Talk:2009 Frome state by-election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Two decimal places for results?[edit]

What's the source? Both SEO and ABC only have one decimal place. Timeshift (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should the results be changed back to one decimal place, as that's what we have cites for, and all other results for SA elections and seats are only to one decimal place? Consistency is something I think we all aim for here on wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cites are a presentation of data. They include exact, unambiguous vote tallies. The electoral commission have, for whatever reason, opted to round to a very low level of precision. Some state electoral commissions do not present results in percentage form *at all* and just give vote counts. Should we then abolish percentages entirely on those states' articles? There is no reason why we should allow their internal practice, likely developed to their own organisational needs or style guides which are irrelevant to the building of an encyclopaedia, to limit ours - if we can do better, we should. The vote tallies are entirely reliable (they're certified by the electoral authority), and a percentage is, according to WP:SYN, a "routine calculation" expressly allowed in such situations. Find me one policy that mandates "consistency". If anything, "all other results" should be fixed to reflect the level of precision available to us. Orderinchaos 01:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if one was to follow consistency, this article would be at "Frome state by-election, 2009". Orderinchaos 01:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to avoid WP:POINT, but regardless, see List of Australian federal by-elections, changing the title would make it inconsistent. Yes, they should be fixed, rather than leaving this with 2dp and the rest with 1dp, at least we agree consistency is infact something that should be strived for! Are you volunteering? Timeshift (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your own "point" fails - those are all federal by-elections, so of course they're "inconsistent". The entire point of the state naming is to distinguish from federal by-elections. Incidentally, every AEC result ever published is in 2dp, so if you go to AEC sources, you'll be able to find the federal ones easily. I misunderstood your point originally but I've just looked and every one of the federal by-elections, including SA ones, gives the results in 2dp. All WA ones are, of course, already in 2dp, as are Victoria's and Tasmania's. I think I volunteer for enough things on this project given my outside commitments - if others rate such things as extremely high priorities, they're free to help out. Orderinchaos 02:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All SA state elections - statewide and individual seats, are in 1dp. This sticks out like a sore thumb. Timeshift (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, fix them, then. You're the one arguing consistency, after all. Orderinchaos 02:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one that's introduced 2dp in to state results! Timeshift (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who introduced 1dp into the SA ones, anyway? Why is SA different from the rest of the country? Orderinchaos 02:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's consistent with other state results. Picking the first available in the list for Vic and NSW, Electoral district of Altona, Electoral district of Albury. I couldn't find a QLD one in the first several I looked at. For SA, I used the only available figures, from the SEO. Why go to all the bother of calculating every single percentage to expand to 2dp for all 47 seats? Time can be spent much more productively than something as insignificant as calculating a 2dp. The point remains, it is inconsistent. Timeshift (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those are electoral districts, not by-elections. And they're pretty much stubs constructed to fill a gap in coverage. Wikipedia has a philosophy of building on the work of others. I don't recall any Wikipedia policy that says, "If it's just too hard or takes an extra 30 seconds, just settle for second best." Orderinchaos 03:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I'd love to know where the Altona people got their data. Orderinchaos 03:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're still results tables. What you're advocating is 2dp for Frome and 1dp for the rest, by default. Wikipedians strive for consistency. It appears you are not. 1dp is not "second best". I really don't see why you're kicking up such a stink over wanting to keep this at manually calculated 2dp when the rest of the SA results and other state results are not. Timeshift (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1dp is very much second best. We're looking at trends by comparing 10 times the number of electors. The other SA results are inconsistent with the rest of the country and should be fixed. End of discussion, really. Incidentally, it's not *me* kicking up the stink, I didn't start the discussion on this topic, I simply fixed (twice) the article so it contained correct data. That's what Wikipedians do, fix things instead of have pointless arguments about them. Orderinchaos 03:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Results tables are results tables whether they're the last election (in a district article) or a by-election, and as far as state elections go, they're overwhelmingly 1dp, and in SA, all 1dp. So unless you're willing to update all SA results, it appears you're advocating inconsistency, which disturbingly you seem not to have a problem with. If you have a problem with 1dp here, why not the results tables for all other SA state elections? Seems a bit odd to me. Timeshift (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favour of best practice. If consistency and best practice conflict, the latter will *always* come first in my mind. And as I've already said, I believe they should be changed where we have the data to make them useful. (I do not believe 1dp is useful at anything beyond suburb level.) You suggest I "do not have a problem with" the results tables, but I have in fact said repeatedly that they are in need of fixing. Orderinchaos 03:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems we're at a stalemate. Nobody else is offering an opinion, and we both hold an opposing view, and the issue is quite black and white with no area for compromise. 2dp for one electorate, 1dp for the rest of the SA electorates, and almost all other state electorates. The difference between 34.45 and 34.54, represented as 34.5, really is nothing but anally academic. Not to mention the fact that not all of the by-election results table is even in 2dp. Timeshift (talk) 12:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you have been approaching 17yo mates of mine on MSN who don't even edit here attempting to convince them of the merits of your argument. Bit sad, really. Orderinchaos 14:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked a mate of both of ours of their opinion on the issue? Why not play the ball rather than the man. It's very un-admin-like. Timeshift (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have we called it too early?[edit]

Following the adverstiser article[1], this article has awarded the seat to Independent Brock. But the electoral office page, dated later than the Advertiser page (4.55pm on 24 Jan), still puts Liberal ahead.[2] Peter Ballard (talk) 07:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two-party result is always delayed, right throughout the counting process of the past week. I think we can trust The Advertiser at this point, we can always change it, but at this point i'll trust the article way over the SEO's delayed 2pp tally. Timeshift (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I just heard the 6.00 pm news on Radio 891, Brock is claiming victory. He says the SEO told him he'd won by about 660 votes. I wasn't convinced by the Tiser but that radio report, quoting Brock himself, convinces me for now. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article 1, Article 2. SEO distribution of prefs. Convinced fully yet? Timeshift (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm convinced. Looking at the SEO pdf, Brock got ahead of the Labor candidate (Rohde) by only 30 votes. We should eventually delete Terry Boylan now, though I would advise waiting a few days in case Boylan asks for a recount. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the ref in the article, a recount request was denied by the SEO. Timeshift (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mousley has denied a recount request, though the Libs will still formally lodge a request on Tuesday. The declaration is apparently taking place Thursday. The Court of Disputed Returns is still a possibility. 30 preference votes - so very close! Timeshift (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Frome state by-election, 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Frome state by-election, 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Frome state by-election, 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Frome state by-election, 2009. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_Frome_state_by-election&oldid=1196543957"