Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27

Template:Party shading/Independent (US)

So I have been on the platform for a bit, though I am still learning the ropes to an extent, and I have noticed Template:Party shading/Independent (US) is used on a lot of older or more prominent current election articles. Does this color need to exist on a fundamental level? Especially since a US independent is no different to independents in other countries in any legal, historical, cultural, or electoral way. The color seems arbitrary and is not even used as a basis for colors on maps, which use the internationally-based independent colors instead for holds/gains, or vote % colors. Talthiel (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree with you on this, I have been going through and editing pages to change it to the generic Independent color. Am I alone in this or are they both just shades of gray? I had someone describe it as gold to me and that surprised me. Nevermore27 (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I suppose it's more of a yellowish-gray, but regardless, the way to go about making this change is to make "Independent (US)" an alias or redirect for "Independent" in the color coding templates. Going through and making this change to every page makes it extremely difficult to make changes in the future. The gray color is confusing and very similar to the "Vacant" and "Hold" color templates used in other US politics pages. It is also inconsistent with coloring used by most US-based publications: the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and Bloomberg use a shade of gold or orange for Independents; CNN, Fox News, and Politico use purple; and the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, and USA Today use green (for "Other"). NBC was the only publication I found that uses gray. The color templates exist for a reason and have been used for years without issue. WMSR (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
It is also inconsistent with coloring used by most US-based publications: the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and Bloomberg use a shade of gold or orange for Independents; CNN, Fox News, and Politico use purple; and the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, and USA Today use green (for "Other").
This feels like a lot of American exceptionalism, American independent politicians are no different to ones in any other country, and other countries would in theory have the same issue of "confusion," yet do not have differently colored independent templates. The US is the only one and it is a very redundant and pointless color with no basis in legal, cultural, or political history in the US. Talthiel (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Also, yellow/gold has been used for 1) tossups (see here and here) and 2) the Libertarian party, so does it really reduce confusion? And if the proposed fix is to use the current color, which is merely a different shade of gray, then what's the point? The idea that American independent politicians must have a separate color code is nonsense. Nevermore27 (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
The point is that hue of yellowish-gray that is currently coded to "Independent (US)" is not similar to any other parties that I am aware of, while the shade of gray coded to "Independent" is indeed similar to templates used for other purposes in US politics pages (including Party shading/Hold, Party shading/Loss, Party shading/Vacant, etc.). The nature of the templates used on Wikipedia for US politics necessitates a color other than gray for independent politicians, and we have done so since 2012. Would it solve any issues if the regular "Independent" color was changed to the one currently coded to "Independent (US)"? I can't see why it would be a problem for other countries to use country-specific templates either. I'm honestly confused about what the issue is here — is the current color causing any confusion? If not, why does this need to be addressed or changed at all? WMSR (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Because it is largely redundant, these are colors for parties, as it stands there is no difference between independents across the world and the US, and as such a separate color is unnecessary and should be removed. Talthiel (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
So then, does changing the regular "Independent" color to the one currently coded to "Independent (US)" solve that problem? WMSR (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
No because America is not special, not much different than the rest of the world. It would be absurd to apply a standard erroneously applied to one set of articles, to all the others. It only makes sense that the Independent (US) template should be phased out for the international standard. Talthiel (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
It is worth noting that Ireland also has its own particular shade for independent politicians ( #DDDDDD ), as do India ( #DB7099 ), Vietnam ( #FF6666 ), and the UK House of Lords ( lightgrey ). This is not a case of American exceptionalism, but simply a matter of what makes the most sense for a certain country's pages. The "international standard" color (currently  #DCDCDC ) is too similar to other templates used in US politics spaces on Wikipedia, which is why it was replaced with  #DDDDBB . I understand your preference for one standard color, but I have repeatedly said why that isn't feasible. Something being "unnecessary" is not justification for removal on Wikipedia. Indeed, all of these colors are technically unnecessary, but exist on this platform because they are helpful to readers. Changing the color to something that means something else in other US politics templates makes it much less helpful. WMSR (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
You have yet to articulate a colorable (no pun intended) reason why having different colors for a different country is somehow "better". You're just pointing out that different colors exist. Which, ok? Though the Ireland and House of Lords examples are functionally identical to the "international standard" so it's a distinction without a difference. As to the "feasibility" question, the fact that something would take a fair amount of work to standardize is not a reason to do nothing. Nevermore27 (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Oh and I double checked, I am not seeing where you came up with those colors for India and Vietnam, because both the Lok Sabha and National Assembly of Vietnam and previous elections pages for both use #DDDDDD or #DCDCDC for their Independents. Nevermore27 (talk) 03:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Those come from {{Party color|Independent (India)}}, {{Party color|Independent (Vietnam)}}, etc. And I have articulated several times that similar shades of gray are used to indicate hold/gain/vacant/loss in US politics templates. The point of using colors is to aid readers, and if they are too similar to other colors in common use around the same same pages, they do not serve that purpose. All of that said, I don't know if the onus is on me to make a case here, as I'm not the one who made the change. Standardization is not a requirement on Wikipedia, and there are countless country-specific templates in use around the project. I don't see why this should be treated any differently, and I don't understand what is accomplished by such an undertaking. How do readers benefit by seeing gray next to American independent politicians instead of buff? WMSR (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Maybe the case should be made #DB7099 and #FF6666 should not exist either, as again the color has no functional reason to exist, but this is more so about the US's #DDDDBB, and the normal "Independent color" #DCDCDC, is not hard to understand for readers nor does it cause confusion. It is simply solving a problem that does not exist, serving a redundant role which should not exist anymore, which is not used anywhere else in US politics articles. Show me where the color is used for maps, or for gains/holds? Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/USA legend colors#Seat control uses #999999 for holds and #666666 for gains, removing "Independent (US)" would only bring it in line with those pre-existing colors. Talthiel (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
to the "not used anywhere else in US politics articles" I will admit that I have been on a campaign of changing pages away from the #DDDDBB so if you haven't seen it, it might have been due to me. But the fundamental question remains the same: Why should a separate color for Independents from the United States (or any other country) exist? I have not seen a compelling answer. Nevermore27 (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, the legend should probably switch toward using a color that isn't so similar to "no election", and #DCDCDC is exceedingly similar to the "no election" color on that legend. And the reason you aren't seeing it is indeed likely @Nevermore27's campaign of removing it from every possible page, which has continued even during this discussion. I have also been saying consistently that various shades of gray are used all over Wikipedia, especially on US politics templates, for lots of things that I've already listed, including party shading templates and images representing "no election". Perhaps this would be best addressed by an RfC? WMSR (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Make a RfC, I don't really care, but it doesn't change the fact that  #DCDCDC  (Independent) does sorta look like  #d3d3d3  (No election),but its irrelevant when you realize these two colors would never be used together, and have never been used anywhere together that I have seen. But to cover our bases, ( #DCDCDC ) does not look like  #999999  (Hold) or  #666666  (Gain), which would not be used in the same context either. I don't really know where you are coming from, having compared all the colors, about "Reader confusion" when the color in question is used to denote parties on charts, not on maps, the "no election" color is not used in charts, it is used in maps, which use a different color for independents. @WMSR @Nevermore27, if an RfC is made, I'll look at it tomorrow. Talthiel (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Seem to me it would be better to use #DCDCDC for independents lile in most other countries, and just change the no election color.--Aréat (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Here's the thing though, the "no elections" color is not used in the same context or situation as #DCDCDC, so it is kinda a moot point. Talthiel (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Let's switch independent to #DCDCDC, then ! --Aréat (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
@Talthiel This isn't true. The colors are used together on election maps. WMSR (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Why not change all independents to #DDDBB? I still don't understand what the problem is here. WMSR (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Which color is chosen is not super important, the point is there's no reason to have more than one color for independents, period. Why is #DDDDBB better though? You have an unusual attachment to it. Nevermore27 (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
#DDDBB is only used in the US, while almost every other country use some shade of grey akin to #DCDCDC. It make sense to just switch the US, rather than nearly two hundreds countries.--Aréat (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I suppose every country or culture may have different colors for independent candidates, just as with the various liberal and conservative parties. Would you guys consider having separate entries for Independent (U.S.), Independent (South Africa), Independent (Solomon Islands), and so on? Howard the Duck (talk) 07:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
This is what I've been trying to say. It's not American exceptionalism, it's just that a certain color works better in the US. There is no need for this to be internationally standardized. WMSR (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Is this difference one observed in sources, or just a habit of editors? Because if it's the later, there's no real reason to keep it inconsistent, when it's already consistent in almost every other countries. --Aréat (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I could swear independents in Australia use a darker shade of gray here in Wikipedia, at least maps. I saw BBC TV coverage of the UK local elections and independents are denoted by a pink color. This does seem to vary per country. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
What shade of gray is not particularly important. And while news coverage may vary from country to country or even channel to channel within a country, I think it's pretty well understood on Wikipedia that gray means no party, and there's genuinely no reason to stray from that or have multiple colors. There is nothing that makes an American independent politician distinct from a British one or an Indian one or an Australian one, etc. There needs to be a better reason than "I like it", which is all I've seen here. Nevermore27 (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
All due respect, you are the one proposing the change here. While you may like using a standard color internationally, there is no policy requiring standardization across countries, and therefore no policy-based reason for this change. The onus is on you to demonstrate consensus. The Independent (US) color has been in use for 12 years, so it's pretty well understood on Wikipedia that gray means no party doesn't quite pass muster. WMSR (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
besides just appealing to tradition, you really haven't made the case yourself. Talthiel (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
and that "tradition" was created on a whim in the first place Nevermore27 (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Again, I am not proposing a change here. There isn't a case for me to make. WMSR (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling Nevermore27 (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Where is the policy- and guideline-based discussion to be had here? The only objections given here to maintaining a separate color code for Independent (US) have been that "we don't need it" and "it should be standardized." Frankly, both of these sound to me like "I don't like it", and neither is backed by any policy. I have made plenty of substantive points about maintaining: it is more consistent with colors used by US-based media outlets (few if any use gray), it is less similar to other color templates, it is on par with other countries that have separate color codes for independent politicians, and there is simply no policy-based reason for a change. In most countries, red is associated with progressive politics, but in the US, it represents the more conservative party. Should that be standardized too? I'm sorry if this comes off as rude or uncivil, but I truly don't understand why this is such a point of contention in the first place. WMSR (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
1) Wikipedia does not take its cues from "US-based media outlets", 2) the template has only been at its current hex code since January 2022, so there's no longevity argument to make 3) there is nothing that distinguishes an American independent politician from an independent politician from any other country. 4) "other countries that have separate color codes for independent politicians" don't actually use those templates, they use gray. 5) you of course don't agree, which is fine, but "there's no need for any country to have their own hex color for independent politicians" is a policy-based argument.
There is no actual, colorable (again, no pun intended) reason for a separate color except "I want to have a separate color", which is again meaningless because in the end it's just a slightly different shade of gray, which you used as an argument against it "(few if any use gray)"! Google "Hex code DDDDBB" and both color-hex.com and colorhexa.com (the top two results) say that the "web safe" equivalent is...#CCCCCC. i.e., gray. Nevermore27 (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
as someone who makes election maps, "no election" is not similar to the colors used to show indepdendents on a map Talthiel (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Calculation of election percentages

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Election_Percentages as to whether we use a source's percentages or recalculate them on a different basis when presenting them in infoboxes. NebY (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd actually quite like a manual of style on election percentages/infoboxes, to have a way to kill off all these arguments. "The percentage is wrong" is an annoying source of edit... I don't want to say "war". Edit low-intensity conflict, perhaps.
Most recently this has spread to the question I posed over here, with annoying disagreements on reporting requirements for elections using anything but FPP.
To give a simple example, say an election is held using Minimax. That means that each candidate's score is equal to their worst performance in a one-on-one matchup. e.g. if Charlie loses to Alice 45-50% and to Bob 40-55%, Charlie's score is 40%.
I'd be interested in hearing @Number 57's thoughts on having such a manual of style for elections (assuming such a thing is possible). Because non-FPP electoral systems are fairly niche, I think that particular question can be delegated to the folks over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Voting systems. –Sincerely, A Lime 04:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency)

Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 00:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Redirects to yearly election lists

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation) § Redirects to yearly election lists for visibility

Requested move at Talk:2023 Perth City Council election#Requested move 9 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2023 Perth City Council election#Requested move 9 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Infobox legislative election suggested edit

Hi editors. I have started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox legislative election#Suggested changes to change possible row headers for future election, suggesting an edit that would allow any page using Template:Infobox legislative election for a future election to say "seats at dissolution" or list the number of seats won at the last election when the "ongoing" parameter in the template is set to "yes". --TedEdwards 22:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Bahati

Hi. So, we have two articles with similar titles, namely Bahati Constituency, which is a constituency in Kenya, and Bahati (constituency), which is a constituency in Zambia.

Are the brackets on the Zambian article enough for a disambiguation? And if they are, what hatnote can we put on either article (maybe we should use not to be confused with)? GeographicAccountant (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It looks like there are different naming conventions for Kenyan and Zambian constituencies, so it might be enough under WP:SMALLDETAILS. I've added hatnotes to the two articles as an interim measure. Cheers, Number 57 21:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2024 Oregon House of Representatives election#Requested move 10 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Oregon House of Representatives election#Requested move 10 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 14:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Contents guidelines on name dropping companies, newspapers, individuals endorsements

2024 Multnomah County District Attorney election#Endorsements Is it customary in election articles to have a massive name drop naming out businesses, people and organizations who endorse them? I am not too familiar on this subject area, but it seems totally undue and I removed them in Special:Diff/1226817944 but I want to get second opinion on the general feeling on the appropriateness of including list of endorsements like this. Graywalls (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Infobox election vs Infobox legislative election

I have been off Wikipedia for a long time now but aware of this situation thanks to Twitter and the hate campaign online against @Number 57 for changing {{Infobox election}} to {{Infobox legislative election}}. Personally, I think that the changes are positive in most cases (multiparty systems), because current system fails to account for parties beyond the major 4-6, thus failing its WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, as it fails to summarise elections, but also includes unnecessary information such as pictures of leaders, which generally doesn't have any effect on election results, and current infoboxes with many entries unwieldly too, so much that it is impossible to view without scrolling vertically (and horizontally in mobile), which is not the case with tabular infobox. Note that the new infobox also has a column for leader's name which might be an important fact depending on country and its electoral culture. So, nothing of value is lost. But, since there is so strong an opposition, do we need to discuss it formally if it hasn't been done already? Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

TIE and TILE has its own strengths and weaknesses. Not all elections are created equally, and it's good we have multiple options for cases such as this. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree, but it seems that Twitter is hellbent on reverting any and all uses of TILE to TIE, because... it looks good! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 15:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes I just noticed this in Talk:2022 Philippine House of Representatives elections when someone must have checked where TILE was being used then saw it. This had used TIE but I had to use TILE since (1) politics in the Philippines is personality-based, in the House elections, campaigning is by district-level, so there are no actual "party leaders" in the US sense when they had Pelosi and Ryan during the last decade; (2) the political parties don't stand for anything, so it doesn't really which party had the most seats; (3) after Duterte his supporters had splintered into different parties, with the best performing party just getting 22% of the vote in 2022; (4) the party-list election sees 50+ parties win seats, with no party winning more than 3 of the 60+ contested seats. How are you displaying that with TIE? Howard the Duck (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I think that over the years we have had a (very) loose, nominal consensus on deciding on the use of TILE in a case-by-case basis. This has most successfully happened in some of the cases under specific conditions and with some limitations (UK and Italy I can think of), which is good. However, TIE has been in place over decades and is seen by many people not only as the actual status quo version, but also as an emblem for Election Wikipedia and as a quick and easy summary for elections that most people have found as useful. The way TILE has been implemented over the years in many articles (through imposition by few editors rather than through consensus by most editors or even readers) has greatly contributed to the recent uproar against TILE.
Yeah, TIE may fail to account for parties beyond the major 4-6... but maybe in many elections we don't need to have more than 4-6 parties in the infobox. That would depend on the country's actual political reality. Has a party securing 1 seat the same relevance in illustrating and summarizing an election than the party winning it with 200 seats? Remember: infoboxes are meant to summarize, not to replace. And they are meant to help, not to compete against each other. For the full results you already have a section for that; TILE has worked best there where it fulfills additional purposes other than "hey this shows all the parties, let's go with that". Proven usefulness works better than imposition. TILE also has severe limitations, which have not been seriously considered when replacing long-standing TIE versions in many election articles.
The intrinsic nature of the local political system is a strong factor to consider the use of one or the other (personality-based systems, relevance of parties, electoral system, etc.). TILE may work for Knesset or Dutch elections, but may prove a disaster for UK or Spanish elections; it may work for some periods of time (Italy 2018 onwards, though there is some confusion there as far as I see) or even with some forms of combinations with TIE. Again: meant to help readers, not to compete against each other. Analyzing each problematic situation in a case-by-case basis should be the way to go, under the understanding that not all election articles may have problems nor improvement requirements, and under the assumption that broad consensus-based solutions are the most likely to result in long-lasting, conflictless solutions. Impru20talk 17:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I'd agree that it is a case by case basis, country by country, election by election. TIE works if there are at most 4 leading parties. Articles using TIE with 6 or more entries look ugly. TILE can be improved upon in its current state, but people should keep an open mind on this. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
From my experience in Spanish election articles, TIE can work well with up to 9 (though up to 6, i.e. two rows rather than three, should be preferred). Also, don't think of this as if "people should keep an open mind on this", as if TILE was actually required... you know: for years, this mentality by a few users (that somehow TILE was destined to become "the new standard") is what has brought us here in the first place. It is what has brought weird (and perhaps undesirable) results such as 2022 Philippine House of Representatives elections. Don't force it. If there is an actual need for it, it will naturally come through in those cases where it is needed. And as I say, there is room for even using some combinations of both in those cases where such a need is required. Impru20talk 19:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
3×3 photos using TIE is a lot. We don't do that redudancy on other infoboxes. How many screens would that be? Imagine in the Philippines House of Representatives, you'd have 8 parties that had more than 1% of the vote in the FPTP election, then another infobox for the partylist election with 29 parties that won 1%. Imagine that on TIE. The article previously used TIE, with just the FPTP election, with I guess top 6 parties with make believe leaders that I made up. The partylist election was not in the infobox. That fails in so many metrics lol. The Philippines example is an extreme one though and if you have better ideas, I'm all ears. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I am not saying necessarily using 3x3 with TIE. I actually said 3x2 is preferable. Cases using 3x3 are rarer, since countries in which more than 6 parties/blocs can be considered as "major" are not that common. For those cases where this may pose a issue: analyze it case-by-case. Impru20talk 20:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Even 3×2 is a lot. Does the MOS recommend showing three different photos on one row in such a small space? That's too much info crammed into 300px. Even if we'd ditch portraits, three columns crammed into 300px is a lot it leads to the infobox being wider. You'd think 55 entries is nuts, wait until you see infoboxes actually being wider than the space alloted for prose on some computer monitors. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Well, that has been commonplace in election Wikipedia for many years and has seen (far) less conflicts and edit warrings than those caused by the imposing of TILE across many articles in the last few years. We don't have "to wait", we are two decades ahead of time to see how each one has worked and has been met by the community as a whole. TILE may be the personal preference of some, but it's still as of currently an unfriendly template that requires improvements (plus, the MOS does not require us to copy-paste the results table as the infobox with over 50 parties, either, yet some people think it's like a good idea). Personal preferences aside, but obviously this should come down to what is best for each country according to their specific circumstances. Many will probably stick to TIE, others may feel TIE is preferable. And this can only be ascertained case-by-case. Impru20talk 21:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Do you actually have a suggestion on how to cram to an infobox an election where 55 parties won but the top 10 parties won just 20% of the seats? Even a 3×3 TIE won't fit the ten. Previously the partylist election was not even added to the infobox.
One of my favorite discussions to read through is on that one Canadian election where people wanted to add a party that won 5% of the vote but no seats on a TIE infobox. There was an RFC and consensus was to exclude but it still remained there for some reason. Apparently if this was TILE that party won't be in the infobox at all as the threshold is 1 seat. TIE works in some areas, TILE works in others but apparently if an election allows more than 10 parties to win several seats you're screwed lol. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I thought "case-by-case" would be descriptive enough by itself. Impru20talk 21:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I was actually looking for concrete suggestions... I went with just lumping the smaller parties into "others". Howard the Duck (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
The first six parties amount to 65% of the seats between them all, and there is a stark difference between the 5th/6th scoring party and 7th and below. I have checked for past elections and this seems like a pattern: no more than 4 to 6 "big" parties, then the rest being tiny 1 or 2-seat strong parties or candidates. I am sure one could defend a case for TIE there, though I also think that this would be one of those examples where TILE could work: just not with all the parties, obviously. Lumping smaller parties into "others" could be a solution for this one. Impru20talk 22:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Since 2010, in the FPTP election, there had always been 6 bigger parties, with the smaller parties winning about 20 or so seats combined. 2022 is unique as the best performing party won just 22% of the vote, and the smaller parties doubled the number of their seats as many candidates ran on local parties instead of national ones (that also led to the best party getting just 22% of the vote). Personally, TIE works if there are actual party leaders. In these elections, there are no such "leaders" and campaigning is district-by-district so there's no incentive of using TIE with a photo of what could be WP:OR as the party leader during the election.
In the partylist election, 2022 saw the smallest number of parties croasing the 2% threshold. From 2010 to 2019 there were always more than 6 of them. Pretty weird though Others had 51% of the vote and 50 seats. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Seems sensible to me (particularly the point in which in these Philippine elections there are no "leaders" and their addition would cause OR issues). Impru20talk 09:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

2024 French legislative election discussions

Bumping this talk page on people's watchlists to bring a couple discussions regarding the 2024 French legislative election to other editors' attention. Given that we're in the period between the two rounds before this article could be potentially featured on WP:ITN/C within a week or so depending on the results, it would be great to get other views from editors in this space in order to reach a consensus on either or both of them before then. The two sections in question are here:

Thanks, 73.169.176.209 (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Unites States and Wisconsin map request (Map of the vote to enter into ww1)

[[1]] I'm requesting someone make a map based off of the source I linked at the start of this sentence. It would be good to use this map for articles like American entry into World War I. I also want one just for the state of Wisconsin to use in the History of Wisconsin Wikipedia article. thank you. Zyxrq (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Error found on the 1928 United States Presidential Election in Georgia page

I don't know if this is the right place for this but I found a mismatch between the map and results of the 1928 United States Presidential Election in Georgia page. Tattnall County is blue on the map but the results table show the county as voting Republican. Kavoj (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to correct it! :) Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of historical context

Hello all. I was hoping that we could get some sort of consensus on whether the sort of material removed from various elections pages by @Jon698— (usually pertaining to historical milestones of a state or county's results) should or should not be included. I've walked back some of his edits (e.g. this one from 1964, which removed acknowledgement that Georgia voted Republican for the first time ever in that election), but there are many more and I don't want to step on any toes. Jon has always been kind and helpful when I've interacted with him, so I just want us all to be on the same page.

I personally think that it should be fair game in any state presidential election article to include acknowledgments of the following: when it is the first or last time that a state has voted for a party; the first or last time that a county voted for a party (excluding trivial cases like when a jurisdiction was very new); and when it is the first or last time that a given party has won without a state. I also think that depending on the situation, it can make sense to point out when a candidate is the first of his party to win without a county, but only if that county is an isolated case and not one of many. I think that all of this has been general practice for quite a while, but I'd love to make it concrete. I also think that whenever possible, significant trends/swings should have some sort of explanation; e.g. in 1972, Southerners were alienated by McGovern's liberalism. Many articles used to contain that stuff but had it removed by Jon.

Again, I'm not trying to take a jab here; these are just disagreements I've had that could be cleared up/standardized going forward. Looking forward to everyone's thoughts. Best, Cpotisch (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this information can be included without violating WP:OR, primarily because I feel as if it would fall under WP:CALC. AnOpenBook (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
@AnOpenBook: Agreed, this has been my argument for quite a while. I could use some help identifying and rolling back excessively-restrictive edits if you want to take a look. Cpotisch (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Changes to the 5% rule

I have seen countless citations of the 5% rule that strongly suggest a belief that it is an actual rule. I would like to suggest that we in someway formalize that the 5% rule is a "rule of thumb" and must always defer to a more formal policy or guideline (specifically WP:NPOV/WP:BALANCE). Perhaps even rename the page.

It appears likely at this point that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will fail to receive 5% of the national popular vote in the 2024 United States presidential election, while also receiving a vote count exceeding (perhaps significantly) the margin of victory in multiple states. I anticipate additional discord on the talk page regarding his inclusion in the infobox should this come to pass. I have read the RfCs summarized at WP:5%R numerous times, and it seems to me they are meant to exclude trivial candidates. Because a US "presidential election is really an amalgamation of separate state elections," a candidate could be extremely impactful without reaching 5% in the national vote. To exclude them would violate the purpose of the infobox. Instead, we should reflect what reliable sources are saying. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it already is clear from the rule that it can be overwritten by local consensus in the event there are arguments to depart from it. Gust Justice (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
It's a rule of thumb. We don't have to stick to it. That said, if Kennedy gets less than 5%, I think it's a good rule of thumb to follow. Bondegezou (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
We don't include Ralph Nader in the 2000 infobox, even though he received more votes than the margin in Florida (and therefore the overall election). So I don't agree with your assessment here. If a candidate wins an electoral vote without getting 5% nationwide, sure, but otherwise, 5% isn't a particularly tough bar to clear for inclusion. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I think the 5% threshold remains a good threshold in nearly all cases. - Enos733 (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Like others have said, I think it's clear that the 5% Rule is already a rule of thumb and can be overridden by local consensus… but I also don't a strong argument to override it for Kennedy. It wouldn't be the first time that an also-ran got more votes than the margin between the big two. — Kawnhr (talk) 05:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

United States presidential elections - Oval on each candidate

I would like to propose that for every US election, for each candidate that has an oval in the convention page, that we replace the pictures of the candidates with the ovals used on the convention pages. I believe this will further enhance the election pages by color coding them so that they are easily identifiable. Please let me know your thoughts below. Interstellarity (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Concerning the change to the 1832 United States presidential election, there's already a blue strip under Jackson and text stating that his party is the Democrats. Why does he also need a blue background in his image? What you're doing is overkill the images are fine as is. Wowzers122 (talk) 05:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
@Wowzers122: How do you feel about removing the ovals on the convention pages and replacing them with the pictures like on the election pages? Just another idea to maintain consistency. Interstellarity (talk) 09:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I concur with Wowzers122. Please don't do this. These are entirely unnecessary. I wouldn't be opposed to using the original photographs in the convention pages, but you're overthinking the need for consistency here. Reywas92Talk 13:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
@Nojus R @HistorianL: I saw you reverted my edits. I opened up a discussion here so that I can gain a consensus on what to do with the ovals. Personally, I think it's fine to use the portraits. I see no reason to use the symbolism of the ovals. Interstellarity (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
I reverted your edit because it was seemingly random and I hadn't seen any discussions about it. I think the ovals are cute and a fun tradition we have on this site, but yeah that's kind of the only reason to use them. I can agree to have the ovals be from the same images on the election pages, but considering so many ovals were made and there seems little reason to actively oppose them, I think it's fine to keep them as a fun aesthetic thing. Nojus R (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
What consensus here was established for you to change all the images? One person not being opposed to such changes and one ghosting you (sorry oops) is not enough to make such a dramatic change on the entire website, especially when the editors of the convention pages were never notified of this discussion. If you want a historical answer, the ovals are how nominees were presented back in the day on national banners, such as with the 1864 Democrats, 1864 National Union, and 1872 Republicans, among others. Wowzers122 (talk) 01:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
The farthest back I could find with this style solely with commons is the Whigh VP in 1836 and the most recent is a button with Bush and Quayle in 1992 Wowzers122 (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Wowzers122: How do you feel about using the ovals on the election pages? If you would prefer to keep the ovals on the convention pages, do you think it would make sense to use them on the election pages as well? Interstellarity (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
No, conventions and regular elections are very different. Wowzers122 (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Senate President/Majority leader for State legislative elections

Hello, I am asking for clarification on how the winning party's leadership for state senate elections are usually listed. Across most of English WP it seems that, for the winning party, their candidate for Senate President/President Pro-tem is usually used, but this seems odd given that for the US Senate election pages the majority leaders of both parties are used, but the elected majority leader is listed at the bottom. So is there a consistent WP policy on what leaders to list for the majority party or is it dependent on the state/election/WP project's discretion? In Wisconsin state legislative election articles we list the party majority/minority leaders as opposed to the senate president/minority leader. Any discussion or input would be appreciated! Talthiel (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Guidelines for party inclusion and the choice of infobox style

This RfC is a continuation of the discussion regarding the 2015 UK general election and the question on which parties to include in that page's infobox. For some context, there has been a longstanding debate on whether UKIP - which received a seat and was the third most voted for party - should be listed. Currently, the consensus from the most recent RfC on the topic is to not include UKIP, but the inherent controversial nature of this decision has meant that debates and occasional edit-wars have sprouted up in the years since, with no full resolution in sight.

This RfC is hopefully an attempt to solve this controversy and to provide more clarity to the longstanding 5% rule guideline surrounding election infoboxes.

The main questions to be discussed are:

  • What criteria, hard or soft, should be met by parties to be included in an infobox? This includes having >5% of the popular vote, earning a parliamentary seat, media noteworthiness, etc. Along with this, are there times that a party meeting some or all of these criteria should not be included in the infobox? If so, why, and when?
  • Should the 5% rule, or some approximation of it, be applied to parliamentary elections? There have been discussion held on this topic in 2021 and 2023, but no formal consensus on whether it should actually apply in some form, either weakly or strongly, to parliamentary election infoboxes has occurred.
  • How should the choice between the {{Infobox election}} and {{Infobox legislative election}} templates be made? Should it be contingent on >9 parties meeting all the criteria listed above, or should it be more dependent on local conditions? There are inconsistencies between countries - and even between different elections of the same country - on the infobox style used, so it would be valuable to have this issue more formally clairfied.

AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

AwesomeSaucer: A few things. Firstly this is far too long and ambiguous a question for an RFC. See the guidelines at WP:RFC, where a clear question with specific outcomes needs to be set. Secondly this not formatted as an RFC, which requires specific copy to be included to generate the RFC id and populate it at the relevant noticeboards. Thirdly, the 5% rule is not applied as a standard to parliamentary elections. Fourthly, and most importantly, if you wish to hold an RFC on this topic at this central location, where it would be perceived as seeking to apply to all FPTP elections (and thus affecting election articles in some 40-plus countries, including the United States), it will require more input to determine agreed options before opening. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Apologies for the improper formatting. It has been fixed.
I don't disagree that specific options are important, but I'm unsure where it would be best to discuss & formulate them. Options have been laid out in the 2015 UK general election talk page, but these are specific to the context of that election, and don't necessarily apply site-wide. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 23:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
no apology needed, I'm just pointing out that without specific outcomes/options, participants cannot !vote, so it will simply be a discussion. Nothing wrong with that - in fact a central discussion will be needed before starting a central RFC. The earlier polls you link to establish that different principles may apply to parliamentary elections and 5%R should not be strictly implemented for parliamentary elections: that doesn't establish it as a standard.
I recommend withdrawing the RFC for the mean time until we have a wording which is clear in its proposal. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
My observations would be the following:
  • The 5% rule cannot be immediately applied to parliamentary elections where multiple seats are at stake, and many parties may end up winning seats. At best it can serve as a rule of thumb, but it should not be seen as a strict rule.
  • The criteria for including a party in a parliamentary election will have to differ from country to country. The most general rule I think you could have, would be that a party winning seats likely is notable enough to be included in the infobox. This rule may be applied for a lot of countries, but it probably won't work for the UK.
  • Where a party wins at least 5% of seats in a parliamentary election, that party should be included in the infobox unless there is a local consensus for not doing that.
  • Where a party wins 5% of the vote, but wins a number of seats less than that (a situation especially relevant for countries using FPTP), its inclusion in the infobox depends on the concrete article. The way the party is covered in reliable sources is especially important to determine whether the party is notable enough to include. The convention for similar articles for that country also matters. If the media treats the party as being essentially irrelevant, it probably should not be included. Whereas if the media treats the party as a "main" contender, it probably should be included. In the case of the 2015 United Kingdom general election I think the most correct approach is to include UKIP. The party received extensive coverage in the media and was treated on the same level as the Lib Dems and the SNP - two parties that are included in the infobox and received fewer votes than UKIP. With that being said, I think you can argue against UKIP's inclusion, and any rule determined here should not overrule a local consensus on that page.
When it comes to which infobox format to be used:
  • There should not be a general rule on this. That said, it would be preferable to use the same format for the same series of articles.
  • For countries where 6 or fewer parties normally win seats, TIE should typically be used.
  • For countries where more than 9 parties normally win seats, TILE should typically be used. This should not neccesarily be followed strictly though.
  • For elections where the overwhelming majority of seats are won by the largest 4-6 parties, TIE may be more suitable even if more than 9 parties win seats. UK elections are a good example of this. As are other parliamentary elections using single-member constituencies. In other words, minor parties winning very few seats may be ignored unless there otherwise are compelling reasons to include them.
Gust Justice (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think it is sensible to set a rule for percentage-based inclusion for parliamentary infoboxes due to the differences in electoral systems. In some countries you might get multiple parties with over 5% of the vote with no seats (five parties in the 2002 Turkish general election). I get the feeling this is only being brought up because of the UKIP situation in 2015.
Re the type of infobox, I agree with the first three of Gust's points above, but I think the last ("elections where the overwhelming majority of seats are won by the largest 4-6 parties") will lead to too much debate over what "overwhelming majority" means.
One point to note is that we are hamstrung by {{Infobox election}} being in rows of three parties – for example, it doesn't really make any sense (to me) that Plaid Cymru is excluded from 2017 United Kingdom general election, and I assume they have been purely because adding another row would be awkward. IMO there needs to be some fundamental consideration given to redesigning the infobox to work on a one party per row basis like those in Spanish/French wikis, which would hopefully avoid the inclusion criteria being partly determined by the design of the infobox. Number 57 01:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm a huge fan of this idea! (I was actually just about to suggest the same thing!) The French/Spanish infobox is a huge improvement on the current design, which takes up way too much space whenever there's >3 candidates. The current design is also a bit of a problem when handling elections under the two-round system. Although, I think that design could itself use a bit of reworking to collapse down some of the clutter. Having a nice infobox template could also address lots of the criticism of Template:Infobox legislative election for being too sparse. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
How should we proceed on the issue? 2601:249:9301:D570:701E:FC88:F6FD:DF19 (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
For now I think we can leave this RfC relatively dormant and keep discussion on the 2015 UK page. Then if/when things change we come back here. Happy Labour landslide day! AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
@Number 57: I've just seen your comment and the reason there are six parties in there is because after the 2017 election the DUP formed a confidence-and-supply agreement with the Tories, so they played a significant role in the aftermath of that election, partially by virtue of the number of seats they had. Sinn Fein is only included because it would create an avoidable white space in the infobox due to the 3 per row format. So if we used a French/Spanish style infobox for that page, the DUP would be included but not Sinn Fein probably. So it's not so much Plaid Cyrmu is excluded because of the style, it's that Sinn Fein is included because of the style. --TedEdwards 22:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Looking at earlier elections 1935 United Kingdom general election also has white space in the second row (so does January 1910 United Kingdom general election, but that doesn't have any other parties who won seats). 2601:249:9301:D570:F833:C3AF:F37D:5715 (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I'd note that in the case of Jan. 1910, there is no sixth party to be included. I'm not 100% sure about 1935, although I think it would look better with Ind. Labour or the National Government result rolled up into one entry as it used to be (I think multiple parties there betrays the coalition aspect of it) BitterGiant (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't really think we need too hard and fast of a rule beyond an understanding of what is being represented in these infoboxes, which is to say: the results which are the subsequent composition of a national legislature. I would caution to heed WP:NPOV in this regard, as to include a party which won less seats at the expense of parties who won more seats on the basis of vote share would violate a neutral point of view, and is just overly editorialising the results and pushing an opinion that a party which won a single seat is far more important than a party which won two, three, or eight. UKIP and its impact, in the case of 2015, is well represented throughout the page, and in 2024 where we have Reform and the Greens winning 5* and 4 seats, respectively, we have a similar issue of parties coming ahead of them. But again, we should resist the temptation to go too far in editorialising these results to show favour to parties who just didn't cross the only really important metric in a FPTP election: winning seats. BitterGiant (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
    I think that this's a good way of looking at it, an infobox is a summary of results, not a summary of the campaign or of the changing political landscape. AnOpenBook (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment per opinion above by BitterGiant. I'm not convinced a >5% rule makes any sense for UK elections either, due to the FPTP voting system. In certain scenarios it makes sense to include parties that had <5% of the vote, such as in 2019 when SNP only received 3.9% of the vote but claimed 48 seats, and likewise with DUP's role in the 2017 with less than 1% of the vote. So I don't believe any hard rule should be imposed for parliamentary elections, that would include UK elections. The election infobox template otherwise works fine for it's intent and purposes, and using the legislative election infobox should be on a case by case basis. Given the different edits made to the 2024 infobox, that of 2x2, 2x3, and 3x3, it seems pretty clear that 1x3 remains the best format, despite Reform gaining considerably more than 5% of the vote. This is because overall, the percentage share of the vote was insignificant on the results of the election. CNC (talk) 12:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with BitterGiant and AnOpenBook. An election is to elect people (or a person). Infoboxes need to show the result of the election: i.e. who was elected. The result for a legislative election is the number of seats won. With some electoral systems, seats won can deviate a fair bit from vote share. As per above, we should be wary of a rule based on vote share in such circumstances. However many parties the infobox shows, we have to go down in order of seats won (you can split ties by vote share) and you can't skip over a party that won more seats just because you want to mention a party that won fewer seats. That violates WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:V! Bondegezou (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. If you guys are insisting on using TIE, I have some thresholds; it may not work for all elections though:
    • Include parties/candidates with 5% of the vote, or
    • Include everyone up to 95% of the vote or seats.
    • There are some quirks in TIE: 1x2, 1x3, 2x4, and 2x6 work best. If there'd be 5 entries, add a sixth.
    • For example, in the 2024 United Kingdom general election, I'd be inclined to include the top 6 parties, as the top 6 combined comprise just over 95% of the seats, then ordered by popular vote. I'd defer to the Brits on this one though. I was watching TV and the exit poll showed all six parties (and others); WP:RS have shown these six parties to be the primary ones for this election, someone could argue that we can follow WP:RS if you can't agree on who to include. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey all, just wanted to let you know the link on the project page no longer works. If you can provide an updated/permanent one that would be great :) Average Pennsylvanian (talk) 08:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Average Pennsylvanian: Should work now. It was set to be a permanent link previously, so not sure what happened... Number 57 23:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding, but thank you for updating the link! Average Pennsylvanian (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
@Number 57: It says invalid for me. Yilku1 (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
@Yilku1: I've changed it – again set it to never expire. Not sure why this isn't working... Number 57 00:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Special election, pairwise comparison matrix

I would love to have some additional feedback on Talk:2022 Alaska's at-large congressional district special election#Inclusion of pairwise-comparisons matrix, or really anywhere on Talk:2022 Alaska's at-large congressional district special election. There's been an ongoing dispute about what should be included in the article.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Just as a general answer, I think such data should be included provided it is discussed in reliable sources, and its inclusion wouldn't be too unwieldy for the article. Gust Justice (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Can I take this as supporting inclusion? Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion for "Condorcet paradox"

Your participation could help Wikipedia decide on the best title for the page:

Jruderman (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Changing meta colors of two parties in the Philippines

Please visit Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#Switching party meta colors of Partido Federal ng Pilipinas and Hugpong ng Pagbabago. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

TSE - Brazil

Hello everyone! I just want to tell that in the Commons Category:TSE electoral portraits by year thousands of freely licensed Brazilian politicians portraits have been uploaded (but there's still a lot to go - and it seems that we can't easily automate the upload). Those might be of use either in the biographies or in the candidate's lists. Erick Soares3 (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Socialist Party USA

Socialist Party USA has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Would anyone be intresed in a possible GT collaboraion

Hello I was hoping to tackle one of the "X United States presidential elections in X" series. Most likely Alaska or Hawaii due to the smaller article numbers. However it is still 16 GAs and it would go by much faster with a co-nom. I would also consider other states for the list. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Waipareira#Requested move 23 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Waipareira#Requested move 23 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 15:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Per the suggestions in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 25#RFC: should external links in elections be a directory? that this was the incorrect place for such a discussion, I started a discussion at Village pump about external links, though thought that I should also mention it here. —Ost (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Infobox for next UK general election

What parties to include in an infobox for a next election and what style of infobox to use has often been contentious. There is a proposal at Talk:Next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Use_of_TILE_rather_than_TIE on changing the type of infobox and what parties to show. Editors might like to input. Bondegezou (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Claimed territory in election maps

I was wondering whether a consensus could be reached on the inclusion of claimed territory in election maps.

For example, many of Venezuela's maps include their claim to half of Guyana (see e.g. the first map in the infobox of 2018 Venezuelan presidential election), despite the fact that Venezuela does not control (nor ever really has AFAIK) the terrirory, nor does Venezuelan hold elections there. I have seen similar maps of Guatemala that include Belize and Argentina that includes the Falklands despite the lack of control and holding of elections.

On the other hand, there are countries that occupy territory outside their widely recognised borders and holds voting there (e.g. Morocco / Western Sahara, Russia / Crimea, Israel / Golan Heights) and some countries whose territory (according to a clear international consensus) is occupied by others, which prevents it holding elections there (e.g. Ukraine / Crimea, Syria / Golan).

I would suggest a rule of thumb should be something like the below. There are probably some more complex ones that may have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Cheers, Number 57 00:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Territory that a country has never (or only for a short time period at some point in the past) controlled and there is no clear international consensus that it belongs to that country should not be included in election maps. For example, Belize in maps of Guatemala, the Falkland Islands in maps of Argentina, parts of Guyana in maps of Venezuela, Mayotte in maps of the Comoros etc.
  • Territory that a country occupies without international consensus that it belongs to them but holds elections in that territory should be shown but hashed to differentiate it. For example, Crimea and Donbass (Russia), the Golan Heights (Israel), Western Sahara (Morocco) etc.
  • Territory that a country claims (without a clear international consensus in its favour) and does not control, but does hold elections there should be included but hashed to differentiate it. For example, Kosovo in maps of Serbia.
  • Territory that there is clear international consensus belongs to a country but is occupied by another (or is ruled by an unrecognised breakaway state) and in which elections cannot be held should be shown but greyed out. For example Abkhazia in maps of Georgia, Crimea and Donbass in maps of Ukraine, the Golan Heights in maps of Syria, Somaliland in maps of Somalia, etc.
I don't know if a general rule is possible, but I do agree tha basis should be what the internationally recognised borders are, if there is any consensus. Claims that have no recognition and have no relevance to the election itself (e.g. Venezuela) should not be entertained. Or at the very least, the lack of recognition should be made clear. One situation you didn't mention is the case of the Kashmir conflict. Here the international community does not seem to have any clear stance on whether it should be considered part of India or Pakistan. The approach used for Indian election maps seem to be to depict the Indian claimed border, but also show that not all of claimed territory is controlled by India. Gust Justice (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, Kashmir is one of the more complex situations that probably needs its own specific consensus... On the other point, the Venezuelan claim is marked on the maps in hatched colours, but I don't think it should be there at all given the fact that no election was held in the claimed territory (and I would be wary of limiting exclusion from maps to claims that have "no recognition", as there are a few cases where a few countries recognise another's claim to territory, but the international community as a whole does not). Cheers, Number 57 16:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I think the 'whether an election is held there' principle should be key given the topic. I recall reading recently about Suriname setting up voting booths near territory it claimed from Guyana for the explicit use of residents of the disputed territory. I don't recall whether it mentioned whether the booths were actually used for that purpose however, or whether it was more symbolic than practical. The area was not at any rate a separate geographical constituency, which would be an interesting case. CMD (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would work for the first bullet point mentioned above. I assume there isn't an objection to including territory in maps in cases such as those outlined in the fourth bullet point? Number 57 19:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Polling station, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

RfC: Order of constituency and regional vote tables in Scottish election polling

Hello all. I am seeking a wider consensus at Talk:Opinion polling for the next Scottish Parliament election regarding the order in which polling for the constituency vote and regional vote are displayed. JackWilfred (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2011 South Sudanese independence referendum#Requested move 1 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2011 South Sudanese independence referendum#Requested move 1 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 16:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd say this has merit, and we should be more flexible in naming referendum articles, as most of these only happen once. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Specific trivia format in U.S. presidential election articles

I noticed that a lot of presidential election articles for U.S. states contain trivia of the form "This candidate was the first Democrat/Republican to win the presidency without X County since year YYYY." Examples: last paragraph of the lead of 2020 United States presidential election in Ohio, last paragraph of 2016 United States presidential election in California#Analysis. As far as I can tell, trivia of this form is very rarely noted outside Wikipedia, unlike similar forms of trivia such as "This candidate broke the streak of X County voting only for one party.". Should trivia items of this form be removed if not supported by a reliable secondary source, even if the trivia is verifiable? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I see no reason why it should be removed, particularly if the information is verifiable. — Watercheetah99 (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Because it is about as useless as other kinds of trivia that are frequently removed from U.S. presidential election articles, see here and here for examples. At the very least, it should not be in the article lead. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Ranked-choice voting in the United States has an RfC

Talk:Ranked-choice voting in the United States has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Request to improve Lead section of 2024 United States presidential election

Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Would you Please help neutrality of 2024 US election article?

  • Any suggestions or solution example: Create the RFC of 2024 U.S.A

presidential election article as it was hastily closed by a specific user?

1. There were many opinions that the biased article in the US presidential election article should be improved.

2. An RFC for improving neutrality was started, and when opinions for improving neutrality came in, it was hastily closed less than two days after the RFC was created.

3. I would appreciate it if you could help improve Wikipedia articles by suggesting the solution; Examples Open another RFC or reopening the relevant RfC so that the opinions of users who want to address neutrality can be posted.

link : [[2]] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Standard title for articles covering all elections of a country/state/territory/province

The articles for United States elections (e.g. 2024 United States elections) and US state elections (e.g. 2024 Texas elections and all the others in Category:2024 elections in the United States by state are formatted as "[year] [country name] elections". But looking in Category:General elections by country, it looks like most other countries are formatted "[year] [country name or demonym] general election", e.g. 2024 United Kingdom general election.

I think these articles should be titled "[year] [country name] elections", e.g. move 2024 United Kingdom general election to 2024 United Kingdom elections. Because these articles are a summary of many different elections. And don't use the demonym (e.g., 2022 Malaysia elections, not 2022 Malaysian elections)

I bring this up because @Number 57: reverted my move of 2024 Puerto Rico general election to 2024 Puerto Rico elections. I was hoping to make it consistent with the titles of all US state/territory elections. Waiting for your input before I mass move all of the articles in Category:General elections in Puerto Rico. HertzDonuts (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Harmonisation of Category names is usually discussed on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion rather than on project pages, and even if there was consensus here on this project, the regulars at CTD might have a very different conclusion. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
This has been a point of contention before, 57 has a long-held affinity for "general election" regardless of the circumstances of the elections. Nevertheless, the issue is often that people are discussing two different things — either one election (typically parliamentary) or multiple elections (like in the case of Puerto Rico). I think it is fair to retain "general election" for the former (like the UK example) and move to "elections" for the latter, although it's likely that 57 will oppose discussion of such a move. Watercheetah99 (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
it should be "election" in the singular. It is one single event, not a bunch of unrelated contests. COMMON NAME applies to article titles. US election articles are the exception in this regard. But no one in the UK would refer to a general election as "elections". Gust Justice (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I firmly agree that the UK page should remain as is; however, the issue is that in many other places (like many US states) the various elections in a year can be separate, distinct elections that oftentimes occur on completely different days. The votes happening in Puerto Rico are for several different offices in different tiers and branches of government — putting them all under the title "general election" doesn't make much sense. It does not work in the context of systems with multiple elections, especially if some are on different days (like in the US, France, Nigeria, Senegal, etc.). For the US, "general election" can't work considering that it is not a clear, common term as it typically refers to the main, non-primary election and these pages regularly include the primaries. "Elections" is neutral and gets the point across without needing to be modified on a case-by-case basis. — Watercheetah99 (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree the Puerto Rico article (and the rest of that series) should be moved. The reason they're like that is becuase the person who wrote them named them "general election" to distinguish from primary elections, as they also created articles like 2016 New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico primaries. But that's inconsistent with other articles in the US and should be fixed. I don't think the UK article needs to changed though. Reywas92Talk 20:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
You've made the mistake of assuming that the term "general election" means the same thing across the world - it does not. In the US it refers to all (federal, state, local) scheduled elections which take place on a set date, usually in early November. In the UK it only refers to parliamentary elections. The term is hardly used in non-English speaking countries. And most of the articles in Category:General elections by country only relate to national legislative elections, they exclude other elections such as local elections. For example, there wasn't only the parliamentary election in 2024 in the UK, there was also the 2024 United Kingdom local elections which occurred on a different day. Obi2canibe (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Negative responsiveness paradox#Requested move 27 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Negative responsiveness paradox#Requested move 27 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Editnotice

I've created an editnotice for the upcoming U.S. elections: {{U.S. current election editnotice}}. Would anyone mind if I added it to the "2024 United States presidential election in <state>" and "2024 United States Senate election in <state>" pages? Also please let me know if you have any feedback on wording. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Early American election portraits

Should the portraits used for candidates in early American election articles be updated to ones painted/representing them closer to the respective election dates?

Recently, I restored a version of the 1824 election article that replaced an 1858 portrait of John Quincy Adams with an 1818 one, which is closer to the election date. This change was quickly reverted, so now I'm seeking consensus on this issue and on similar updates for other early election articles that might have this issue, such as the 1828 election for JQA.

I don't understand why we're using using portraits of candidates at much older ages for these early elections simply because they're "one that most people associate with him". JQA did not look that old when the election took place, and the painting itself is from 1858, which is 10 years after JQA's death and 30 years after the election. These aren't biographical articles; they shouldn't be the most recognizable portrait but rather ones more accurate to how they looked at the time. It'd be like using a modern photo of Biden for the 1972 United States Senate election in Delaware because that's hows most people know him. Wowzers122 (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe that Option A or 1858 is the best, as it is the one that has been used the most in history books, books about John Quincy Adams when showing his presidential portrait, as well as other items such as the LBJ Presidential Library & Museum in Austin, TX having the 1858 portrait for Adams on their list of the Presidents and first ladies ~ HistorianL (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Pinging parties: @HistorianL:@Dylam X: Wowzers122 (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@HistorianL: In the edit history for 1824 United States presidential election, User @Dylam X: clearly explains why they are altering the image. You reverted without explanation.
Reverts follow. On your second revert, you cited that the users needed consensus first. This is incorrect, the first edit was a WP:BOLD edit and did not consensus first. You have the right to revert, but you need a better reason then "Gain consensus first". Now, you did also cite a second reason and I acknowledge that, but that reason (that it's the image "most associated" with Quincy Adams) is shaky.
A third editor then also made an edit switching to a more time appreciate image. Once again you cite consensus. Well actually, it seems like you did't have consensus, because at that point you had 2 editors seeking a time appropriate image vs one against.
For the record, when I myself I have multiple options to pick for an image of a politician in an infobox, I typically give significant weight to how closely the image matches the person's age at the time. It's far from the only factor, as Image quality is quite important as well, but it is a significant one. What image is "most associated" with the politician is not typically a factor I consider.
If I was to pick one of the three portraits, I would choose either the 1818 or 1828 one rather than the 1858, as they are more accurate to his age. CeltBrowne (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, Ronald Reagan's photo in 1966 California gubernatorial election is not his presidential portrait. Even Pat Brown, Reagan's defeated opponent in 1966, used a different photo in 1958 California gubernatorial election. If we are doing this for Reagan and Brown or for any 20th- or 21st-century politicians, we'd do the same for politicians from other eras if such an option exists. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, we should use portraits or photos that most closely resemble the person at the time of election. Sometimes that is not possible (no contemporary portraits, no free photos, bad image quality, etc), but when it *is* possible, it's always the best option. An election is a specific event in time, so it makes sense to aim to represent people as they stood during that moment, rather than aim for something broadly representative — that's something that should be done on their own article. Plus, age and appearance are oftem factors in an election, which is all the more reason to depict the candidates at their approximate age during the election — using a photo where they are much older, or much younger, will lose that context. (Wowzer's example of Biden's 1972 election is a good one: he was, famously, Very Young in that election, and ran on being an agent of change; swap in a photo of Biden as he looks today and that no longer comes across.) For JQA, the 1818 or 1828 portraits would be preferable to the 1858 one. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Even just a cursory look at other early presidential elections shows that no other person seems to operate under this "most associated picture" clause. Andrew Jackson has different (more age-appropriate) portrait in 1824 and 1828 than he does in 1832. Martin Van Buren has one portrait in 1836 and 1840, then a different photo 1848. Henry Clay has different portraits in 1824 and 1832, and then a photo 1844. Abraham Lincoln has different photos in 1860 and 1864. This is where I stopped. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums/Archive_26&oldid=1261557986"