This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
Candidates of the 2014 South Australian state election is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
Australia and
Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
I've added refs for all upper independents, but I couldn't find one for Jeanie Walker that stated she was running at the 2014 SA election so for now i've removed her.
Timeshift (
talk)
03:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm a bit unsure as to why one minor party has its own column but the rest don't. My view is that all minor parties and independents that don't have a sitting member should just be in alpha order in the right hand column. That would mean moving John Darley into his own column (he has a running mate, I believe) and moving SPGN into the "Rest" column. Opinions?
HungryPseph (
talk)
13:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Yes, exactly - we've got plenty of practice dealing with this kind of thing! In fact, in the past I think we've given everyone their own column, which is perhaps a little generous. At the very least everyone with a running mate has to get one.
Frickeg (
talk)
21:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)reply
In terms of improvements to these pages, how about the change I just made where each group ticket has the alpha letter next to it as per the ballot order? I know it's a candidates article rather than a ballot article but it's extra voting info for very little extra add. If undesired due to previous candidate articles, feel free to revert.
Timeshift (
talk)
00:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)reply
User
Frickeg has gone through the LegCo table and removed all the order letters and changed all the ordering to random with the edit description "we don't do these in ballot paper order". I am considering undo-ing the change as there is no justification as to why this improvement should not stand, particularly as there is no logical ordering except that it makes the majors more prominent.
Screech1616 (
talk)
11:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm so sorry, I didn't see this note on the talk page or I would have discussed it first. I still consider my change correct, though. The majors are more prominent because they are the majors. Labor and Liberal are clearly more important than the Multicultural Progress Party, and it's not our job to run some sort of egalitarian utopia where all parties are equal - they clearly aren't. Obviously it gets a little arbitrary further down the ballot paper (I did actually follow an order - parties with elected MPs in SA, then elected MPs anywhere in Australia, and then I did the rest in ballot paper order because there's no real differentiation).
There is an argument for ballot paper order to be listed somewhere, but I'm not sure it can really be incorporated into these articles. If we're going to consider it important, we need to consider it important for the lower house too, and we can't do that in this sort of situation. Ultimately I don't really think the information is that important - where it materially affects the result, i.e. NSW Senate 2013, it's noted in the article. Open to ideas on that front though.
I cut out the alpha letters because the table is bulky enough as it is and I don't think they're really necessary. It is, as Timeshift says in the initial comment, not meant to be an article about how the ballot looks; it's an article listing the candidates, in the most concise, helpful way possible. IMO, the new version is closer to that than the old one.
Frickeg (
talk)
12:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)reply
We don't "need" to match the ballot paper. We make decisions on what's better at our discretion. Multicultural Progress Party is much better as Multicultural Progress than just 'Multicultural'. Every other party has their words used except for "party" or "australian", there's no reason why Multicultural Progress should be any different. The wording, layout and design of this list is more or less perfect now. If you want clarifications for "FREE Australia" and/or "Nationals SA", please ask.
Timeshift (
talk)
22:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)reply