Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics

Moved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013_Australian_federal_election#c-Wikiuser4999-20260116015300-Remove_minor_parties_and_independents_from_infobox

Moved to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_politics#c-Qwerty123M-20260123033100-RfC:_Inclusion_of_minor_parties_and_independents_in_election_infoboxes

 – I have created a Request for Comment to formalise any consensus. Qwerty123M (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I think it's important to cut the unnecessary fat of election articles while also preserving as much important information and data as possible.

Independents and minor parties have consistently made up only 20% of the primary vote and 5 out of 150 seats (3% of seats in the House) in every single election until 2022, with a decrease in vote and seat share in 2025. Because of this, I think it's imperative that minor parties and independents (unless playing particularly more significant role in the election) should be left out of the lead infobox and remain only in the results section of the article and individual articles dedicated to the election's results. Major parties always have and always will play the most principal roles of an election, and this fact should be reflected in the infobox.

On a separate note, it's also important that not every single detail of an article is crammed into the infobox to ensure a reader's time looking through an article is fluent and easy; an overcrowded infobox will not improve upon the quality of the reading of an article Wikiuser4999 (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think you should start making the changes as you recently have done without a solid consensus in favour of your proposal. A request for comment already exists in opposition to your idea and has stood that way since 2015. Although some elections may feel like a two-party contest, there actually are many parties contesting and most usually have a considerable amount of media attention which may warrant a further mention. We have had very little discussion on this post for more than a week now so if you really need to change the consensus for this matter, I think you should see WP:RFC. Qwerty123M (talk) 12:26, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I know about that request you linked, and it's been over a decade since it was made; politics have changed significantly since then. The results of minor parties in 2022 tower compared to prior elections, this should be reflected in election articles before 2022.

Your point about the importance of the mention of minor parties, but this change in visuals doesnt discount them at all: any reader can scroll to the 'results' heading to see. The infobox doesnt need to have every detail of the article jammed into it, it's just a quick brief on the article.

Your mention of media attention brings me back to the my point of the change of Australian political landscape: many activities of minor parties and independents prior to 2022 are overshadowed by media events of 2022, with the huge success of the Greens and the teals' multi-million dollar backing by Climate 200, both of these parties tearing chunks out of both major parties' sides that year. I believe this sort of result for minor parties is truly warranted at the beginning introduction of an article, unlike previous election results with independents and minor parties consistently making up on 20% of the primary vote (all of them combined) along with 5 of 150 seats (3%) Wikiuser4999 (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

That RfC having stood for ten years doesn't diminish its importance, it doesn't matter how much politics has changed, consensus needs to change first in order to consider significant changes to all infoboxes. I do actually like the tidiness of your edits but there is a long-standing consensus against your decision so I feel uneasy about keeping these edits. So I would support some of your editorial choices if there was a chance of gaining a greater consensus, but I'm opposed to retaining these edits for now. A request for comment really seems like the best way forward because there is not enough participation here, even after I have posted a link to the discussion on WikiProject Australia, you can try to spread the word of this conversation to other WikiProjects or other relevant stakeholders as long as you don't intentionally go WP:FORUMSHOPping. There may be other relevant material that I am not aware of, so I would appreciate if someone can find any other community decisions. Qwerty123M (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I am not at all across this issue (came via WP:AWNB), but is it about {{Infobox election}} for both federal and state elections? Looking at 1922 Australian federal election it doesn't include the Liberal party and 2019 Australian federal election seems to include all parties that won at least one seat. How would you define minor? (Edit conflict, haven't read the RfC)

On the separate note, there could be a call for an infobox-type template in the results section, there are a lot of numbers with decimal places at the top of the article currently. This is a Wikipedia-wide problem. Commander Keane (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Minor parties are groups that have never formed government and do not have the numbers to form government or even opposition

On this issue, I personally believe it's best for the look of an article that minor parties and independents are confined to dedicated 'results' sections of an election article, unless those parties have made significant strides to damage either major party in that particular election. Wikiuser4999 (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

There is the problem of opinion in choosing the displayed parties. Recentism, "politics have changed significantly since then", and then the algorithm to select - "minor parties are groups that have never formed government and do not have the numbers to form government or even opposition" and "unless playing particularly more significant role in the election". What if a minor party (however that is defined) forms government in the future? Also, in the previous RfC there is discussion of selection based on number of seats won. As suggested, a new RfC would be needed before any changes.

However, is the motivation (at least in part) to simplify the infobox? In 2019 Australian federal election it side-scrolls on mobile, I don't know why the portraits are so big and there are a lot of numbers and information. In the results section, you don't get the nice layout of the infobox, you have to read a table. Perhaps working on that could be investigated.

I think we should be looking at solutions for all Australian elections, 1901 onwards, and all worldwide elections - this is a global infobox, and readers should be able to extract information from an Australian, German or New Zealand election infobox. Commander Keane (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

These edits would be done based on an election-by-election basis, so any different results that minor parties may have in future or past elections would not influence the edits in that way.

A simplification is a big factor for these edits, along with better quality for reading. Wikiuser4999 (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

With regard to minor parties, I think this should be decided on an election-by-election basis, having regard to % of the vote won, number of seats won, and (in the case of future elections) opinion polling. The infobox is a summary of the most significant/influential parties, I think a good rule of thumb is whether a party is included in summaries of the result/polling by national media outlets, or grouped with "others/independents". Wikipedia editors have tried to apply an algorithm to determine this, i.e. the rule that one seat in the House of Reps qualifies a party for infobox mention. This has produced absurd results where parties like the Democrats, Greens and One Nation are omitted due to their lack of seats, despite being massively influential on national politics and the election result, while non-entities like the Centre Alliance (which no longer even has a separate website!) and Robbie Katter receive infobox billing. Independents should not be included at all in my view. I T B F 📢 14:22, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I completely agree with this, as it would provide a solution to elections with unique circumstances and results, especially the most recent in the 21st century.

Here are some of my proposed edits made along with these parameters:

2013

2019/

2022

2025 Wikiuser4999 (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I support this structure of removing the Katter's Party and the Centre Alliance from the 2025 infobox because they perennially get one seat and they don't seem like they're trying to be very large. I'm not sure about removing the Greens from every infobox, because although they are small, they are still somewhat major in terms of being a left-wing force. UK elections don't have a very large infobox and there was extensive discussion on the talk page for the 2024 United Kingdom general election about including different parties, we could base our discussion partly on the arguments raised there. Qwerty123M (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Your point of the Greens' presence as a prominent-ish left-wing entity is valid, though to use your mention of the UK election as an example, Reform UK, a minor party of even greater size than the Greens isn't shown the 2024 election infobox either, even after achieving substantially better results compared to the Greens' performance at any other election in Australia.

Based on polling, it seems the Greens will continue to gain momentum in Australia (despite the turnout in 2025), this is especially true in the past half decade, with their primary vote at an all time high and their seats quadrupling in 2022. This would be acknowledged and recognised in these proposed changes to election articles. Wikiuser4999 (talk) 09:25, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

A seats/votes test would be the fairest way to do it. This could be done as including all parties with more than 10% of the national House of Representatives vote, and all parties with more than 5% of the national House of Representatives vote and at least one seat in either house. As for order, this can remain largely the same, ranked by number of House of Representative seats won, and ties breaking by national House of Representatives vote. These rules would have the following results for the infobox.

Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I think this makes a lot of sense. There's no real reason the Democrats ought to be excluded from infoboxes of old, and the inclusion of prominent minor parties seems to make a good deal of sense to me. LivelyRatification (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Support — I like this infobox structure you have laid out in the table but independents may be required in the infobox sometimes, 2022 and 2025 are elections I can think of that prominently featured independent candidates that had successes. I like that this infobox structure tells you what you need to know without overwhelming the reader with content. The fact that some election infoboxes have six parties at the moment is unnecessary and wastes space. Some parties are more regional-focused like the Katter's Party and the Centre Alliance so should not need to be included in an infobox as they are seldom relevant in a national election with different issues to a state-based one or a by-election.

Can you please clarify what you mean by saying that we should include all parties with at least 10% of the vote and 5% of the HoR vote with one seat? That rule could easily be applied to either 10% or 5% of the HoR vote. The grammar makes that sentence confusing and it does not look like your table is respecting both of those rules, unless I am misinterpreting election results.

I'm not sure about including parties that were only elected to Senate seats in a federal election infobox because that usually refers to a House of Representatives election, that being the place parties form government. Having minor parties in some election infoboxes seems OK but it does not seem entirely appropriate unless they played a major role. Qwerty123M (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

This doesn't address whether independents as a group should be included in the infobox. This would be controversial, as independent candidates are not a single group politically, and can often be opposed to each other, unlike political parties.

The formula for the table above includes all parties which received more than 5% of the national vote and at least one seat in either house. Including all parties which received more than 10% of the national vote would not add any more parties to the table, and may be a redundant criterion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't feel so sure about listing the minor parties so frequently. Of course, they have always had somewhat of an influence, but never so outright damaging to either major party until 4 years ago. In 2022, Labor escaped minority government status with only 2 seats, thanks to the Greens and the Teals. Neither the Democrats nor One Nation (or even the Greens until so recently) have threatened the influence of either major party. I really believe the inclusion of any minor parties and independents in an article's lead section should be decided on a per-election basis, with the criteria of vote count, seat count, publicity, and dynamic with the major parties. Wikiuser4999 (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of minor parties and independents in election infoboxes

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Participation too sparse for consensus to form. So, no consensus. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 00:01, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

---

Moved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_politics#c-Wikiuser4999-20260115124000-Removing_minor_parties_and_independents_from_election_infobox

 – Link to previous discussion. Qwerty123M (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Should minor parties and independent candidates be included in Australian election infoboxes? Politics has experienced shifts with different minor parties and the "teal independents" gaining seats in 2022 and retaining them in 2025, in addition to opinion polling showing a One Nation surge for the next election.

The original discussion has gotten us to a place where we can form a consensus but I want that to be formalised through a Request for Comment.

Mentioning users from original discussion: @Wikiuser4999, @Onetwothreeip, @LivelyRatification, @ITBF, and @Commander Keane. Qwerty123M (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Could options be presented to simplify discussion? I think there was:

1. Include parties that gain one seat, or
2. Allow per-article consensus which may be including parties that win no seats, or excluding parties that win multiple seats, depending.

I am not too bothered, I would prefer a full, nicer display in the article body and minimalist infobox. Commander Keane (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I support 2 as per the reasons I've listed already Wikiuser4999 (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Which pages/noticeboards have been notified of this discussion? If we are going to be having a discussion which potentially has broad effects, we need to ensure wide participation and knowledge of this RFC. TarnishedPath^talk 11:00, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I have notified @Wikiuser4999 (the original proposer), WikiProject Australia, WikiProject Politics, and WikiProject Elections and Referendums. Qwerty123M (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

• IMO election infoboxes for elections to a legislative body should include all parties that won seats. If we're talking about elections to individual positions (like mayoralties or by-elections, we already have the WP:5% rule. Number 57 00:13, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

  As a result of Australia having an upper house that is more electorally proportional than its lower house, seven political parties won seats at the 2025 federal election, or eight if David Pocock (legally a party) is included though is considered an independent in parliament. A further two parties held seats and contested but did not win seats, and two more are represented but did not contest. Most of these parties have seats with less than 1% of the national vote, while some parties have greater than 1% of the vote without any seats. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am requesting assistance because I don't know how to go forward here, so I apologise if by doing so I accidentally create a WP:Canvassing issue. I am the primary author of the Joanna Howe article, and a user (@SIDAC SA:) made a number of edits to it that I took issue with, namely for POV issues. I don't want to revert these edits because the article is almost entirely written by me and I assume it is likely to trigger an edit war, and the two of us have had a lengthy discussion about the matter at Talk:Joanna Howe. I think we are at a loggerheads, so I would like input from other editors on how to handle this and what, if anything, should be changed at the article. Cheers. LivelyRatification (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Jonathon Duniam#Requested move 17 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 05:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Port Arthur massacre (Australia)#Requested move 1 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 09:35, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2026 National Party of Australia leadership spill motion#Requested move 11 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 08:24, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

As both @Milkk7 and Totallynotarandomalt69: have been active contributors at 2026 South Australian state election, I thought I'd ping them both here. WikiProject New Zealand has an initiative where they create pages for prospective new MPs in advance of the election (see Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/politics/New MPs), specifically in circumstances where election is likely but an individual would not be notable unless they were elected. This is easier to predict in a list-based system, but I believe is also helpful here. I was in Adelaide the other day to take photos of prospective candidates, and thought I would draft up some pages here based off people who I managed to photograph. Here's what I have done so far:

• Draft:David Leach (politician)
• Draft:Bradley Orr (politician)
• Draft:Matt Schultz (Australian politician)

I will update this if I have made any more, which I may do in the coming hours. While it is probably not practical for this state election, given how close it is, it may be worth creating a separate subpage for future elections, such as the 2026 Victorian state election, if editors express interest in doing similar projects. --LivelyRatification (talk) 09:20, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

This is fantastic work, thanks for getting all the photos of MPs/candidates! Definitely interested in a similar project for the 2026 Victorian state election which would be useful Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 09:25, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I have also made the following pages, this time for candidates in Unley:

• Draft:Alice Rolls
• Draft:Rosalie Rotolo
• Draft:Ryan Harrison (politician)

--LivelyRatification (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I have now created the subpage Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian politics/New MPs, for this project. Currently only detailed info about South Australia and the two ongoing by-elections are there. Feel free to take a read, I will add this to the project page and move my drafts under this subheading in a moment. --LivelyRatification (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Now that the Trumpet of Patriots has, post Clive Palmer, renamed again into Australian Federation Party, the article has been renamed. I propose splitting off a separate article for the Clive era under the Trumpet of Patriots name.

Any feedback? Newystats (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

This seems like a sensible enough idea. LivelyRatification (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I would oppose this - it's the same party that has been renamed and rebranded multiple times. This wasn't a hostile takeover, the members and/or officeholders had to assent to these name changes. It has had the same registered officer since 2023, both before and after the ToP branding. It would be like having different articles for the Country Party and the National Party. I T B F 📢 12:01, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2026 National Party of Australia leadership spill motion#Requested move 11 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. HundredVisionsAndRevisions (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2026 National Party of Australia leadership election#Requested move 20 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2026 (UTC)