Talk:Candidates of the 2025 Australian federal election

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Candidates of the 2025 Australian federal election article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1: 3 months

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

move to draft, 7 April 2024, see discussion.
move to draft, 17 January 2024, see discussion.

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Australia: Politics Low‑importance

	Australia portal Candidates of the 2025 Australian federal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Elections and Referendums

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

Lists List‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
List	This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Senate table condensing

I am thinking that maybe we should be condensing the single-candidate minor-party senate candidates into a simple 'others' column. In the event of Victoria, the table is really just getting to large and i dont see a need for a full column for parties like VS, GAP, FF or LC. Should we do this? DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It's the format used in all the other Senate candidate sections from previous elections. I get that it looks a bit odd right now given all the minor parties haven't announced they're running yet, and some minor parties that have are yet to reveal more than one candidate, but I think it would look worse if we were to just have Labor, Liberal, Greens, and then a long list of random minor party candidates under 'other'. It will just fill out in time. Goodebening (talk) 07:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bradlow & Bock as Vic Senate Candidates

This has been re-introduced, citing [1] in support. But reading the content it clearly states that 'These forms only permit one person nominate as a candidate'. So this nomination cannot occur on the forms to be used for the nexct election, it just seems to be a publicity stunt. It's not encylopedic to include non-compliant potential nominations in this list. Teraplane (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Teraplane, what do secondary sources say? TarnishedPath^talk 06:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was the best I could find [2]. It describes House of Reps nominations but the same principles apply even more strongly to the senate. There are 12 senators per state. So accepting a dual nomination would give Victoria 13 senators, one more than all the other states. This would break the founding principle of equal representation for every state. Hence a non compliant nomination. Teraplane (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, senators are free at any point to resign and be replaced by anyone of their party's choosing. The job-sharing proposition is far more viable in the upper house than the lower. B+B could theoretically continuously resign and replace each other on, say, a month-on, month-off basis, but it would require them to be re-nominated by the Vic state parliament and re-sworn in every time. I suspect it wouldn't be long before the Vic gov got a bit annoyed, and there would probably be quite a substantial period of time across a six-year term spent without anyone sitting in the seat because of administrative delays. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 10:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the one who put them back (was hoping the added explainer would be a good middle ground) I am in favour of keeping them on the list until they are disqualified. I cited [3] due to the AEC acknowledging that they are intending candidates. The top of the page says "Candidates have been reported to be contesting seats for the House of Representatives and Senate at the next Australian federal election" as such I added the AEC announcement to help indicate that even though their nomination would be denied in its current state, they are still intending candidates. Considering them as two separate candidates they are both eligible to run, the only thing that would get them disqualified is filling out the form in a way that the form gets denied (which they have publicly announced their intention to do). I personally think that they should be included as they are currently fit all the required criteria to become candidates, the only thing that is in doubt is whether their application will be accepted. I hope that the explainer of the situation after their names is a good middle ground. If everyone thinks they should be excluded from the list till the time that they agree to conform to the paperwork, then I'm happy to go along with that. Afropenguin (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Fletcher's retirement is incorrectly duplicated as a resignation

I noted that Paul Fletcher appeared both in the Retiring Members and the Disendorsements and Resignations sections. Fletcher has retired, he remains a member until the next election. That is different to resigning your House of Reps seat which takes immediate effect and usually triggers a by election . So I removed Fletcvher from the resingations list but this edit was reverted by @GraziePrego . Ohter recent retirements such as Bill Shorten have bee classified correctly and not double entered. Also Kylea Tink has not resigned, she will retire after her seast is abolished. Suggest we keep this page accurate. @TarnishedPath Teraplane (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Teraplane, the double inclusion of Fletcher is deliberate. Fletcher is a retiring member, so belongs in the first list. However, he is also an interesting case where he was chosen as the candidate for this election through a complete preselection process, and THEN decided to retire. This means he was officially the liberal candidate, and then withdrew his candidacy. This is different to other incumbent members retiring where they did not go through preselection, so there’s no change in candidacy for that party for that seat. In Fletcher’s case there is that interesting change, so we should specifically note that in the lower table. GraziePrego (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. I was initially thinking this entry implied he had resigned his seat. But you are simply saying he resigned (withdrew) his winning pre-selection which makes sense. So fine to record it that way. I do think that Kylea Tink could be removed from this section. She hasn't had a pre-selection and will retire, not resign, due to her sest being abolished. So I would like to remove that one if you have no objection. Teraplane (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to that from me :) GraziePrego (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear about why I've been pinged. My last edit to the page was to update a couple of references. Is there some other edit that I'd performed that introduced inaccuracies? TarnishedPath^talk 01:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was just interested in your opinion as you made useful contributions to this topic earlier in the year. Teraplane (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]