Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics

Query regarding Australian individual seat results (in effect mainly by-elections): is there consensus on what the threshold is for infobox inclusion? Asking because there is the WP:5% rule, but that refers to "American and non-parliamentary election articles" and Australian by-elections seem to have a 10% threshold (though I've seen both 10% and 5% in effect). It appears the UK has the 5% rule (see 2024 Rochdale by-election) and it's admittedly my preferred option, but it would be ideal to have Australian consensus on this if there isn't already.

(To be clear I'm not referring to the inclusion of minor parties/independents in federal election infoboxes, which has had discussion above). Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

My view is that the 5% threshold is a rather US-centric consensus, but there is logic in applying it to Australian articles. I think the most important factor, and one that would be rather case-by-case, is preventing clogging infoboxes with information beyond what is necessary. For example, at 2025 Werribee state by-election, six candidates crossed 5%. I don't think it would be particularly helpful to the reader to present all of this information in the infobox, and indeed that page uses a 10% rule. A similar situation occurs at 2023 Narracan state supplementary election, where three candidates are listed in the infobox (the three that crossed 10%), but six crossed 5%.

At 2026 Nepean state by-election, which I have spent quite a lot of time on, I did include Sianan Healy, the Greens candidate, who received just under 10%. I cited the 5% rule as a basis for this, but I also believe it is helpful for the reader as her performance is not only notable based on primary vote figures, but to illustrate the distribution of preferences. Healy warrants a mention in the lede as her preferences put Hutchison in the final two-candidate-preferred count, which is why I think it makes sense to include her.

With all this in mind, my attempt to formulate a policy for Australian single-seat elections would be as follows:

• Prioritise presenting the most relevant information to the reader. The infobox should not substitute a results table, nor should it present granular information of no interest to a casual reader.
• Australian elections are conducted using preferential voting, and the final two-party/two-candidate-preferred count is generally the most important figure. The final two finishers in the two-candidate-preferred count should always be included in the infobox.

The inclusion of additional candidates should be assessed as follows:

• If a candidate placed first or second on the primary vote but did not reach the final count, they should be included in the infobox.
• If a candidate receives more than 10% of the primary vote, they should likely be included in the infobox, if not already covered by above criteria.
• If a candidate receives more than 5% of the primary vote, they may be included in the infobox where necessary. Such a circumstance might include situations where their vote helped another candidate reach the distribution of preferences.
• Candidates who received less than 5% of the primary vote should not be included in the infobox, unless any other conditions here apply to them.
• No infobox should exclude a candidate who received a higher primary vote than one included in the infobox. If applying this principle would result in a particularly large infobox (i:e, five candidates or above), it may be worth removing a candidate from the infobox.

@Totallynotarandomalt69: Would like to hear your thoughts on this. It is purposefully a bit vague with no "brightline" figure, as the 5% rule is, but that is because I think a one-size-fits-all principle would not work in this context, and an Australia-specific consensus ought to take into account the unique factors at place in Australia. A by-election where the leading candidate wins on primary votes (2023 Warrandyte) will almost certainly require only two candidates in the infobox, whereas one with a fractured primary vote field and a complicated distribution of preferences (not a by-election, but the 2022 election in Groom struck me as an example, I'd put five there) would likely require a larger amount. LivelyRatification (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

The current consensus is that inclusion is warranted at 10% of the vote, and that seems appropriate to me. 5% is too low in practical terms, and there is consensus that this not be used for parliamentary elections.

An election result might be something like 45%, 40% and 5%, in which case including the third-place candidate would be unduly comparing them to the main candidates. In a more heterogenous election result such as 27%, 21%, 17%, 15%, 7% and 5%, this would include too many candidates - six rather than four, of which the fifth and sixth-place candidates are not particularly relevant contenders.

A reasonable exception would be for a candidate polling under 10% on primary votes but finishes in the two-candidate-preferred, like Suzie Holt in Groom 2022, as they would be getting more than 10% of the two-candidate-preferred. Including any candidate on the basis of their votes being distributed to other candidates would be untenable, very convoluted, and unclear why that would be relevant. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't disagree wrt distribution of preferences. I suppose my thinking was that if a third-placed candidate overtakes to reach second (as in Nepean), it might be helpful to explain where they received those preferences from, but that can be done in the body of the article as opposed to the infobox. I think it best to avoid a hard-and-fast figure like 10% in favour of a more holistic consideration of the factors at play in each election, especially considering Australia's preferential voting system. LivelyRatification (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I would support that phenomena being explained in the body rather than the infobox. I would still support local consensus on any single article being able to make a decision contrary to a 10% threshold - such as Groom 2022 - so it needn't be 'hard-and-fast" - but that is a good starting point for consistency among articles. There does not appear to be any particular prominence of the Greens candidate in the Nepean by-election, who finished fourth with 8%, even if their preferences helped the third-place candidate into second. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

9 per cent, and 11 per cent before the distribution of her preferences, but I'm fairly agnostic on that case and would be happy to remove Healy from the infobox in that particular circumstance. LivelyRatification (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Some recent searching of mine discovered this discussion at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board from 2018 about the usefulness of infoboxes on Australian by-election articles. (See also the lengthy discussion at the 2018 Wentworth by-election talk page.) I am not quite so extremist as some editors were on the matter, who advocated for removal of infoboxes on by-election articles, but I am sympathetic to the argument that in most cases, the infobox for Australian pages ought only to contain the candidates in the 2CP, as well as any other candidates who may have had a prospect of winning. This could potentially create problems with overall consistency, however, especially as the consistency of infoboxes with other articles was cited as a reason for their inclusion in the first place. LivelyRatification (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Two quick points from me: I like your thinking (re your initial reply) with the way you laid out assessment of inclusion of additional candidates in infoboxes (my personal preference is admittedly the UK's 5% rule but I recognise that's not entirely practical here and I think your way of assessing it would be a decent standard for this kind of thing); secondly I can also understand the arguments limiting things to two-candidate-preferred (plus major candidates) but would totally oppose the removal of infoboxes (not to suggest that's your view) Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree that I think infoboxes are helpful and useful for by-election articles. I mention the previous arguments mainly because some editors seemed to really not like them, and because I agree that Australia's preferential voting system adds additional considerations to the inclusion of certain candidates (hence my proposed assessment of adding candidates). LivelyRatification (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

The number of candidates is manageable usually to include them all.

The Info box has a max number of candidates so I think including the two candidates with the highest primary votes and then working backwards would be best.

In effect it'll end up being the top primary vote candidates. But a rule like "The two final candidates and then working backwards to through the people knocked out of the run off stages" would likely stop weird situations where the winner isnt in the info box etc DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § Pauline Hanson, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I read in one article and then saw its widespread where read and green triangles are used to annotate swings in voting. However a 20% swing has the same size triangle as a 0.2% swing. I'm feeling that the icon gives too much weight in some cases and too little in others. I'm reasonably happy with changes in number of seats as they are whole numbers, but for percentage changes in votes I think it's misleading. Unicode does offer both small and large triangles. What do people think. Alex Sims (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this would be necessary. We do the same thing in results tables where a 0.2% positive swing and a 20% positive swing are both denoted by a + symbol. I'm not really sure why the triangle should vary as a result of the swing being bigger or smaller, or why this would be misleading for percentage changes but not seats. It might sometimes be helpful to denote the scale of electoral swings using supplementary diagrams or images, but in most cases I think we can trust our readers to understand the difference between an upwards triangle with a small figure next to it and an upwards triangle with a large figure next to it. LivelyRatification (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I am in agreeance with this view. Viatori (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed as well. The green triangle helps tell the direction of the swing at a glance, whereas the size of the number helps tell the magnitude of the swing at a glance. Steelkamp (talk) 04:37, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pauline Hanson's One Nation – New South Wales#Requested move 20 June 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello WP:AUSPOL. As some of you might be aware, Federal Members of Parliament Zali Steggall and Allegra Spender have launched a new political party: . I have decided to start a draft of this that anyone can work on at Draft:Community Strong. I started with the very small basics and is barely anything at this point, but that is fine. I have just woken up, I'm not feeling the best in my nose, and it might need some time to see if it meets WP:GNG, which it probably will, but the draft is a great place to work on those things as drafts are not checked for notability. Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2026 (UTC)