Talk:Nicolette Boele

Discussion

• Support. Reason: It is common in other articles about Australian House of Representatives members to use "per cent" instead of "points". All the cited sources use the word "per cent" and the Australian Electoral Commission does not count in points or quotes.Youshouldchooseausernamethat (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC); UpdatedYoushouldchooseausernamethat (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support. The precedent I can see on the AEC's Tally Room is that a swing is indicated with the symbol "%" and on other MPs' articles the word "percent" is usually spelt if there is space. Some Wikipedia articles such as for Anthony Albanese don't follow this precedent though but articles like that were created a long time ago, so it's good to try to establish some sort of consensus for future use. Qwerty123M (talk) 05:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support Common usage in Australia, and in most relevant sources. Llwyld (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
• Comment (Summoned by bot) - Did a prior discussion, consisting wholly of three comments between two people, necessitate the starting of an RFC? TarnishedPath^talk 12:37, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

  Agree 100%. This RFC fails WP:RFCBEFORE. Plus the statement is neither WP:RFCBRIEF or WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Nemov (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry, my formatting is wrong. The reason bit of the RFC is part of my vote. This did, however, necessitate the start of an RFC. The article is using wrong vocabulary IMO and thus required a consensus. I will move the reason into my vote. Youshouldchooseausernamethat (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

  RFCBEFORE is not mandatory, so you can't really "fail" it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  After seeing @Figureofnine's argument below and reading Percentage point, I agree with them and therefore oppose a change to "percent" or "per cent". I would support a change to "percent points" or "percentage points". TarnishedPath^talk 00:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  Grammatically, yes, but in this circumstance, per cent is more popular. Official election statistics (The AEC tally room) use percent and not percent points. Youshouldchooseausernamethat (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  This isn't really about what language others use, where terms can be interchanged. In the absense of a pertinent MOS, correctness is more important. TarnishedPath^talk 04:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, you're right, the basis of this encyclopaedia's language should not be other sources; however, in this circumstance it may be more suitable to use the terminology associated with Australian federal elections. I do support percentage points, but points is just inaccurate as the AEC does not count in points or quotas, unlike the Tasmanian Electoral Commission. Youshouldchooseausernamethat (talk) 05:09, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'll invite Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics to join this discussion, since several editors seem to think this is a question of WP:ENGVAR when it is actually a question of maths. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  Also see the Points vs Per Cent topic which led to the RFC. Youshouldchooseausernamethat (talk) 06:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose (Summoned by bot) "Points" is correct. Also "percentage points" would be fine. The problem with "percent" is that it can be misinterpreted as a "percent change" rather than as here, in which case it is a change in the number of percentage points. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for voting. With the context of surrounding sentences, per cent does make sense. I.E The electoral borders were redrawn, reducing Fletcher's margin over Boele to 2.5% as the difference between the two candidates is 2.5%. Youshouldchooseausernamethat (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - This RFC is non-neutrally worded. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

  Fixed. Youshouldchooseausernamethat (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - The RfC will be closed unless any editor comments otherwise. I will remove the {{rfc}} tag unless there is any dispute in at least 24 hours. The result is Support. Youshouldchooseausernamethat (talk) 11:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

  Leave it open and let the RFC run it's course. Given the problems with how this was initially worded and the changes after that you should under no circumstance close this RFC. Nemov (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

  Sure. The only thing is that an editor changed points back to per cent yesterday so the question would be to leave it like that. Youshouldchooseausernamethat (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Youshouldchooseausernamethat, I think you want to read the FAQ at the top of Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment, particularly about trying to declare victory so early. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  Not declaring victory at all, I made that comment because an editor already changed "points" to "per cent". (FYI: currently Support 4–3 Oppose) Youshouldchooseausernamethat (talk) 04:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  I've reverted that change as discussion is ongoing. Ps, determing consensus is not a mere head count. TarnishedPath^talk 05:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  Please restore it as it had more to it then just changing points to per cent. Then manually change per cent to points. I can do this too if you approve. Thanks! Youshouldchooseausernamethat (talk) 05:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  From WP:STATUSQUO: To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion (emphasis not mine). You can add a tag that it's under discussion if you like, however let the process run. TarnishedPath^talk 05:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry, I thought you meant you reverted the entire edit. Thanks for clearing that up! Youshouldchooseausernamethat (talk) 06:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  No worries. TarnishedPath^talk 07:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Using the same terms as the cite so it seems better WP:V, though the only guide I saw that said similar was an essay WP:CLOP. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
• Use the one that's mathematically correct. The per cent changed is not the same as the percentage points changed. For example, if the prior number was 40.0% of the vote, and she raised it by 12.3 percentage points, then the result would have been 52.3% and she would have won. If the prior number was 40.0%, and she raised it by 12.3 per cent, then the result would have been 44.92% and she probably lost.
  See also Wikipedia:Two times does not mean two times more. Just because some newspaper reporters are innumerate doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to be wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  +1 TarnishedPath^talk 02:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  I support percentage points. To me, "points" gives the impression that it is a quota. Youshouldchooseausernamethat (talk) 07:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose The new phrase is ambiguous as to the ratio being discussed. In "his margin to 4.2 per cent" we can assume that 4.2 represents a difference between the vote percentage of the two candidates. However the new phrase "a significant swing of 12.3 percent" reads as if 12.3 percent applies to a "swing" which is confusing. The original form used "points" as an abbreviation for "percentage points" in both cases, so readers are less likely to be confused. (IMO whenever an editor complains, it's better/cheaper/faster to change to completely different form rather than argue.) Johnjbarton (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  Per cent with the space in between would be the one I'm vying for. Typo in the RfC but you can see my support reason above. Youshouldchooseausernamethat (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  The Australian English spelling should be used. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  The important point isn't whether the spelling is per cent or percent. The important point is whether it's Per cent ("ratio expressed as a fraction of 100") or Percentage point ("the arithmetic difference between two percentages").

  The decision here is fairly simple, except that the first step requires looking at the sources:

  1. Was this 12.3 number calculated with basic arithmetic operation of division ("per cent") or subtraction ("percentage points")?
  2. If subtraction, then it's "percentage points", and we're done.
  3. If division, then {{Use Australian English}}, regardless of whether Australian English usually types that word with a space ("per cent") or without one ("percent").

  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

• Go for "percentage points" with optional wikilink, as the least likely to be confusing. –jacobolus (t) 06:44, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  This seems a good option. Youshouldchooseausernamethat (talk) 07:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

• This is not a question for an RfC. Instead, someone needs to work out what the numbers actually were, then ask what words correctly describe reality. See WhatamIdoing's "Use the one that's mathematically correct" above. Johnuniq (talk) 07:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
• Use the one that's mathematically correct, because if an encyclopedia can't be mathematically correct, what are we even doing here? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
• Similar to User:jacobolus, I recommend using percentage points for the first mention, and points (or %pt.) thereafter. See MOS:PERCENT (When expressing the difference between two percentages, do not confuse a percentage change with a change in percentage points) and percentage points (After the first occurrence, some writers abbreviate by using just "point" or "points"). Preimage (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

  I would also support using percentage points throughout, as seems to be preferred by other editors. Preimage (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)