Talk:2024 Victorian local elections

"N/A" or "No Leader"

This page and other pages on Victorian local elections (i haven't checked other states) are using a combination of "N/A" and "No leader" when describing the absence of a leader in the infobox

Which one works better? Auspol4 (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

"N/A" refers to parties with leaders but who are not relevant at the local level, "No leader" means the party just does not have a leader Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Libertarian Party's abbreviation

Totallynotarandomalt69 why have you changed the Libertarian Party's abbreviation to "LBT"? It’s clear from the party's page and its logo that its abbreviation is "LP". What you are doing is adding original research. Helper201 (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm using "LBT" based off the general style of abbreviations used in election image fillers, plus the ABC uses it: https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/mulgrave-by-election-2023/results

The Parliament House website has "LP" as the Liberal abbreviation and "AG" as the Greens abbreviation but we don't use either of them for election filler images: https://www.aph.gov.au/senators_and_members/guidelines_for_contacting_senators_and_members/los

IMO apart from being used by the ABC, the three-letter abbreviation generally looks better

If you want to open up a discussion on the Libertarian Party talk page I'm happy to engage Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Totallynotarandomalt69 I think discussing it where this is in use is more appropriate than the party's page. I think we should go with what the party itself is using, which as you say is also backed up by a third-party source. It seems very odd to me to use an abbreviation that differs from what is so prominently used in big bold letters in its logo. Also, we appear to use each party logo's where available in the infobox here (as seen by the other parties in the infobox) and given this party's logo is in the public domain we can use it in this infobox without any problems. Also, on a side-note, please ping me when you give a reply. Cheers. Helper201 (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

If the logo is in the public domain then would you be happy if it was then just turned into a proper placeholder image instead? Like the Labor, Liberal, Greens ones

Would avoid this entire text abbreviation discussion and I think it'd be a fair compromise Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Apologies forgot to ping @Helper201 Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Totallynotarandomalt69 sounds good to me. Do you know how to convert it and are you willing to do that please? Helper201 (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Helper201 I'm able to make the image but not sure where to upload? It can't be uploaded to Commons per copyright on the original upload Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Totallynotarandomalt69 hmm, I would've thought since its public domain you could just re-upload a new version to the Commons. I'd suggest asking at the Commons:Help desk. Helper201 (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Totallynotarandomalt69 if you're not able to do this I'd recommend you just restore the edit that was made adding the party's logo to the infobox on this page. Helper201 (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll ask on the Help desk today and if I don't get a reply I'll probably restore it, only issue is the logo in its current formatting looks...weird...if you know what I mean Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Totallynotarandomalt69 can you restore the party's logo please? Helper201 (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Helper201 Hey, totally forgot about this to be honest but would you be happy if I just restored the text abbrv to "LP" while I figure out how to get the placeholder party logo dealt with? Just because the main logo looks super weird and out of place given it doesn't format correctly Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Totallynotarandomalt69, sure, no problem. Helper201 (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Candidates section

@Totallynotarandomalt69: Was updating the summary section for Greater Bendigo and added a column for "candidates" since I figured it could be confusing why Labor inds only polled 10%, Greens only polled 5% -- of course this is explained by the fact there were dozens of indies vs 2 ind Labor and 1 Green. A user (who I've pinged above) removed it as it wasn't standard. My question is -- shouldn't it be? It doesn't make much sense I feel to have a summary table if it's comparing apples and oranges like this. Obviously in a federal election parties usually stand a uniform number of candidates, but in council elections the vote totals can often be explained by who stood in more places. Would it be a good idea to add a column in result summary tables to represent the number of candidates affiliated with each party/ticket? LivelyRatification (talk) 06:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Look I totally get your reasoning for it but I just think it's worth keeping the infoboxes a bit more simple, and again it is largely the standard - it might seem out of place if it's only for 2024 Vic and not all other elections

I'd be definitely happy for it to be mentioned in the lead of each section though? See for instance Results of the 2024 Victorian local elections in Northern Melbourne#Merri-bek, which also had the ability to include info about first-time candidates Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 10:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I guess, my point is that if it's supposed to be a summary it's good for providing context. The topline figures with no context might seem as if indies had done universally well when there were just less partisan candidates. LivelyRatification (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Sorry to add two sections to the talk page at once but I've also noticed that lettered abbreviations in place of images have been added to the infobox for Greater Bendigo, as well as a bunch of others. Additionally Owen Cosgriff is listed as the VicSoc leader (as well as Zoe Cook in Campaspe) on account of being the only candidates for the party, I assume. This feels really unnecessary to me. Barring some inner-city councils, there's no real leadership structure for council tickets in Victoria. The lettered abbreviations for images just seem to me like they clog up the page, and listing the only candidate as party leader seems outright misleading to me, unless VS or Greens have outright come out and said that these people are the leaders of their parties on Greater Bendigo/Campaspe council.

I think the infoboxes are helpful but there's no reason to stick to the abbreviations and leaders just because other elections have them. Most tickets don't have leaders, and even when they do, they're not likely to have images. LivelyRatification (talk) 07:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Obviously happy for others to weigh in but I think the text abbreviations and logos work fine, that's only my personal stylistic preference but it is also in general used across infoboxes

On the point about leaders – I don't object to removing that, I was basing it off the standard seen for Results of the 2024 New South Wales local elections, but obviously that had the key difference of a lot of LGAs having grouped tickets so it made more sense since it was officially the "leader" in that LGA, so yep no objection on that part of it Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

How to categorise Independent Party Members in the infobox?

Should we add Independent Labor, Independent Liberal etc to the infobox as their own entries, leave them absent, or merge them under the broader independent total? Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)