Talk:2012 Sydney state by-election

Mallard as "LGBT rights campaigner"

This is just false. Mallard is a moderate Liberal councillor who, among his many views, supports gay rights. He's not specifically known for gay rights advocacy, has no particular affiliation to any organised LGBT activism, and as such listing it is misleading. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Openly gay and an active gay rights campaigner, Mallard has long been an effective advocate - disagree. I'm not sure why you consider an affiliation a requirement. Timeshift (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I agree that listing him as that is misleading. Even if we concede that he is or has been an LGBT rights campaigner, it's not his primary notability, which is as councillor for the City of Sydney. That should be how we list him in the candidates list. Frickeg (talk) 23:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. It's particularly misleading with Alex Greenwich, who is primarily notable as an LGBT rights campaigner, in the race. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I can see the point of primary notability in respect to Mallard so i've reorganised for council content to come first. The above and other refs back up the gay rights campaigner notability though. Timeshift (talk) 07:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Greenwich

Greenwich confirmed both his candidacy and his endorsement from Moore this morning, at which time I added it to the article. I find it it a bit bizarre that it was reverted as unconfirmed when it was in most of this morning's newspapers. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I find it a bit bizarre that you find it bizarre as you didn't add any new references at the time. Timeshift (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have any interest in creating an article for Greenwich as the other two candidates already have articles? Google gives 688 results for 'Alex Greenwich' on news.com.au, 113 on smh.com.au and 25300 (!) on abc.net.au. I don't think it should be hard. Timeshift (talk) 05:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely, but it's bit of an odd thing to raise when the other day you removed the red link to him twice. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not odd at all. A link should be added when an article exists. Timeshift (talk) 05:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Red links would appear to suggest otherwise. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with it, and it's only a guideline. Timeshift (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

In terms of Wikipedia policy covering primary, secondary and tertiary sources, I have removed the reference re Greenwich's candidacy that is sourced from Greenwich's own website. The statement that is being cited can easily be sourced (and is) from reliable secondary and tertiary sources, without the need to source from Greenwich. Rangasyd (talk) 08:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using a candidate's website, as long as it's not used to back anything up. It's been done plenty of times before and will occur again. I think it was especially appropriate as at the time he did not have an article of his own. Timeshift (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it a gain or a hold?

I'm of the view that a party can retain a seat but a different independent cannot retain a seat for another independent, even given the fact that in this case, one has the endorsement of the other. Should the results table at the bottom read 'independent gain from independent' or 'independent hold'? If we look at 2008 Port Macquarie state by-election, I disagree with how it gives the impression that Besseling retained it. If an outgoing independent was to endorse a Greens candidate and they won, it wouldn't be a Green retain would it? Views appreciated. Timeshift (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I think "gain" is misleading as the balance of power in parliament has not changed. How about something like "Independent held from a different Independent"? WWGB (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have a problem with "gain" too for that reason - plus "Independent gain from Independent" just looks weird and would confuse the average reader. I don't actually have a problem with "retain" in this instance (or in Port Macquarie, Dubbo or Mount Gambier, the other recent examples), since in each case the candidate was endorsed by the outgoing member. The hold/gain bit is about the change in the seat's status, and in this case it remains an Independent seat. It's much like when the conservative parties used to endorse multiple candidates and occasionally one would defeat a sitting member - we don't say "UAP gain from UAP", we just say "UAP retain". It comes down to whether we're talking about the member or the party, and the point of the gain/hold box is to show changes in party status. Frickeg (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Still uncomfortable about it being a retain when it's ind to ind, but fair enough. Timeshift (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if there's a way to have a footnote from the retain without breaking the template, given these nifty little popup cites we have nowadays? I do agree that this kind of thing could use some clarification. Frickeg (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Imagine the situation where an independent MP was not a supporter or was against another independent's candidacy who went on to win? Timeshift (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

True, but as far as I know that hasn't happened since the very early 20th century (outside the Tasmanian LC). Frickeg (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's the point though... because if we then determine it based on their support or lack thereof, it becomes a WP:OR issue without a clear line. Ind to Ind should be either gain, or retain, not both. Timeshift (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Frickeg (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Greenwich's primary/tcp change was +47.3/63.7, not +11.0/10.6

Just so we're clear, Greenwich started off with zero percent. Greenwich is not Moore. The ABC may do it differently, but neither they or we are wrong, and if we were to start to adopt a case-by-case approach of deciding each independent's affiliation, then there would need to be a large consensus to change all the articles that do it this way and not the other way. Timeshift (talk) 06:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Me too. Frickeg (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Nobbs St Surry Hills, Sydney by-election.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)