliable sources etc, one simply cannot accept a complete removal of said data. What do you think? Timeshift (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I had a big, angry response, but your latest edit is actually much better. I still really oppose saying anything about the swing against the Coalition - Labor seats are hugely over-represented in the sample and they will definitely not have a double-digit swing against them when counting is done. I would prefer that we say nothing in the lead for now as it is speculative, and would strongly prefer that the KSO and LDP "provisional" seats be removed as they are very far from certain. The other provisional seats currently there are not in doubt, except for Labor's seventh seat which very much is and should be removed. I will be offline for the rest of the day but will have another look this evening. Frickeg (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair point. I've changed "In the upper house, the Coalition suffered a large double-digit primary vote swing against them." to "Though less than 10% of the upper house vote has been counted so far, the Coalition appears to have suffered a significant primary vote swing against them." But as for your latest reply overall, it is inherently speculative but it is published website data from Antony/ABC's election computer nevertheless, which they always do (where possible), and therefore warrants inclusion with appropriate caveats, as we have done on here previously. Happy to re-word or add further caveats, but the seat projection numbers themselves are the core data and based on history they should not be removed until we have more updated vote counting/seat projection updates. I hope we can come to a mutually agreed outcome here. Timeshift (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for making that change - that makes it much better.

I would still prefer to see this out of the lead while the figures are so early. The only way I could possibly support the 7th Labor seat/KSO seat/LDP seat staying in the table is if they were separated far off to the right, entirely in italics, and each one contained a bracket (not a footnote) saying something like "based on incomplete and unrepresentative data", which is all a bit much. This issue is only arising because the NSWEC is (famously) the worst in the country and is conducting the slowest count in recent memory - for an equivalent Senate count, we would easily have 60-70% counted by now (not to mention a much higher quota, which removes a lot of the doubt - if you've hit a quota at any point in a Senate count, there's not much doubt that you'll win a seat in the end), but here we still haven't reached 10%.* The ABC's projections are going to jump around a lot, and my strong view (and I always thought everyone else's) has always been that we should only include seats that are definite in results tables. I also want to emphasise that the ABC count is a computer, whereas we have pretty much all of Australia's most respected election commentators very clearly saying that there are four seats in doubt. This in the Guardian alone should be more than sufficient.

I could live with a prose note below the table saying something along the lines of "The ABC's projection, which is currently projecting seats from incomplete and unrepresentative data, speculatively assigns seats to KSO and LDP", but I really cannot agree to having any of the four in-doubt seats allocated to parties. There is absolutely no non-automated evidence - no news articles, no Twitter statements, no Facebook statements - that indicate that either LDP or KSO has won a seat, and it is irresponsible for us to be perpetuating the already confusing way the ABC is choosing (for reasons best known to itself) to present this data.

* Note that we actually do know more here, because the NSWEC did their funny "lump everyone who doesn't already have a seat/isn't One Nation into a random "Others" category" on the night, so we already know, for example, that Labor's seventh seat is very much in doubt. Here is that count, with 4.2 million votes as opposed to the full count's 433K. This is the empirical proof, in case anyone was doubting it, that the current detailed count is significantly skewed in favour of Labor and against the Coalition. Frankly, I would prefer we include this table, since the count is far advanced over the detailed count, until the detailed count catches up. Frickeg (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

But the thing is, it is seat projections based only on the votes counted, inherently using objective formulaic computation, not subjective opinion. They are very subject to change - as are any projections. Do we exclude an opinion poll (individual polls or entire polling companies) because we disagree with their figures? No. This is in sharp contrast to someone like a non-WP:RS blogger such as Kevin Bonham who is providing subjective opinion. When more votes are counted, the objective formulaic computation of the ABC election computer will adjust its seat predictions. You can't be arbitrary and say its lower house predictions which can and do change based on progression of the vote count are acceptable but its upper house predictions which can and do change based on progression of the vote count are not acceptable. We have historically used the ABC/Antony Green's election computer seat predictions for both houses following elections (with unmissable caveats), and when they both change as vote counts progress, we update it here. It is valid at the time (ethically, i strongly disagree with your attempts to delegitimise what is valid prediction data at any given point in the count), and when it becomes outdated, we update it. It is what wikipedia is all about. Despite past election articles, I have been very understanding of your concerns and have accommodated most of them in attempts to come to a satisfactory compromise, but there is no further compromise I can possibly provide. Readers of this article (and past election articles) can't be in any position to think that the final upper house composition will be the same as what the current projection figures indicate. And very soon, before you know it, all votes and seats will be known anyway, and like previous election article examples, the predictions will vanish in to the article history. Can we not waste our lives any further on this discussion - please? Timeshift (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I do appreciate your accommodations here, I really do. But there is misinformation in this article as it stands, and I cannot and will not accept that. The ABC is a good source - usually - but it does not have some sort of exalted status above the Guardian and all the other experts I cited above. We have not a single non-computerised source indicating that KSO or LDP have won a seat.

To respond to some other points:

• " it is seat projections based only on the votes counted, inherently using objective formulaic computation, not subjective opinion." But we are not presenting them as projections, we are presenting them as results. If this were to hold water, there would need to be a very clear, unmissable caveat at the top of the table saying "The below figures are projections based off incomplete and unrepresentative data and seats allocated may not indicate seats won."
• " a non-WP:RS blogger such as Kevin Bonham who is providing subjective opinion." Firstly, there is a difference between analysis and opinion. Secondly, we have actually previously discussed and agreed that KB is a reliable source - you agreed too.
• "You can't be arbitrary and say its lower house predictions which can and do change based on progression of the vote count are acceptable but its upper house predictions which can and do change based on progression of the vote count are not acceptable." We don't include lower house seats in the seat count when we have reliable sources saying they're in doubt, as is discussed extensively elsewhere on this page.
• "We have historically used the ABC/Antony Green's election computer seat predictions for both houses following elections (with unmissable caveats), and when they both change as vote counts progress, we update it here." Untrue. In 2015, seats were not added until after results were final. In 2011, we had a prose summary that remained in place until figures were final. We have never used these tables to list seats that are very obviously still in doubt, and it is blatantly irresponsible of us to do so.
• "(ethically, i strongly disagree with your attempts to delegitimise what is valid prediction data at any given point in the count)." Honestly I'm a little offended by this, especially since I reached out to make sure I hadn't overstepped, but that's by the by. I have a far greater ethical problem with us actively misleading our readers than I do with treating the ABC as something less than the word of God.
• "It is what wikipedia is all about." Wikipedia is about taking a number of sources to present the most accurate and verifiable information, not setting one source as the only acceptable voice of truth.
• "Readers of this article (and past election articles) can't be in any position to think that the final upper house composition will be the same as what the current projection figures indicate." Yes they can, and I know this because people keep trying to update the LegCo pages and those for LDP and KSO. Why would they not think those numbers represent actual seats?
• "Can we not waste our lives any further on this discussion - please?" I'd love to - just make 4 seats in doubt as multiple reliable sources state, and we'll be fine. I honestly feel more strongly about this than almost anything we've ever argued about in the past. Frickeg (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I am actually retired, but since someone tagged me in this and to save various people their sanity: we seem to have a couple of editors arguing every election that we should list ABC computer projections of complicated counts as definitive results without the serious and clear caveats that any reliable-source human reporting on those projections would use. This inevitably leads (if it's done) to people reading our articles receiving information that is absolutely incorrect and that people who have not won seats have won them.

The ABC computer projections are a useful tool, but they have never - especially in complicated counts (e.g. every proportional-representation seat without a full quota and lower-house seats where there's unusual stuff going on) - had the God-like status being attributed to them here. It's not about "disagreeing" with the figures, it's about understanding what they actually are and what they mean, and listening to what reliable sources say about that so we don't wind up repeating rubbish. You might understand that they're projections that may drastically change, but very few other people will, and so they see "oh, Wikipedia says KSO has won a seat!" when KSO has done no such thing.

And it's exactly this kind of dumb argument which is why I quit: having to have repeated arguments because a couple of people attach a god-like status to machine output which no serious commentator attaches and reject any and all sources that discuss what is actually objectively happening with postcounts. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

It almost seems to be a contest amongst Wikipedia's editors as to who can be the first to call the result, much like the pundits who are really just throwing darts at a dartboard. That Green called the result at 8:15 or a computer program is predicting a result, who cares? It would be more relevant as to what time Daley conceded. The vote will continue to change constantly until the declaration of results on 12 April, why doesn't everybody just park the endless changes to swings etc until then? 1.129.109.139 (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the editors here are doing a great job updating the results with such regularity. WP is one of the go-to places to keep abreast of how the results are evolving. Tony (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think we should be including close LC results at this stage. The last few seats in the LC won't be determined for quite a while, and the ABC is only estimating based off the latest numbers. In the last few days, Keep Sydney Open has had 1 seat, lost it, and got it back again in the space of about 48 hours, just as one example. Where a party clearly has a high-enough quota to get a seat they should definitely be included, but I would argue the last few seats that will bounce around for a while should remain "in doubt" rather than countinously reassigned as more of the count trickles in. -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The table on the ABC website now has an explicit disclaimer stating the following: "The figures shown for seats won is based entirely on the current count. It is not corrected for where votes are from and should only be used as a possible guide to the result. Check the percentage of vote counted as a guide for the progress of the count." On this basis, and on the basis of the comments above, I am removing the seats that are clearly in doubt from the table. Frickeg (talk) 11:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

My take on this is that at this early stage, the only seats that are locked in are those with a full quota. So as counting progresses, the only ones known for certain are the full quota seats. Everything else should be seen as "Seats in doubt". I think this should apply to all Australian elections that use proportional representation in the time period between the election and the finalization of results. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 07:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Photos of leaders

There have been various edits seeking to add a photo of Gladys Berejiklian. The difficulty is that, as noted above, there is currently no available photo of Michael Daley which has the result that it skews the infobox. I note that this edit added a shadow photo & logo, however that doesn't appear to have been supported. I have removed the latest photo in light of apparent consensus but am happy to discuss if people have a different view. Find bruce (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

This seems strange to me - we don't exclude content just because equivalent content is not available. Sometimes the absence even prompts someone to provide the missing content. The shadow photo seems reasonable in the meantime. Frickeg (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Quick Facts is Rubbish

I presume it is auto generated but it makes no sense without publication. Better to leave it out altogether if possible.

This is what it currently says:

Quick Facts All 93 seats in the Legislative Assemblyand 21 (of the 42) seats in the Legislative Council 47 Assembly seats were needed for a majority, First party ... 49.180.121.173 (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Quick Facts is just a summary of the headings and text in every infobox displayed on the Wikipedia mobile app. Because the infobox is collapsed it just lists some of the key points to give some idea of the content if you expand it – the Quick Facts refers to the infobox itself, not the summary. In almost every case it's going to be truncated. No point in removing useful information from an article because a "feature" of the mobile app displays it slightly strangely. If you remove the "93 seats..." text it will probably just say "Leader Party Leader's seat Last election Seats won..." which is arguably worse. --Canley (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)