Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 → Archive 20

Birmingham City Council election, 2018

Hello. I would appreciate help or direction with Birmingham City Council election, 2018. All the results are in but this UK local election has several unusual factors that make it difficult to complete the election boxes, both for individual wards and for the overall results.

  • There have been boundary changes and a reorganisation, with the number of wards rising from 40 to 69 but the number of seats falling from 120 to 101.
  • 37 of the wards have one member, and 32 wards have two members elected.
  • In the two-member wards, voters could vote twice for different candidates (if they wished).

These factors leave me stumped as to how (if at all) to record gains and losses, percentages and majorities. I'm hoping editors here have experience of this happening elsewhere. I suggest that the page should be clear, correct and consistent.

Thank you. --Wavehunter (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you record them as party WIN, rather than GAIN. That's the most objective way to go about it without doing lots of notional seat calculations and straying into original research. Maswimelleu (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with User:Maswimelleu. With such significant changes, trying to show gains/losses or comparisons could cross into WP:OR. In this instance just showing "wins" is the most accurate. In multi-member wards, the tendency here is to use the "average" method. So against Labour's 'top' candidate work out the percentage share of all of Labour's candidates, and do that for all the others. Hope this helps. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for help updating an article about a politician's 2018 campaign

Resolved

On behalf of David Trone, I've submitted a request to update his article with information about his 2018 campaign for the Democratic nomination for Maryland's 6th district. Editors here might be familiar with Trone as he set a record in 2016 for the most expensive self-funded House campaign.

The details currently included in his biographical article about his 2018 campaign are minimal, and I'm seeking to add mention of his filing date, policy priorities, and notable endorsements. I'm looking for editors who have experience in editing details about campaigns to review what I've proposed and offer feedback. I invite WikiProject Elections and Referendums members to review the proposed text here and update the article appropriately.

Thank you. Inkian Jason (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I have not received any replies to my requests for help, so I'm pinging an active project member. @MB298: I've proposed 4 sentences here to add to this section. Might you be willing to take a look and update the article accordingly? Inkian Jason (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
@Inkian Jason: I support the changes and have added them to the article. MB298 (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Unresolved

I've proposed two very quick additional requests for David Trone's article here and here, if any projects members are willing to take a look. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Color for "Other" party ballot label in the United States

Yellow is the map and table color for independents in the US, but gray is still used for the "Other" party label in some states. Should gray still be used for the "Other" label to distinguish it from the "Independent" label? Kart2401real (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Candidates order for upcoming election in Pakistan

The project members opinion is requested at Talk:NA-1 (Chitral)#Candidate order regarding how to order the candidates for 2018 election based on previous party performance or previous individual candidate performance in case of changing party affiliation. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Choice of infobox on articles about constituencies

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see this discussion and follow-up RfC concerning the relative merits of {{infobox constituency}} and {{infobox settlement}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Indian general election by state

There is a discussion on the state sub-articles for on the Indian general election, 2019 taking place here. Input is welcome as it may prejudice other similar articles. Number 57 11:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion participation requested

Project members participation is requested here, I need neutral editors who are not coming from Pakistan to maintain NPOV as if we left this content to the mercy of editors only coming from Pakistan then this content will either be completely censored or coatracked. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

RFC - Infoboxes and Third Parties BEFORE an election

I am closing this in response to a request at WP:AN for a formal closure. This RFC had relatively low participation, and was hindered by its US-specific nature not being clarified until midway through. The following, not-mutually-exclusive, arguments all have a basis in policy: not listing all candidates who are on the ballot in the infobox is an NPOV violation; listing them all is an NPOV violation, as reliable sources treat different candidates differently; listing all candidates on the ballot is impractical, because of length issues; and meeting a 5% threshold in pre-election polling is a reasonable standard to meet. However, the question asked in the RFC is a very specific one: in the context of the US, with two dominant parties, can third-party candidates be included in the infobox before an election? This question makes reference neither to whether all third party candidates must be included, nor to the threshold for such inclusion. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn from this RFC is that there is clear consensus that third-party candidates in the US may be included in infoboxes before an election. The circumstances under which this should occur are left to future discussions. Vanamonde (talk) 09:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

In 2017, there was an excellently-formatted and discussed RFC regarding the 5% threshold for inclusion in Election infoboxes. (Follow the link provided to find the discussion in the archives). That RFC did not ask two important questions regarding third parties. I will present them in separate RFCs. They are intended to supplement, not change, the prior result. The questions arose at the talk page for the 2018 Special election for PA congressional district 18. UPDATE - This is a USA-focused question... I don't know anything about elections elsewhere, maybe this is relevant to some, maybe not. Apologies for not making that explicit when I first posted.

Question

Before the election takes place, may third party candidates who make the ballot be included in an election infobox?
Options - Yes or No or (invent a new one then explain in the discussion section)
Prior discussion - The prior RFC applied to election results but did not ask about the time before the election. I have seen some commenters argue for extending the 5% threshold to polling data, while others assert it is a violation of WP:NPOV to exclude any names that make the ballot. I may have overlooked other perspectives from the prior discussions in this susmmary.

Survey and discussion

  • Yes Before an election omitting names that make a ballot violates our WP:NPOV because it gives the appearance we're taking the sides of the major party players and shuttling third party players off into foolish obscurity with Don Quixote. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes However, I would say this RfC has a distinct American POV as it appears to assume there are only two main candidates/parties to start with. It's also unclear whether this is referring to single-position elections (e.g. a presidency or single seat in a legislature) or legislative elections with numerous seats up for grabs. In cases of single-candidate elections, I would say that all candidates should be included in the infobox and not doing so would be an NPOV violation (Wikipedia could be deemed to be reinforcing the idea that there are only a limited number of candidates). If the number of candidates exceeds the capacity of the infobox (currently 9), then the infobox should be left empty and the list of candidates set out somewhere else in the article. In cases of legislative elections for numerous seats, all parties currently holding seats should be included in the infobox. Number 57 13:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
As the RFC creator, Number 57 is quite correct that I was unconsciously thinking only about US politics. My apologies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree that the infobox should include all parties that are standing candidates unless the limit of 9 is hit, in which case leave it empty. Order the parties based on the order they finished in previously. Some exceptions can be made, for example if the district was previously uncontested or not contested by a major party. In that case, try to find another recent election that can give some idea on the relative prominence of the parties. Otherwise, just order them alphabetically. Anywikiuser (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I think alphabetical order would be better in all cases, otherwise we may be subtly reinforcing the order of candidates. Number 57 13:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I'd argue it's better to have them ordered by past result. It gives some standing on what the parties are defending. That's an obvious benefit for parliamentary/legislative elections, where the pre-election infobox explains how many seats the parties have prior to the election. For single candidate elections (i.e. presidential, by-elections, etc.) this is a little less important, but you might as well keep the policy consistent. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes per the reasoning above. Include all ballot-qualified candidates in the infobox prior to the election to maintain a neutral POV.--TM 15:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • No This would result in election inboxes with a half dozen or more candidates. Aside from being useless information, this would also make reading the article on mobile more difficult. In extreme cases this could be worse - in California's 2002 recall election, there were 135 ballot-qualified candidates. To pretend all of these candidates have a chance of winning is not something any reliable encyclopedia should do A more rational explanation would be to always include both major parties, and also include any parties or candidates that are polling above 5% in at least one poll or who received at least 5% of the vote in the last election. Getting 5% in a poll is a very, very low threshold to meet and any candidate that is notable should be able to do this. Toa Nidhiki05 16:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Oppose this approach because we could be contributing to low poll numbers by not treating all ballot-qualified candidates the same. That's a violation of our neutrality policy. We agree we need to at least think about this if the candidacy is "notable". Ballot qualification will always result in RSs noting ballot qualification, so that test will be met for everyone who makes the ballot, presumably. After that, people have to form opinions before they answer polls. Some of those people read Wikipedia to form those opinions. If we're treating third party blokes as silly dreamers, naturally many readers will as well. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose global approach As admitted above, there is a strong US bias in this question. In most democracies "third party candidates who make the ballot" is a meaningless concept. Either they're nominated candidates and thus on the ballot paper or they're not candidates at all - there's none of this "standing but not appearing on the ballot paper" and often the concept of party is formally alien to the process. In many countries it's extremely easy to get on the ballot paper - to take the highest hurdle here in the UK for Mayor of London a candidate needs ten signatures from each of the 32 boroughs plus the City of London and a deposit of £10,000. The last election had twelve successfully nominated candidates. It's also incredibly easy to register as a party here - all you need is a single friend to meet the minimum number of different people holding key posts, a quick constitution and a registration fee. Timrollpickering 16:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • No (1) Can NewsAndEventsGuy clarify whether this discussion is specifically for US elections or more broadly? I think some consistency between countries is good, but I also appreciate that political and electoral systems vary and so may need to be represented differently. (2) On the broader question, we need to be aware of the consequences of any decisions. An infobox is meant to be a summary of the article (WP:INFOBOX): it shouldn't be trying to be a complete description. Election articles already end up with overly large infoboxes, which is against editing guidelines. If listing lots of candidates or parties (as is certainly sometimes appropriate), we should be looking at more compact infobox designs (e.g. Template:Infobox legislative election). (3) If people are concerned about WP:NPOV and fairly listing all candidates, then I would suggest that is the function of the article contents, not the infobox. We need more focus on article prose for election articles and less discussion of infoboxes! There may be times when we should go for a minimal infobox or no infobox and let the article content speak for itself. Many articles for forthcoming elections are quite short and an infobox is unnecessary. (4) As the infobox is a summary, my conclusion from that is that it does not have to list every candidate (although the article proper will) and it is acceptable for the infobox to reflect reliable sources in focusing on the main candidates. We do not violate WP:NPOV if RS say that X and Y are the main candidates in an election and give less attention to candidates W and Z. Admittedly, sometimes this is unclear so the rule-of-thumb used on UK election articles works well (list candidates based on results at previous election and whoever got >5%), although I think exceptions should be made if reliable sources or polls etc. are all talking about a new party or candidate (e.g. as with Marcron and French presidential election, 2017). Bondegezou (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
RE 1, yes it is a US focused question. I have updated the preesntation of the question at the top of this post. Thanks to you and others who called me out on my unconscious US centrism in this RFC. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, NewsAndEventsGuy. Bondegezou (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It depends, though my view is that (1) if a third party received at least 5% in the previous election, then it should be included within the infobox, and (2) if a candidate is polling at least 5%, then they should be included within the infobox, and (3) a case-by-case determination of exceptions where third-party or independent performance might be significant or there exists significant press coverage (in the absence of a previously contested election to compare to or public polling) – a type of standard that would have been appropriate in, say, AK-Sen 2016 or gubernatorial races in Maine. I don't view the exclusion of candidates from the infobox as a NPOV violation – it's a simple standard to prevent excessive listing of minor candidates, especially when there are many who file. Mélencron (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It depends Unlike results, polling is uncertain and highly variable over time. If some polls give a candidate less than 5%, and some give them more, how do try to determine an average? That is complex calculation that relies on separating polls by their quality and how recently they were taken. If we just accept their highest results, then we have to ask which polls are considered reliable, and which aren't, since there are a lot of low-quality polls that get produced, and many outliers over the course of an election. If by the method we choose, a candidate is at the cusp of 5%, then it's possible that week-to-week their numbers will shift from above the threshold to below the threshold. Also, for some races polls treat minor candidates differently than major candidates, with two-tiered questions, in order to get better head-to-head results. Additionally, coverage of a candidate in reliable sources may be disproportionate to their rating in polls. All of these problems make it difficult to rely on polling for a hard rule to determine when to include candidates in the infobox. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes But only before an election, based on maintaining WP:NPOV. Wikipedia takes on two roles here, as a news source and as an archivist. When providing information for a current event, neutrality should trump succinctness. But once the election is over, there should be a greater concern for eliminating clutter. While you could characterize this as US-focused, I would think it is more accurate to characterize this as an issue associated with dominant two-party systems. When there are unusually large obstacles to getting a third party on the ballot, the fact of achieving ballot status is significant and deserves consideration. By the same reasoning, California's 2002 Gubernatorial recall election would not deserve the same treatment, because there were few restrictions on gaining ballot access. I don't know if it matters for this vote, but I see a different situation for the second question (see below) altjira (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • No Only if the third-party candidate is consistently polling more than 5% or is otherwise considered a major candidate affecting the state of the race in the media (such as news coverage of the campaign and participation in debates). There is no reason to have a three or a dozen or so candidates in the infobox just because they are on the ballot. Neutrality is not representing them all equally, it is recognizing the facts that many races only have two serious candidates and reflecting the reality of the election and campaign. Choosing to put no one in the infobox would violate neutrality as it refuses to follow RS coverage of who is actually contesting the election. Reywas92Talk 23:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes How can you say one party is more serious than the other? This is kind of judgmental in terms of how much media attention someone gets or financial backing. How could one construe eligibility on the basis of conventional irrational past behaviour? Dael4 (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Unarchived to request closure at WP:ANRFC. There is a related discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Candidates in Infoboxes on upcoming election articles. Cunard (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2018 (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.

External links for election articles

Please see Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Elections, again. We have some questions of fact (how common is it to add links to candidates to some kinds of election-related articles?) and some questions of judgment (should we?). All views are welcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Having read that discussion, I find it to be another red herring. What tripped my radar was the repeated mentions of WP:NOT. That policy also contains statements such as "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". The community has shown its true regard for such policy by how much time is spent on editing articles related to current election cycles where the actual election hasn't yet occurred, merely because there's a bunch of content floating across the web today which falls under WP:RS. Typically, this editing activity is heavily weighted towards speculation. This includes polling and lengthy lists of speculative candidates, in many cases "sourced" solely to a politician's offhand remark to a reporter or publicity-seeking press release with no independent, third-party evidence of candidacy or prospective candidacy. There's also certain editors who actively game these articles so that only candidates who are raising or spending money or other "name" politicians are mentioned, instead of accurately reflecting the breadth of persons campaigning for the office. I have more or less ceased contributing to such articles for these reasons. Having external links which further promote certain individuals adds insult to injury, but is only peripheral to the root problem with this content.
Contrast all this with the vast number of articles on past elections where facts are known and sources are known, yet the articles are nothing more than a WP:NOTSTATS violation and formatting puffery. As an example, the article Timothy Leary mentions his campaign for governor of California in the 1970 election and how "Come Together" was written in response to his campaign announcement. Furthermore, an album was released at the time (and reissued decades later), the centerpiece of which was a track featuring excerpts from a campaign press conference with musical backing by such highly notable musicians as Jimi Hendrix, Stephen Stills and John Sebastian. If you go to the election article, you will see that not one bit of this is acknowledged, despite being obviously notable. Instead, the article contains two sentences of perfunctory prose and a mess of results all prettied up in a bunch of tables. Even in the case of current elections, once they conclude, there's a tendency to leave all the speculation in place and add only results, instead of adding prose related to events and occurrences during the campaign season. The encyclopedia is not being improved by editors who remove cleanup tags under the premise that readers don't need to know that content like this is problematic when it looks pretty enough, and that the only thing readers really need be concerned about is the mere existence or non-existence of citations.
Anyway, having said all that, the lack of regard given to your statement "And ultimately, this is a consensus-based project, not a statute-driven one" shows what some people really think about another statement found in WP:NOT, namely "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Election district naming convention

In articles describing election districts it is common to include the range of years the district existed, or exists (for example Rutland-3 Vermont Representative District, 2012–2022). MOS:DATERANGE used to suggest the date range in the example be written 2012—22, but now it recommends 2012—2022. Do we want to echo this new recommendation on the main project page?

A related concern is what to do with these after redistricting. My recommendation is to leave them alone, rather than redirecting them. That way the Wikipedia articles and the corresponding Wikidata items can serve as targets for wikilinks when writing about politicians who served in these districts. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest just having a Rutland-3 article covering all the iterations of the district. Constituencies are regularly redrawn in the UK, but we don't have separate articles on them each time the boundaries change – for example, Ipswich (UK Parliament constituency) covers all the various-sized constituencies since 1295. Number 57 13:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
If an article mentions, or contains a link to "Rutland-3", the reader is not put on alert to when that link was added. If the link is older than the latest redistricting, it's likely the link is wrong. At least in Vermont, it isn't a matter of a few streets around the edges changing; the list of towns in Rutland-3 2002—2012 is completely different than the towns in Rutland-3 2012—2022. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
See also the discussion at wikidata:Wikidata talk:WikiProject every politician/Political data model#Handling redistricting. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
The individual U.S. House of Representatives districts' articles are based in the number, even if there had been multiple redistrictings through the centuries. For example, NY-15 has all of the congressmen who served under this district, wherever the district is based from (From Brooklyn to Manhattan to the Bronx). This is not exactly the same with UK constituencies (districts) where every "City of Westminster" constituency is primarily centered there, unlike US ones where the district numbers move around the state. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I used to have a collection of The Almanac of American Politics until it became necessary to downsize. I seem to recall that they asserted the point Howard the Duck is making. The real problem is that many folks appear content to edit the encyclopedia as if this automatically applies to state legislative districts, which is what this discussion started out being about. This has occurred constantly over the years, regardless of whether comparable sources or even any sources exist to verify that this same principle can be applied on the state level. From what I've seen, redistricting of the U.S. House typically does not involve wholesale shifts in geography, apportionment or numbering schemes. In Alaska, where I live, the latter two were typical in each decennial redistricting until the 1998 constitutional amendments fixed in place 40 House districts and 20 Senate districts, each with a single member. As for the former, I am registered to vote in District 1, a district comprising central and west Fairbanks. Throughout statehood until about six years ago, District 1 was located in southern Southeast Alaska and mostly centered on Ketchikan. When Kyle Johansen lost his bid for another term following redistricting, it was the first time in the state's history that no members of the legislature came from Ketchikan or vicinity. We've had editors try and claim that Johansen was succeeded in office by Doug Isaacson merely because they represented a district with the same number (and claiming that this sort of thing is "useful", but that's a whole other matter). I've previously pointed out that this is ludicrous. Isaacson lives in North Pole. The difference between Ketchikan and North Pole is roughly the same as the distance between Denver, Colorado and Rockford, Illinois. If that wasn't obvious enough, the two places have long been separate and distinct constituencies. For example, fishing politics revolve around commercial fishing in Ketchikan and sport or subsistence fishing in these parts. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
The current setup though is that wherever the district is centered at, that's the focus of the article, whether or not that the district has been there since it started. This would mean that prior history of district if it was centered elsewhere is at best, just glossed over. For example, CA-42 gives a very brief history of the district. This can certainly be better. Howard the Duck (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

New York State Senate election, 2018

Hi everyone, I just started a draft to create a page for the New York State senate 2018 elections @ Draft:New York State Senate election, 2018. If anyone is willing to help/contribute to the article, any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks VietPride10 (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed changes to ITNR Election criteria

In case anybody here is interested, there are currently 4 items at ITNR Talk proposing changes to the criteria for automatic inclusion of elections and changes of heads of state/government in In The News (subject only to article quality requirements being met), of which this one currently seems most active.Tlhslobus (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Breitbart/Gravis polls

A current RfC is leaning toward deprecating Breitbart as a source. A number of our election-related articles (example) include Bretibart/Gravis polls, which are commissioned by Breitbart and conducted by Gravis Marketing. Although Gravis seems to be a reliable and reputable polling organization, WP:DUE requires that we represent viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, which would exclude Breitbart polls unless they have been picked up by a more reliable publication. –dlthewave ☎ 15:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Rounding of polling numbers

Is there any reason that polling numbers tend to be rounded, even when a digit after the decimal is given? I would think that adding imprecision that wasn't originally there would be a bad thing. On Oklahoma gubernatorial election, 2018, for instance, one of the polls showed the Republican candidate Kevin Stitt up 46.6% to Democratic candidate Drew Edmondson's 44.2%. This results in a margin of 2.4% (which is closer to 2% than 3%), but if the numbers are rounded to 47% and 44%, it makes it seem like the margin is actually 3%, which is larger than it actually is in the poll. The same general issue occurred with previous polls as well. After someone reverted me under the premise that "Wikipedia rounds polls," I tried to find information in project pages about it but came up empty. Master of Time (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I personally put the polls as is. If the source rounds it to the nearest whole number, tenths or hundredths, I put that. If it's beyond hundredths, which I haven't seen, that's when I'll consider rounding. AFAIK there's no rule about this. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I personally try to follow the convention by country as consistently as possible/existing practice on those countries' articles... so for France, Austria, and Germany, numbers as they're reported (with or without 0.5%); for the Netherlands, Iceland, and Malta, to 1 decimal point as reported; for the U.S., rounded to the nearest percent, as most poll aggregators report their results. Mélencron (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I also agree with Mélencron, as most pollsters and pundits will report polls through a press release to the nearest whole percent. While the crosstabs of the poll, will show a more exact percentage. VietPride10 (talk) 04:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a pundit, though, so we shouldn't be in the business of altering the original information. Master of Time (talk) 05:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing universal agreement on this issue, nor does there seem to be any Wikipedia policy requiring rounding when the source has higher precision. Master of Time (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion: United Kingdom general election, 1832–33

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:United Kingdom general election, 1832–33 which affects United Kingdom general election, 1832–33 and 11 related pages, all of which fall within the scope of this project.

Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Infoboxes in Australian by-elections

A discussion that may be of interest to participants of this project has been started here. Frickeg (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

A check of Alaska gubernatorial election, 2018 raises some questions

I understand perfectly that many Wikipedians are incapable of doing anything on here other than mindlessly parroting whatever the media's pushing today, using such "reliable sources" as a basis to justify whatever POV they're trying to push, and incapable of understanding how and when this breaches the difference between a news site and an information resource. In the case of elections, this is especially pertinent because of NPOV issues, which is something I've attempted to address before on this very page without certainly that I've received a satisfactory answer. In what little time I've had for this sort of thing lately, I've noticed lots of activity come across my watchlist related to the "October surprise" revealed this week related to this election, namely the sudden resignation of Byron Mallott followed by the sudden announcement by Bill Walker that he's ending his campaign. Not only do I see the same NPOV issues continue unabated, but lots of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to boot. Specifically though, because I have to run out the door soon, just a few questions: the infobox of the election article contains the legend "(campaign suspended)" underneath Walker's name. The fact of the matter is that Walker is still on the ballot and votes cast for him will still count. Combine that with the fact that the election is still over two weeks away, are we unduly influencing the outcome of the election with that sort of thing? It's perfectly appropriate to include such details in prose, but the events of the past week are beginning to overwhelm the article's prose just a little bit IMO. Is giving such prominence to that via the infobox an attempt to assert the notion that people don't actually read articles? Also, Walker's running mate is listed as "Byron Mallott/Valerie Davidson". Davidson is not on the ballot, and if Walker is claiming to be a candidate no longer, that further diminishes any claim that she's a candidate too, as Alaska law is clear that the two are a ticket and a vote cast for one is considered a vote cast for the other. Perhaps more importantly than anything else, if editors are playing fast and loose with the facts in the case of this one article, then how many other times has this sort of thing occurred across the encyclopedia over the years and hasn't been nipped in the bud? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with the article as it currently stands, which no longer has Davidson in the infobox, but she should be mentioned somewhere. It could certainly use more prose in general though, but you're quite overestimating Wikipedia's relevance to voters if you think this is influencing the outcome. Is there a reason you're whining about this here instead of discussing it on that article's talk page with the other editors? Reywas92Talk 07:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Maybe because there's been an entire pattern of using that article and related content to influence the election on pretty much a daily basis since the Walker/Mallott ticket fell apart. Looks like there have been sincere attempts to stop it, but once again, our concept of "collaboration" means that very few editors are doing the real work to keep the encyclopedia neutral and factual. Your response appears to have ignored my last point, however. If this sort of thing is happening with this article, and if we're giving so much weight to current elections at the expense of working on content where facts and sources are pretty much finalized, it's a safe bet that this isn't the only case of people coming to Wikipedia and trying to influence an election. Try doing some searches and see how high Wikipedia pages rank in various search engines. It should be obvious that those folks figured that out long before they came here.
Since my watchlist today has been flooded with editors regurgitating headlines and not caring the least about the bigger picture, I had a related concern. Was a consensus ever established on the whole five percent thing with infobox inclusion? As it stands right now, Walker/Mallott only received about two percent of the vote. Looks like there's edit warring going on as I write this to this very effect. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I believe the 5% rules applies and Walker should no longer be in the infobox. Why don't you tag the other editors to discuss it on that talk page? Reywas92Talk 02:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I would also support the 5% rule's applicability here. If Walker has less, remove from infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Addresses and phone numbers in an election article

If you take a look at Iowa_elections,_2018#Governorship, you'll see a table with phone numbers and addresses - which, even if it doesn't violate WP:BLP, seems like a rather unencyclopaedic thing for an article to have. Can someone please confirm my hunch that this information should be deleted? Thanks! Airbornemihir (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

This issue has been addressed by Beetstra, so no further action is required. Airbornemihir (talk) 10:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Merging NOTA India to NOTA

None of the above (India) should be merged to None of the above per WP:SPLIT. The page size doesn't justify a separate article and all the other countries have not their own article for this topic. Flooded with them hundreds 10:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed change to election/referendum naming format

I've started an RfC on changing the election/referendum naming format to move the year to the front (so e.g. French presidential election, 2017 becomes 2017 French presidential election). All comments welcome here. Cheers, Number 57 20:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Just a heads up that this change was passed and a bot run to move all the articles (35,226) is imminent. I believe I may have missed articles created between mid-September and 1 October when I was creating the list of moves, so worth keeping an eye out if anyone created any during this period.
There will also need to be a lot of link fixing on templates etc... Cheers, Number 57 21:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Following some post-RfC objections, the RfC has been reopened for further discussions, including using a bot to move the articles if it is closed in favour again: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Proposed change to election/referendum naming format. Number 57 15:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The RfC has been closed in favour of the change again. The bot run will hopefully now progress, although as above, the lists I've run off don't cover anything created since 1 October, and possibly some of the articles from mid-late September. Once the bot run is complete, there will be a few articles left to move.

In the meantime, any new articles should probably be created at the new titles (see WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums), so a heads up for regular election article creators like @Kiwichris, Obi2canibe, Stalin990, Koala15, Juxlos, Asqueladd, Bedivere.cs, Mr Savva, Nightstallion, Impru20, and GoldRingChip: (also just to emphasise – please don't move any articles created pre-October 2018 until the bot run has been done, otherwise it could interfere with it). Cheers, Number 57 12:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm surprised it was passed (I read the discussion and it didn't look at all like a consensus), but I will comply with your request. Please keep me (and others) in the loop as the bot progresses. I've been working on (and creating) many articles on early elections to the U.S. House of Representatives, but will pause in creating any more. Where there are current redirects, however, I may continue replacing them with stubs or substantial articles since they've already been created. Is that OK, @Number 57:? —GoldRingChip 12:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @GoldRingChip: As redirects won't be converted by the bot, it's probably better to start any articles you were going to work on at the new titles and then change the redirect, otherwise there'll have to be some extra cleaning up done at some point. Number 57 12:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Number 57: I recently moved the "next election" articles for various Spanish regional elections to "[demonym] regional election, 2019" (including Andalusian regional election, 2018), still abiding to the old convention as the RfC was still open. Since I did this way after 1 October, I would guess these would require a manual move. I guess I can keep a watch on Spanish-related election articles to check whether any relevant issue or clean up need arises. Impru20talk 14:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Impru20: Yes, if done after 1 October it won't be listed in the bot run. One thing we'll need to sort out after the moves is links on templates like {{Spanish elections}}. Cheers, Number 57 15:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Where/how can I check the bot's progress, please? —GoldRingChip 16:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

It looks like it's going to be User:TheSandBot doing the work; there is currently a discussion on its use here. I'll notify the project as soon as a confirmed start time/date is agreed. Cheers, Number 57 16:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@GoldRingChip: The bot has just been approved, so the run is likely to happen soon. You've probably seen that people started moving certain articles in the meantime. Cheers, Number 57 21:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@Number 57: will anything of the sort also be run on the election navigation templates as well? Mélencron (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@Mélencron: No – I am planning on fixing those manually. Cheers, Number 57 21:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Definition of "open election" or "open seat"

Is it an "open election" or an "open seat" if an incumbent runs in an early round of the election (e.g. a primary), but no incumbent runs in the final round (e.g. a general election)? For example, if an incumbent runs and loses in a primary, or withdraws after a primary, and there is no incumbent in the general election, is that an "open" election or an "open" seat?) What if the final round has no opponent (as in the case of MA-7 in the recent US House elections)? Levivich (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

IMHO, it's both an open election & open seat, if no incumbent in on the general election ballot. GoodDay (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Open election" isn't a term I'm familiar with. For non-blanket primaries, an "open seat" occurs any time the incumbent isn't on the general election ballot and isn't writing a major write-in campaign (e.g. the 2010 Alaska Senate election). For blanket primaries, it's a little trickier. I would say that an open seat occurs any time the incumbent isn't on the ballot for the round of the election held in November, regardless of what round that is. Orser67 (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • In other words, an open seat is when the incumbent isn't on the ballot in the final round of the race? What if the final round only has one candidate (not the incumbent), as in MA-7 this year? Is it still an open seat or should that be an exception? I'm driving specifically at whether MA-7 should be considered an open seat picked up held by the Democrats. (Also, sorry I think I was confusing in my phrasing, I meant "open election" as just another term for "open seat." I struck it.) Levivich (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It's an open seat, but a Democratic hold, not a pickup. Unless I'm misunderstanding your question, I think you're talking about two related, but different things. The seat is open because there's no incumbent on the ballot, but the pickup or loss goes to the change in control from one election to the next. Carter (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oops, I meant to say "an open seat held." Struck out and fixed. One of the reasons I raise this RfC is to answer the question whether MA-7 (and other districts) should be on this list of open seats held. Levivich (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh, in that situation, I think yes, you would include MA-7 on that page like this:
Massachusetts 7: Michael Capuano defeated in primary. Seat won by Ayanna Pressley.
Carter (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I would call MA-7 an open seat, but the way the article is currently organized is also perfectly reasonable. Just as long as Pressley is in no way implied to be the incumbent, this seems to be more a matter of presentation than of factual accuracy. Orser67 (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC Template:United Kingdom in the European Union

There is an RfC regarding the removal of the second vote section. Comments welcome Template talk:United Kingdom in the European Union#RfC: Removal of the second vote section. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC: When has a candidate won an election?

There is a clear consensus for option 3: an article should state that a candidate has won an election when the election is called by reliable sources (All sources? Most sources? A particular source?) for United States elections.

Some editors expressed support for requiring that more than one source call the election. There is no consensus owing to the lack of discussion by a number of the RfC participants on this, so there is no prejudice against opening a new RfC to discuss this further.

Cunard (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

When should an article state that a candidate has won an election?

  1. When the election is certified by election authorities
  2. When the election is conceded by the other candidates? (All other candidates? The second-place candidate?)
  3. When the election is called by reliable sources? (All sources? Most sources? A particular source?)
  4. When I say it is
  5. Some combination of the above (whichever happens first)
  6. None of the above; something else entirely

Levivich (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment Isn't this just a rehash of this debate from just under year ago, which ended with a strong consensus for option 3? Number 57 00:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think so, because the previous RfC was phrased as a Yes/No on Question 3, and did not discuss/consider 1 and 2 as options. Recent edit warring on the 2018 US election articles suggests this debate may need to be rehashed if only to be re-confirmed so that the consensus is known. Finally, there is the question of All sources? Most sources? A particular source? For example, right now, the AP has not called CA-21, but LATimes and Wash. Examiner have. Should our articles say in Wikipedia's voice that Cox has won this race? What should we put in the infobox? Editors on the relevant articles disagree, and community input is requested. Thank you! Levivich (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per WP:V. -- GoodDay (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 3, for the most part. My standard would be when either a)all major, reliable sources (e.g. AP, NYTimes, 538, Cook Political Report, LATimes, etc.) agree that the election is over, or b)when the second place candidate concedes and there is no compelling reason to believe that the election is not over yet. To be clear, I'm saying that the election is over when either standard is met. Orser67 (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 3 and agreeing with Orser67's criteria for "called by reliable sources." However, there is also a need to recognize that calls are sometimes retracted (like CA-21 this cycle) as absentee/late ballots are counted or, in rare cased, may be denied certification (NC-9) at which point consideration should be given to moving them back into the undecided column. Carter (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 3, please note that only 3 organizations officially call races in the U.S. at the moment, of which 2 are notable – AP was the sole organization which made race calls until the 2016 cycle, with Edison Research (with CNN and others) and Decision Desk HQ making race calls as well. Defer to the AP where possible, as they have traditionally been the sole organization making such calls until recently. Mélencron (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • You're right about the election callers, but it's worth noting that 538 (and possibly other outlets) for weeks urged the AP to retract its call of David Valadao's victory, and Valadao eventually lost. My point being that, while the AP should be our outlet of choice, it might be worth taking other reliable sources (including sources that don't "officially" call races) into account, especially in the weeks immediately after the election. Orser67 (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • AP has said they won't call CA-21 until it is certified. Levivich (talk) 07:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per WP:VERIFY. It may be obvious that a candidate has won an election much before it has been certified by election authorities, and concesion alone is not enough (it is not that rare in tight races for candidates to concede, then withdraw their concesions until a recount is triggered). On the number of sources, I think that would depend on the expected margin of victory. A candidate winning 60-40 or better is unlikely to require a lot of RS to have their victory confirmed, but for a 50.1-49.9 race I would await until RS are unanimous or near unanimous (possibly, in such very tight races we should wait until a combination of Options 1 and 3 before calling an election for someone). Impru20talk 16:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 3 as per above. The text can be clear when there are certified results versus when an election has been "called". We should be aware that "called" is a term specific to US elections. It's not a term that's used in, e.g., UK elections, where the situation doesn't arise (all ballots are counted on the night and the first numbers you get are the certified results). Readers from outside the US may need explanation. Bondegezou (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 3 Let's not rehash lukewarm argument. This is by far the most appropriate policy for an encyclopedia. Remember, we are not a news ticker. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Snowclose OK? Please let me know if there is any objection to this being snowclosed and hatted with the following result: Result: An article should state that a candidate has won an election when all major, reliable sources agree that the election is over (it is "called"), or when the second place candidate concedes and there is no compelling reason to believe the election is not over yet. Levivich (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 3. If we need to be more precise, I would say when at least two independent RS call the election. This avoids short-term errors in the rush to scoop (for sources) and the rush to update the article (for Wikipedians). — JFG talk 14:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • How about this: ...when multiple reliable sources agree... ("multiple" meaning "at least two" but not necessary "all")? It seems consensus is that no single source is dispositive. Levivich (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2018 (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.

Post-moves cleanup

Hi all. I've spend most of the last few weeks working on cleaning up after the mass moves of election articles, particularly focussing on fixing links in templates and moving categories. I've done all of the templates I can find, but if anyone's aware of any other sets that need fixing, please let me know. Cheers, Number 57 15:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Elections not won by the popular vote winner

A dispute has arise between User:AmYisroelChai and myself regarding the scope of Category:Elections not won by the popular vote winner. I have interpreted the category to include legislative elections where one party wins the election (by winning the most number of seats) but another party wins the most number of total popular votes. AmYisroelChai has however taken a more narrow interpretation that the category should only include elections where one candidate wins the number of popular votes but loses the election because the method of determining the winner is different (e.g. electoral college for US president). As a result AmYisroelChai has removed numerous US legislative elections, federal and state, from this category. Oddly they have not removed non-US legislative election. What are your views?--Obi2canibe (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

  • A legislature is not a winner of an election to win the popular vote each individual is, so there can't be a popular vote winner this is especially true in US senate election where only 1/3 of all seats are up for election, so not only does winning more popular votes not mean anything for overall control of the senate neither does winning more seats, if you look at the 2018 senate election the democrats received more popular votes and they also won more seats, so even if you would want legislative elections to be in this category it would make no sense to add this election to it. As for non US elections I would change those too I started with US elections because that's where I noticed it added but now I will wait to change those until after it is decided here. עם ישראל חי (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it necessarily makes sense in a body that is not elected at once such as the US Senate because winning is based on the three most recent elections rather than just one, but a state legislative body that is fully elected simultaneously would qualify. I notice that several parties primaries are in this category; 1912 Republican Party presidential primaries seems quite silly to include because only a dozen states even had primaries and national convention delegates did not follow from that. Reywas92Talk 23:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd delete the category and start again, to be frank. You've got an overly broad term that's always going to produce confusion. If you want a category, it needs a name that more clearly defines what it should be about. Bondegezou (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd support this approach. It might be appropriate as a list where different angles on the "not won by the popular vote winner" can be separated, but as a category I don't think it really works. Number 57 10:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Agree with both Bondegezou and Number 57. It is not entirely clear what the concept of "election winner" is intended to mean; does it refer to the party/candidate receiving the most seats regardless of the popular vote, or to the party/candidate who goes on to form the new government? As an example, take the 2003 Catalan regional election, listed in this category: the PSC won the most popular votes but not the most seats, yet they went on to form the next government anyway, so here there is an instance where, depending on the concept of "election winner" you seek to use, the election could be either under this category or not. All in all, the term is so broad and generic that the category is more confusing than helpful. Impru20talk 10:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This category itself has no value. Perhaps a List Article could instead be generated which could have its terms fully explained to the reader? Categorization ought not be used for a political or even debatable goal. —GoldRingChip 13:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

In light of the above comments I have nominated the categories for deletion here.--Obi2canibe (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC about U.S. State and Presidential election tables

There's an open request for comment at WikiProject United States regarding the placement of tables with vote totals for the two major U.S. parties in presidential and gubernatorial elections that have been recently added to the Politics section (or Law and government section) in most of the fifty U.S. state articles. The commenters are suggesting moving these tables to subarticles, like Politics of Massachusetts or Politics of Virginia, and I'm betting that editors here might have opinions about what is best, and where this data should belong long term.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 21:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Bolding of winners in infoboxes

This practice is being discussed here; input is welcome. Cheers, Number 57 19:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

There is now a final !vote on this discussion here. Number 57 16:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

United States presidential elections in California

I was looking at this article, trying to see when the state last voted Republican. I was really surprised to find that it doesn't say. Because I'm not very familiar with American politics (particularly so in the past), it's really hard to tell which party has won the state. I presume this table has been created in sympathy with similar tables for all of the US states, so I'm very reluctant to tweak it myself, and even more so because I find wikimarkup in tables really frustratingly difficult.

Is there a good reason not to indicate which party won the state in each election? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks good, GoldRingChip. I don't know if there'll be opposition because of 4 dozen other articles that are formatted differently, but for this Limey the new format is hugely better. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

  • My $0.02: outside of needing a proper written-prose lede, the new format looks good to me. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I have reverted the page move, as there are 51 of these articles, so they should be moved uniformly, or not at all. I think this should be discussed through WP:RM before any further moves are made. With respect to the party affiliations, color coding seems like a fine solution, but this too should be applied uniformly across the series. bd2412 T 17:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Why revert just because there are others? If we like the change, then we'll move them all. Let's discuss before reversion. See WP:BB —GoldRingChip 17:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
        • I reverted because there are others, and they should be discussed as a group. WP:BRD. I don't necessarily agree with the move. There is more to these articles than merely the list. bd2412 T 18:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
        • Just to expand on my thinking a bit, see, e.g., United States presidential elections in Georgia, which of necessity has material beyond a mere list. bd2412 T 18:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
          • That's fine. You make a good point about consistency. —GoldRingChip 20:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
            • On the subject of consistency, it'd be marvellous if all the articles could reflect California's shiny new colour scheme to help all the non-Americans out there. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move discussion

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Municipal district (Ireland)#Requested move 9 February 2019, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 15:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move discussion

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:2011 Welsh devolution referendum#Requested move 10 February 2019, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 17:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Color schemes of U.S. election result maps

There appear to be two color schemes in use for U.S. election result maps. One, which I will call 'light', is used for the Senate and House result maps in 2014 United States elections, while the other, which I will call 'dark', is used for the gubernatorial result map in that same article. Now by itself this is slightly unaesthetic, but it becomes a true problem if a single legend is used for several maps that follow different color schemes, as in 2008 United States elections, 2006 United States elections and 2004 United States elections. Also, several map captions use the wrong color scheme, e.g. in 1998 United States elections, 2010 United States elections and 2012 United States elections.

It might be useful to standardize on a single color scheme, so that a single caption/legend could be used on all U.S. election result maps. AxelBoldt (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Use whatever is in the political party color templates? Howard the Duck (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's what both schemes do; it's just a matter of deciding which shades of that color to use in order to distinguish seats that a party gained from seats that a party kept. AxelBoldt (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
This is something I would strongly support. I attempted to initiate a dialogue on this issue about a year ago with little luck. As someone who's made hundreds of US election result maps, I believe legend/map color code standardization is the right direction moving forward. Peter M. Grund (talk)

Neat trick for dealing with election infobox images that are too wide

I discovered a neat trick for dealing with images used in infoboxes that are too wide and lead to distortion (e.g. two of the three images here). You can use {{CSS image crop}}, and specify the desired height and width, resulting in the image being cropped in-situ. The final outcome is this (note that I replaced the one on the left, but the other two have been resized using the template. Cheers, Number 57 11:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

This is really helpful, thank you. Maswimelleu (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on links to official campaign sites in articles about elections

There is a clear consensus per WP:ELNO and WP:NOTPROMO not to have a link to each candidate's official campaign website in tables in articles about elections.

Cunard (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

In articles about elections, where data about candidates is shown in tabular form, should a link to each candidate's official campaign website be allowed in the table? An example of such a table (which formerly had such links, but they have been removed) can be found at 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Declared candidates and exploratory committees. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

  • I've posted about this at Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Where'd the website links go?, but I think there are some fairly strong WP:EL-based reasons not to allow this type of thing. The table in question had bascially a wikilink to a Wikipedia article about a campaign and an embedded external link (WP:EL#cite_note-7) to the campaign's official website side by side, so the markup looked like (Campaign • Website ): I wikilinked to the "Political campaign" article just to avoid picking a specific campaign to link to in my example. There are links to the campaign's official websites found in each campaign's Wikipedia article so it's not like the embedded external links is providing the reader with any information they can't find in the article about the campaign; moreover, embedded links in general do have potential link rot problems which is one of the reasons why embedding citations into articles is a style which has been deprecated by the community.
    The arguments in favor of the links seem to mainly be that they provide more convenience, but I'm not sure if this is the case or if it's enough of a case for an exception to made made to WP:ELLIST, etc. I think there are also possible WP:LINKFARM issues as well. For example, a external link to a company's official website seems perfectly OK in the external links section of an Wikipedia article about said politician, but such a link wouldn't be as necessarily or helpful in other articles where the company is just one of many companies being mentioned; the wikilink back to the main article about the company seems sufficient enough is such articles to bring the reader to a place where they can find out more information about the company if they want. The "promotion" part in my opinion has to do with some perceived fairness or lack thereof by Wikipedia towards some candidates at the expense of others. I'm sure there are criteria established regarding who to mention as a candidate in the primary articles, but there are probably also some candidates left out. Even among those who make the "Wikipedia cut", there are probably huge disparities among the campaigns in terms of money and other resources, etc., so maybe there are minor candidates whose campaigns don't qualify to have Wikipedia articles written about them or which don't have official websites to speak off. All the individual primary articles are being transcluded by template into 2020 United States presidential election which means that whatever is decided in this RfC needs to be not only in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, but also consistent across all articles. I'm assuming that the scope of this RfC is only intended to cover articles related to the 2020 US election, but if it's intended to cover all such articles on Wikipedia, then that's even more possible exceptions to consider. I think there might be a feeling that because these are Wikipedia articles about elections/primaries that Wikipedia's kinda has an unwritten obligation to trying to make it as easy as possible for reader's to find out as much as they can about the candidates involved in the races. I think that because it's a US presidential election that these feelings might even be stronger. however, I'm not sure if that should be the goal of the an article such as these, and they shouldn't really be seen as any different from other similar Wikipedia articles about non-election related subjects. I think care has to be taken to really look at the encyclopedic value of adding these links to the tables, and not just doing so because WP:AADP#It's useful. The campaign articles should be where the details about the campaigns (like their official websites) are found per WP:SS, not the more general articles about the primaries and the election. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No links Mainly because of WP:NOTPROMO, but also consider WP:ELNO#promotion; WP:ELNO#adverts and WP:ELNO#blog. Then there is the distinct likelihood of bias coupled with unverifiable claims, so WP:ELNO#misleading applies; and once the election is over, the site may vanish pretty soon, so WP:ELNO#unreliable as well. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove per WP:ELNO#EL4 and WP:ELNO#EL11. Mélencron (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No links because why should they be there? If you really want to find their website, go to their article. —GoldRingChip 22:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • With that logic there shouldn't be any links on Wikipedia at all… If you really want to find their website, go to a search engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.186.208.139 (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No links in tables. We should maintain links to campaign websites in external link sections of appropriate articles, but not have them in a table in the main text. Bondegezou (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove – No reason to make an exception to general WP:EL policy. — JFG talk 15:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No links in tables. Links to websites would benefit incumbents over primary opponents who were not "notable," providing free advertising and violating NPOV. Activist (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid that I don't understand that rationale. This discussion came up first in regard to 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries, where none of the candidates are incumbents (with regard to the office they are now seeking). If you look at that article, you will see that there is already a table there where 18 candidates are prominently featured, 4 candidates are merely listed below the table as being notable persons with non-notable candidacies, and the other 201 declared Democratic presidential candidates are not mentioned at all. Whether there are links to the candidates' websites is a completely separate issue from that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No links in the body of the article; serves no good encyclopedic purpose and breaks with established policy. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No links, largely per Redrose64 above. I think including them runs contrary to the spirit both of NOTPROMO and NOTDIRECTORY. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:37, 23 April 2019 (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.

Adding a line to results tables noting the electoral threshold

Editors may be interested in this discussion on whether a line should be added to results tables noting the electoral threshold. If passed in favour, it may mean this spreads to other articles. Pinging @Impru20 and Aréat: in particular, given your work on election results tables. Number 57 17:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Early elections and snap elections

Two years ago, I tried to start a discussion on the Snap election article, seeTalk:Snap_election#Early_elections_versus_snap_elections. No reply was forthcoming. Responses and opinions are invited. KarlFrei (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Partial and unofficial results

Hi. Should partial and unofficial count should be placed in articles while the official canvassing is in progress? Thanks. --Hiwilms (talk) 10:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, as long as the section heading is "Preliminary results" and the table includes a note of what percentage the count is at. See e.g. 2019 Maldivian parliamentary election#Preliminary results. Number 57 11:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Potential Notability Guidelines for Elections and Referendums

Reviewing past deletion and talk page discussions, there seems to be conflict over when elections are notable with some claiming that they are "inherently notable", others claiming that the must fulfill WP:EVENT, and others claiming something in between. I think that this would be best resolved by adopting a specific notability guideline. I plan to collect comments and ideas here for no less than seven days, after which I will draft and propose a guideline in an RFC.StudiesWorld (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

What outline of topics would you suggest we discuss, and what are the recent AFDs that may be of note? I would think that national and federal state level general elections generally have enough sources to notable, but local and city level elections are not, except for large cities which have their own "Mayor of" articles/lists. An example would be that if the politicians are in positions that pass NPOL, their elections may worth including. However this would not mean each election needs its own article. For example 2012 Washington elections covers several statewide elections which do not need to be covered in their own articles unless there is enough coverage and content for each one. Individual elections for members of a legislature or council should generally be covered in a single article covering all of those held simultaneously, regardless of individual coverage. Historic elections could go together in, say, a "Mayoral elections in [City]" page. Reywas92Talk 22:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I think that we need to address two questions:
* What elections are notable?
* What elections should get their own articles?
I think that my answer would be that any election for NPOL positions, positions elected by more than 100,000 people, positions elected across a whole province/state, or positions elected across a district to a national or supranational legislature or referendums voted on by more than 100,000 people, voted on across a whole nation or top-level province, or any referendum relating to matters of constitutional or international law should be inherently notable, pending independent, reliable coverage, even if not out of the ordinary. I think that if there is enough coverage for an individual article, it should be made, while being summarized in a general article about a class of elections or referendums, which would also cover elections or referendums in the class that do not have enough coverage for their own article. StudiesWorld (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I am vehemently against the idea of "inherently notable". There's certainly no reason to set a 100,000 person (or any size) threshold. Districts to the California and Texas Senates are even bigger than congressional districts but we nicely cover them in 2018 California State Senate election; of course some may deserve more context, but definitely not automatically expect or even allow individual articles. This suggestion is extremely broad and would include elections to positions we don't even have articles on, like county sheriffs and auditors. How do you define "enough coverage"? The default should be general articles, but it varies widely how much content would fit appropriately there (like how many races are covered), what is due weight, impact and competitiveness, and what users want to even work on. Reywas92Talk 07:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I think 'inherently notable' is applicable for national elections and referendums. However, below that it would be extremely difficult to set a kind of cut-off.
In line with Reywas' comments above, perhaps a better route to go down is to try and minimise the number of articles we have covering sub-national elections – I think we have far too many articles on individual state/local elections that could be merged into a single article. For example, is it really worth having 2018 Minnesota gubernatorial election, 2018 Minnesota House of Representatives election, 2018 Minnesota Secretary of State election, 2018 Minnesota Attorney General election and 2018 Minnesota State Auditor election as separate articles? Personally I think it would be vastly preferable to have them all covered at 2018 Minnesota state elections. Number 57 09:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I am sympathetic to the comments by Reywas92 and Number 57.
On a tangential note, my concern with 2018 Minnesota gubernatorial election, 2018 Minnesota House of Representatives election, 2018 Minnesota Secretary of State election, 2018 Minnesota Attorney General election and 2018 Minnesota State Auditor election is the almost complete lack of prose. While I am thankful to editors for adding all those tables of data, too many election articles are replete with infoboxes, lists, tables and graphics, but don't actually function as encyclopaedia prose articles. Bondegezou (talk) 09:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
What it suggests is that articles on some of those individual elections are inappropriate, as Number 57 suggests, and would better be handled "bundled together" into a single article on, say, Minnesota's 2018 elections for sub-governor – something like 2018 Minnesota state office elections or something. That is usually how we deal with articles for state legislative elections in the United States – e.g. 2016 California State Senate election and 2016 California State Assembly election... I don't know how that gets worked into a "notability guideline" for elections, but it should be pointed out that elections that don't merit their own articles should instead be handled as a 'section' in a "bundled" article that covers several elections together at once. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I think gubernatorial elections still merit their own article – and also that state and federal elections shouldn't be included in the same article – but I'd agree with the general view that state elections can largely be consolidated into a smaller number of articles (ideally, in my view – federal for 1) Senate and 2) all House districts within a state, as well as state for 1) gubernatorial, 2) row offices and all statewide elections (like 2019 Kentucky elections), and 3) state legislatures for both chambers), eliminating articles for row offices entirely. Mélencron (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
This is an important debate and I hope we can find a way through the many arguments about notability and recording electoral results for future reference. I know - many of us do here - that the local election coverage on Wikipedia for the United Kingdom is perhaps the broadest and deepest anywhere on the Internet. We perhaps cover in more detail than many news agencies the full local election results for the major cities outside London, and then many of the local councils beneath Met Borough status. By some measure, there will be borderline cases of notability. What I have always tried to argue is that the results of a democratic election should be somewhat protected or shielded from notability judgements. I can't argue that, say, Wyre Borough Council is less "important" than Liverpool City Council. However I believe that both having their local election results on Wikipedia is valid. Bondegezou makes a good point, and a difficult one to work around with regards to UK local election articles: how many of them lack prose. Something to think about. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

FAC for 1927 Chicago mayoral election isn't receiving much input

1927 Chicago mayoral election is currently a featured article candidate and its candidacy page is here. I know that the FACs related to this WikiProject are also on the project page, but the candidacy is more than a month old and has only been looked at by 2 general reviewers, a source reviewer, and an image reviewer. I was just wondering if anyone else would like to chime in as to whether it meets the FACR, any feedback would be much appreciated. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Combined Infobox election and Infobox legislative election for general election articles

I've just tweaked {{Infobox election}} to allow it to embed {{Infobox legislative election}}. This means the two infoboxes can be combined into one for general election articles, allowing us to have the presidential candidates at the top and the parties contesting the legislative election at the bottom. See an example at 2019 Guatemalan general election. I've been wanting to do something like this for ages as I think it's got quite wide ranging potential for use. Pinging Dereck Camacho as it might be useful for the Costa Rican article set. Cheers, Number 57 20:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Thank you. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Another slight tweak means that the infobox can be embedded in itself, allowing the infobox to have multiple headers. So the infobox of 2019 Guatemalan general election now has a main heading for "general election" and sub-headings for the presidential and legisaltive election. It also allows slightly unusual elections like 2018 Bosnian general election to have the separate votes for the three-member presidency split out into separate lines with headings. Cheers, Number 57 19:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums/Archive_14&oldid=1190280495"