Talk:2014 Fisher state by-election
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Template help please
editI forget how to add new party templates that are used in the results table. Can someone please add Stop Population Growth Now please? Thanks in advance. Timeshift (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- I've done SPGN, but what you do is create a template at Template:Australian politics/name/[party name] (copy the code and change the name/link from another one), and then add an entry to Template:Australian politics/party colours (I used the orange colour on their website banner, but change it if you want). --Canley (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- I see there's a standalone colour template for "Stop Population Growth" in the candidates table with a similar but not identical orange colour, shall I move it to without the "Now"? Might be a bit shorter... --Canley (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Also, do you want me to put that independent grey in the colour boxes for the four party-style independents? --Canley (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks as always Canley. I'm not fussed with the choice, as long as it's consistent with their appearance at Full results of the South Australian state election, 2014#Upper house. Timeshift (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Also, do you want me to put that independent grey in the colour boxes for the four party-style independents? --Canley (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- I see there's a standalone colour template for "Stop Population Growth" in the candidates table with a similar but not identical orange colour, shall I move it to without the "Now"? Might be a bit shorter... --Canley (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, how can we extend the width of the party column so words appear on the one line? The width of the candidate field seems overly large by comparison too. Timeshift (talk) 06:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- The column widths are built into all the templates, so I don't think they can be overridden (without changing them for thousands of uses), and is why the party names are often abbreviated. I guess it would be possible to not use the templates in this case and use identical wikitable code except with the party column set wider or with a nowrap style. I'll copy it into my sandbox and have a play around. --Canley (talk) 10:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok. Wow! Potential Labor majority govt! Timeshift (talk) 10:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Was not expecting that! I see Antony Green is counting Woodyatt's primary vote base as being from Such's election vote (so a swing of −15.9): "The swing to or from Woodyatt will be compared to the vote for Such in March." --Canley (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
"Daniel Wills @DanWillsTiser Just hearing the EC counting error has been confirmed. Updated numbers today will put Labor 638 ahead in Fisher, almost impossible to stop. 12:43 PM - 7 Dec 2014" Timeshift (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
And now it comes through putting Labor on a 52.1% 2PP. Bwahahaha! Timeshift (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Liberals now 17 votes ahead two-party-preferred! Nail-biter! --Canley (talk) 05:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Now Labor ahead by 21 votes! --Canley (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- I predict Labor will win the two-party vote but Woodyatt will win the seat - he's been closing the gap and it looks increasingly a carbon copy of Frome, but with a lower Liberal primary vote, so more preferences will be flowing around. Whilst a Labor win is always good, Woodyatt would be better. An independent rather than Labor would have a much better chance of retaining the seat at future elections considering Fisher is usually Liberal. Whatever happens, there has been an unprecedented massive two-party swing against the Liberal opposition in this by-election and toward a fourth term Labor government. Ha! :) Timeshift (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yay! But so much for my Woodyatt prediction. Timeshift (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- I predict Labor will win the two-party vote but Woodyatt will win the seat - he's been closing the gap and it looks increasingly a carbon copy of Frome, but with a lower Liberal primary vote, so more preferences will be flowing around. Whilst a Labor win is always good, Woodyatt would be better. An independent rather than Labor would have a much better chance of retaining the seat at future elections considering Fisher is usually Liberal. Whatever happens, there has been an unprecedented massive two-party swing against the Liberal opposition in this by-election and toward a fourth term Labor government. Ha! :) Timeshift (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Now Labor ahead by 21 votes! --Canley (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Fisher state by-election, 2014. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213032713/http://www.ecsa.sa.gov.au/elections/2014-by-election-of-fisher/final-results to http://www.ecsa.sa.gov.au/elections/2014-by-election-of-fisher/final-results
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141111110518/http://www.ecsa.sa.gov.au/elections/2014-by-election-of-fisher to http://www.ecsa.sa.gov.au/elections/2014-by-election-of-fisher
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: 5 June 2024).
- 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) 17:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)