Talk:2014 Indian general election/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Lead sentence

The lead sentence should have the phrases "Indian general election" and "2014" boldfaced and as close together as possible. This is the correct Wikipedia style. See comparable pages:

• United States presidential election, 2016 begins: The United States presidential election of 2016 will be
• United States presidential election, 2012 begins: The United States presidential election of 2012 was
• United States presidential election, 2008 begins: The United States presidential election of 2008 was
• etc. for other U.S. presidential elections
• California gubernatorial election, 2014 begins: The 2014 California gubernatorial election will take place
• California gubernatorial election, 2010 begins: The 2014 California gubernatorial election was held
• etc. for other U.S. states and years
• French presidential election, 2007 begins: The 2007 French presidential election, the ninth
• New York City mayoral election, 2013 begins: The 2013 New York City mayoral election occurred on
• London mayoral election, 2012 begins: The London mayoral election of 2012 was
• Pakistani general election, 2013 begins: General elections were held in Pakistan on 11 May 2013
• Pakistani general election, 2002 begins: The Pakistan General elections of 2002 were held
• Pakistani general election, 1997 begins: The Pakistan general election of 1997 was held

Indian general elections articles have not followed these patterns, but they should, and the best place to start is with the current one. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The vast majority of articles, do NOT have this formatting. I edit election articles the worl d over. The other one is NOT the corrent format as it is directly opposed to WP:BOLDTITLE.Lihaas (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

the current lead[1] does not specify country with prominence and is ambiguous "A general election will be held in nine phases, the longest election in the country's history". This does not introduce one to topic and straight away gets down to technicalities. Khushank94 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

First sentence: "A general election will be held in nine phases, the longest election in the country's history, from 7 April to 12 May 2014 to constitute the 16th Lok Sabha in India." (emphasis added)Lihaas (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Basis of leaders mentioned in Infobox

What are the basis on which Leaders are mentioned in the Infobox? The elections aren't for electing the PM,the election is to elect MPs and they decide who will be the PM? When Congress announced that Rahul is their leader or he is the PM candidate?(Or wikipedia started working on "Speculations"?) Why Modi is mentioned there? Just because BJP nominated him? If it is so,why other party leaders aren't there? They can also be the Possible PM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janmejai (talk • contribs) 17:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

good point. --Soman (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. In democracy, there is no Prime Ministerial candidate. Prime Minister get selected only after elections. Congress didn't selected Rahul as their leader for Prime Minister post. Also, he is neither the Congress president. So either remove both options, or provide space for all national party presidents (As by including all state parties, whole article will get cluttered). Logical1004 (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

No one has objected yet on the issue I raised or have defended the current infobox,I am assuming I have consensus here and I'll be removing the Leaders from the Infobox as it is biased towards two leaders and two political parties(I'll wait for some more hours),however even if someone has objection to the removal in that case also it should be removed until we have consensus here to keep "selected leaders" in the infobox as it projects that they are the only two competitors in the elections which isn't true and obviously biased towards two leaders and political parties. Janmejai (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with you that you have enough consensus to remove it so I have reverted it. In a discussion that happened in January, the info box was supported, you are contradicting them. The UK elections has infobox, the North Rhine-Westphalia state election, 2012 has infobox, why not Indian elections? Shriram^Talk 11:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but you are trying to dictate the page,you haven't read what I said.The problem isn't with Infobox,The problem are the leaders mentioned in the infobox and you reverted my edits without answering them.No one have yet answered them, why only these two leaders are mentioned in infobox? and what are the basis on which these two leaders were selected to be shown in the infobox? How and When Rahul Gandhi became the Leader? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janmejai (talk • contribs) 12:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

You can say what ever you want, this is a free country. I am not dictating any page. Not just you, some other guy drew me to dispute resolution, because he wants AAP to be projected here for which I asked him to discuss. You can see the mess he has done in the talk page. About Rahul Gandhi, look at this [2], he was added stating that he was the head of the election campaign. But before that it was Sonia Gandhi [3]. You are free to discuss it. Narendra Modi has been declared as leader by the NDA to lead the 2014 poll campaign, if he is going to be replaced it can be edited later. No other parties have declared any leaders, so they have not been mentioned. Have a look at the previous election pages, the people who lead the election or people who were declared as the pm candidate were added into the info box. I don't see any dispute here. Previously there was third front in the info box, but it was removed because third front had not been officially formed yet, sorry I am unable to provide the link, don't know where it is in the messed up edit history, I think I had mention in the section My last revert, have a look. Shriram^Talk 13:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Rahul gandhi is mentioned here just because he is head of election campaign(But it's not mentioned in the page,the impression is like he is Leader),then why not other leaders of different parties? There should be a criteria on which leaders should be mentioned in the infobox as in campaigning in the Indian general election, 2014 they all are leaders of National Political Parties, Narendra Modi is acceptable here as he has been declared as a PM candidate but why Rahul gandhi?(I doubt if it's PR exercise,Neither he is PM Candidate nor Party President),There should be a criteria and I can't found any here, it(article) just shows that there are two leaders and it creates an impression that they are the only two leading leaders in the elections.I'll propose that it should be clearly mentioned that he(Rahul Gandhi) is not the PM candidate or should be replaced by Sonia Gandhi(as there is no announced leader and she is the Party President),secondly include all the Presidents of National Political Parties because they are leaders of Declared National Political Parties as including leaders of every political party isn't possible.Janmejai (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you agreed with Modi. So there is no question of removing Modi's name, the only national parties left are cpi and bsp I think. I think it was missed from the list. I will have a look at that. If any other parties form alliance, may be that should be considered. But I am not sure if other editors consider this. Regarding Rahul Gandhi, congress is a national party. Shriram^Talk 17:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Put the party president/main leaders of national parties, instead of all just two parties. Also in India democracy there is no PM candidate. PM get selected only after election get over. India doesn't have a US type election. So, put all national party leaders there, otherwise remove all. Regarding state parties, better to skip that, otherwise it will clutter the whole space. Logical1004 (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Im with Sriram on this. We cant list all the parties in the infobox as its way too big (and thebox only hold 9 parties anyways). WHERE To draw the line? Possibly by the number of seats in the legislature as neutral. Then we can have 3,6 or 9 [arties. Im in favour of drawing it at 3.

But otherwise the 2 main parties which are by far and away the largest is fair. Also Rahul Gandhi has been declared as the head of the campaign for the election hence hes in the infoboxLihaas (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

There are six national parties, if I am not wrong, BJP, BSP, CPI, CPI(M), INC and NCP, alphabetically. Any thoughts? Shriram^Talk 18:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Further to comments by Shriram,almost all surveys reveal that R Gandhi and Modi are only frontrunners . Others get preferred by hardly 1% or 2% people. In my view it is fair and reasonable to show these two leaders only in the infobox here.Shyamsunder (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The polls also mentions others, however these others have not mentioned any alliance or any leaders or have they? Shriram^Talk 16:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Officially nine parties, btw.

Don't think hthe others have mentioned candidates. Though for some like Samawjwadi we could infer Mulayam but that's CRYSTAL BALLing.Lihaas (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Telangana

There is large write up on Telangana matter in the campaign section. I think this issue mainly affects Andhra Pradesh and therefore should be moved to the Andhra Pradesh state article if any for 2014 general election.Shyamsunder (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Disagree, it was a large part of the lection, created a new administrative region for polical purposes and potentially affects othr such calls(Lihaas (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)).

See WP:UNDUE. It's a regional issue. More than 2 sentences are not necessary. More importantly, the text restored by you is unnecessarily verbose - it includes entire quotes from KCR, BJP spkesperson, Rajnath Singh etc. That's now how encyclopedic articles are supposed to be written. Also see Wikipedia:Article size. If you want to write in detail about how the issue affects the elections, please create a separate article. utcursch | talk 01:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

That an interpretation of UNDUE, I disagree with it. Onece you made a BOLD edit and it was reverted, you need to gain consensus first before restoring it. This is to avoid edit wars.Also see the article size section above where we discussed this(Lihaas (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)).

This whole should be directed to Campaigning in the Indian general election, 2014, which will de facto be holing all the issues relating the article. but defiantly this needs a introduction over here. -Khushank94 (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with utcursch. As per many surveys this is hardly an issue at all at national level. I feel one or two lines on the topic here should suffice.Shyamsunder (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Telangana section must be reduce and as said by Khushank94, most of the material can be shifted to Campaigning in the Indian general election, 2014, as this article should cover all topics, instead of focussing on one topic more and other less. If one article is getting more focusing, better to create a new article Logical1004 (talk) 06:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Khushank94. Most of the section should indeed be moved. Was just awaiting for it to be stabilised instead of arguing there and opening 2 different sections.

Also as explained to Utcursch, per the BRD cycle you have to discuss changes BEFORE reinserting. That is the onus is on you to get consensus for YORU version. You are after all not the god to gdetermine which way fits best.Lihaas (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Lihaas, the onus is also on you, not just other editors. You're the only person who is opposed to the changes - every other editor agrees that the Telangana section is too long, and still, you re-insert this poorly written unencyclopedic content. The WP:BRD also applies to you. Someone added the large Telangana section, someone else reverted it giving a reason - you should get consensus before re-inserting it. utcursch | talk 02:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's why we discuss the redo and that is as to what specifically needs to go. Most people seem to indicate that the article should be trimmed off to the split off page. I agree too. The question is if you want it trimmed, let's discuss what to trim. Or should it just be moved off to that page?

BRD means when a change is reverted to discuss the changes, nand consensus is not made by vote counting. Hence we discuss the changes. Ive already shown more than wikllingness (in fact a want) to change, so lets discuss.Lihaas (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a changelog

Wikipedia is not a changelog, a news portal or a quote farm. This version includes at least 35 quotes, unencyclopedic content, undue emphasis on certain points etc.

The NDA section includes 3 quotes from Rajnath Singh (one of which is 7-sentences long), 7 quotes from Narendra Modi (including a 4-sentence long one), a 3-sentence quote from Ananth Kumar, besides quotes from CSDS director Sanjay Kumar, Ravi Shankar Prasad, P. Chidambaram, Randeep Surjewala, Arun Jaitley, Vasundhara Raje and Yashwant Sinha. The UPA section includes a 10-sentence quote from Sonia Gandhi and a 5-sentence quote from Rahul Gandhi, besides quotes from Manish Tewari, Janardhan Dwivedi, Sudhanshu Trivedi, Manmohan Singh and Sushil Kumar Shinde.

Let's look at an example - the AAP section:

Following a surprise showing in the 2013 Delhi election, the Aam Aadmi Party was said to be considering participating in the general election.[124] The party's leader Arvind Kejriwal announced that his party would contest all 26 Lok Sabha seats from Gujarat. The party's Prashant Bhushan said that the party would "press for decentralisation of powers and participation of the people in policy making at the central level" and that fundamental changes would be sought in the police and bureaucratic system to increase accountability.[125] Party spokesman Manish Sisodia said: "We have launched a drive called 'Mission Buniyad' to recruit at least 10 members in every district of Gujarat. This process will be over by the month end. Despite the order from the Supreme Court, the Gujarat government is not issuing notification for the appointment of new Lokayukta. The present Lokayukta law of Gujarat is very weak and does not help in controlling corruption in the state. In the near future we will fight for a strong Lokayukta in the state like we are fighting for a strong Jan Lokpal at the centre." [sic][126] The party's Madhya Pradesh Secretary Akshay Hunka added: "We will definitely contest the upcoming Lok Sabha polls in Madhya Pradesh and will be in a position to decide the number of seats we will be contesting in nearly a month's time.".[127] On 4 January 2014, Kejriwal was reported to have said he would not contest for a seat.[128]

In January, infighting within the AAP led to Delhi MLA Vinod Binny getting expelled.[why?][129] The party's Tamil Nadu unit reportedly split even before it was launched.[130]

Days after Kejriwal resigned as the chief minister of Delhi in mid-February, the AAP announced its first 20 candidates. It would also contest 350 of the 543 seats in the election. After the resignation, due to opposition to passing the Delhi Jan Lokpal Bill, media reports indicated an increase in financing for the party's electoral campaign.[131] The Christian Science Monitor asked if the resignation would be a "game-changer" for the election.[132]

AAP's fourth list of candidates included former Tehelka journalist Ashish Khetan for the New Delhi seat. Khetan is the third journalist in the list of six candidates for Delhi announced by the AAP.[133] The party announced its 15 candidates for Karnataka on 21 March.[134] Kejriwal will competing against the BJP's prime ministerial candidate Narender Modi from Varanasi.[135]

Problems with the above text:

• It is written in the changelog style - Instead of simply saying "AAP is contesting 430 seats", it
  • first tells us that AAP was thinking about participating in elections
  • then tells us that it announced contesting 26 seats in a particular state
  • next tells us that its announcement of 20 candidates
  • finally, tells us about its plans to contest 350 seats
• It includes a 2-sentence quote by Prashant Bhushan, a 4-sentence quote by Manish Sisodia and another one by Akshay Hunka (who?), besides a random observation by a particular publication. Wikipedia is not Wikiquote.
• Further, it includes two sentences about announcement of Ashish Khetan as candidate from the Delhi seat. Out of AAP's many notable candidates, why are we including this one? He is not the chief of AAP, not a member of the national executive of AAP, and doesn't even have a Wikipedia article.

This is not how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written. A Wikipedia article is supposed to be concise, coherent, clear in flow and focused on the topic. If anything, this article needs to be made more concise and coherent through trimming of certain sections. utcursch | talk 01:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

In accordance with BRD after your Bold edit was reverted the onus is on you to seek consensus BEFORE reinserting it instead of edit warring. Kindly get consensus for your version firstLihaas (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I was at odds while looking at some of the last edits ([4],[5]) by User:Utcursch. It should have been BRD, everyone will agree with what you said above, content on Wiki should be "concise, coherent, clear in flow and focused on the topic.", but the present article is an ongoing event all the non-encyclopedia content will go off with time by discussing it here. Earlier it didn't appeased me that a template {{current||current election|date=April 2014}} be placed but now I will have to place it after protection(?) expires because of deletion of data at such a large scale.

Removal of infobox information for the sake of discussion over here is not understandable. It can be changed after the discussion is over. There is no morality in editing after protection. -Khushank94 (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all points made by utcursch.The edits by utcursch has made the article readable and sensible.Shyamsunder (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with utcursch too. This made the articles precise and sensible, instead of reading all the details of events (which is just like reading daily newspaper), article will tell about precise readable material. Logical1004 (talk) 06:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

We live in a democracy and i think that change comes but slowly in a democracy that is the reason why I was at odds. The changes are somewhat needed and and will make article "concise, coherent, clear in flow and focused on the topic." But i still dont see any point in removing the infobox -Khushank94 (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed withKhushank94 Please see the discussion in the section Basis of leaders mentioned in Infobox above. There seem to be broad agreement to restore it.Shyamsunder (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

110% agreed with Khushank94. i am NOT against removing content, it IS long. BUt we need to discuss this piecemeal to gain consensus an dnot way. Hence we have the BRD cycle.

Now well defer to Utcursch, to explain his changes to discuss instead of warring it out pending discussion. Its swhy we have teh BRD cycle.

For the record, good jobn to everyone here for working cooperatively despite the constant content. Changes are coming.Lihaas (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I explained my changes both in the original edit summary and above. It's you who hasn't explained the changes. Please go and read WP:BRD before telling others about it: "_Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. It is not the intention of this page to encourage reverting. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed._" You gave no reason for the revert, and you haven't written a word about how your edits improve the article. Every other editor on this page has agreed with the changes I made. If anything, the consensus is to undo your changes. The article looks like a poorly-written piece with random bits of information added in no particular order. utcursch | talk 01:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Your edit summary was no specific, it was arbitrary and every editor has NOT agreed with your change. OIf youre not going to be conducive to discussion then dontbother. Instead every editor has said there IS a need for a change, we need to discuss it. Hence piecemean;lLihaas (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I have given exact reasons with examples above. On the other hand, you haven't written a single sentence about why the article should have 35 quotes and changelog-like flow. Three editors other than you and me have participated in this discussion. Shyamsunder, Logical1004 and Khushank94. Shyamsunder and Logical1004 agreed with my edits. Khushank94 agreed with everything except removal of parties from the infobox: the infobox change was not the part of my edits which you originally undid - I removed it in my edit on the next day, because I had restored the infobox by mistake while a discussion was going on the talk page. I'm not at all concerned about the infobox. Waiting for you to to provide some justification about why this article needs to be a quotefarm and state and state things like "the Aam Aadmi Party was said to be considering participating in the general election". utcursch | talk 22:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that was lost. Yes I too agreed on trimming. There was just too much going on. Going through it now (btw- -Khushank94 also agreed on BRD)

1. Agreeing on trimming quotes
2. Procedure is important as candidates drop/change in reflection for who is contesting against them. Some announcements are then made after other parties.
3. Agreed on Ashish Khetan

Also per this, we could then split off entirely and trim the page.Lihaas (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

A week on, don't we have consensus till now. I want it to come fast or just a YES-No vote to make it readable. -Khushank94 (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

RJD

Here in Parties/ RJD, the text reads,

((Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Lalu Prasad Yadav said of the BJP's ruling chances that "Modi and Advani can never become the prime minister in their lifetime. Secular forces in this country would never allow the saffron outfit to come to power." In relation to the INC's Rahul Gandhi he said that Gandhi wants to bring change to the country; he added in relation to Digvijay Singh that he was a "good man."))

Its irrelevent. I think it does not add any useful or important info regarding election, party or person. Anything more relevant or something like his ally with INC in Bihar or with JMM-INC in Jharkhand can be added. Is it OK? Nizil (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It is the stages of the campaign and inidicates where they stand. But shorten it if you like(Lihaas (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)).

Third front Suggestion

There does not seem to be any formal or informal third front. Subsequent to meeting in 2013 there were a few meetings where BJD, AIADMK and AGP stayed away. Further CPIM and CPI are contesting in TN and in other states against the parties mentioned in the third front. So third front is dead. We should rename and treat all parties outside the NDA and UPA as others.Shyamsunder (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. but somewhere mention of the discussions about a possible third front should be there.Lihaas (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

CPI(M) was the main mover of the initiative, the current text could be part of the CPI(M) passage. --Soman (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

hmmm, but how to include the other parties then in TF stuff? Also would need the source indicating "main mover"(Lihaas (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)).

Per this edit summary "...and this is being discussed at talk page...." (emphasis added). That ios clearly (and acknowledged by you) a violation of BRD where your BOLD change was reverted so YOU have to first gain consensus not edit warring. (and the same thing was said on DRN board (otr that useres talkepagE)). Do NOT edit war till you get consensus.Lihaas (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Please stop invoking BRD in every posting, and there is no need to revert every edit by any editor than yourself. Wikipedia is a collective process and writing is done as a team. Here there was a short discussion, in which you had agreed in principle to change the wordings. In my edit some material got changed, but none of the essential details of the old version disappeared. --Soman (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Lihaas CPM was the one of the prime mover of Third Front since 2009 elections. Here is the reference that you can look upon. Several parties supported that idea. Logical1004 (talk) 07:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

BRD is for "collective process and writing is done as a team." Hence we do use tht to prevent edit wars not imposing unilaterally your version and refusing to acccept BRD. As said you get the consensus first and then issue your change. If you refudse to do that, your version will NOT put there and you will be edit warring. Ive said many times to discuss, you refuse to do so.

As for User:Logical1004, who is willing to dsicuss, if thats the case then isnt that more reason to adhere to it as the third front? Sorry, im not getting what youre trying to say then.Lihaas (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that BRD should not be invoked to justify routine reverts of other editors' contributions. Since the third front never materialized (at this point, I think it is safe to say that it won't emerge as a pre-poll alliance), my version (keeping a briefing commentary on Third Front moves in past months in the CPI(M) passage) is more apt. CPI(M) contests elections on its own at nation-wide level, not as part of any alliance. --Soman (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Soman Its hardly routine, im asking for why.how to maintain that it WAS a possible option being discusses even if it hasn't YET materialized. But CPIM is not the ONLY one here.

Can you propose a mockup here so its easier to finally decide this. I will more than likely be game for the version you want.Lihaas (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Retiring Lok Sabha MPs Suggestion

I think we can get rid of this section. In India the politicians do not retire as such. There is no such practice/concept. They simply do not contest for some reasons. They may still contest in future. For exaple Chidambaram, Navjot etc. This sectiion is misleading and I suggest we just remove it.Shyamsunder (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Its in consistency with other such [comprehensive] English-speaking countries' election articles.

Also in no country do politicians reture as such. The point is they are optiong not to run on their incumbency. In a country where the incumbency factor is important, this is notable.Lihaas (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Aam Aadmi Party

soorejmg (talk · contribs) Do not add manifesto. This is not aap website. Shriram^Talk 16:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Im suspecting a strong WP:COI...Lihaas (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Ttaskforce

Guys, help needed here to divide up the work in the coming 2 months. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject India(Lihaas (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)).

Do we need the infobox?

Hi all, I had a brief encounter with this article in a DRN and could see sparks flying about the Infobox, with multiple editors complaining that its misleading. Just wanted to understand if the Infobox is needed for this article. My specific questions are (1) Can we get reliable secondary and tertiary sources for information in it? (2) Is it necessary for article right now or would it be better to place it after these elections complete and (3) Will this election be truly a two-party affair or will we see other players beating the two listed. I also want to get a straw poll started about it. (Yes, I know Wikipedia is not a democracy (WP:NOTDEMOCRACY) but I would rather get this done than see edit wars). Those in support of keeping it state Keep, those who support removing it state Remove. -Wikishagnik (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep

• Keep - Not just India, almost all the election articles have info boxes. Afghan presidential election, 2014, Slovak presidential election, 2014, Costa Rican general election, 2014, UK elections, North Rhine-Westphalia state election, 2012, literally thousands of them. Why not India? If there is no support for adding before elections, at least it should be added after forming the government. Shriram^Talk 07:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Shriram (talk · contribs) for your post, however just want to be clear about this, the Infobox seems to suggest there are only two major parties in these elections. Are elections in India strictly by-party affairs like in the US or are they multi party affairs? Please understand the contention is about undue weight (WP:UNDUE)--Wikishagnik (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

As per the status given by the election commission of India, they are classified as national parties and state parties. The state parties are the one which are confined to a particular state. National parties are the parties that have existence all over the nation. Have a look at the List of political parties in India. It says there are 6 national parties (however I was corrected that there are 9, I am sure about that). Out of six national parties, BJP has formed alliance with some 25+ state parties(approx not sure), INC & NCP have formed alliance with some state parties, as far as I know BSP has no alliance, and communists have formed left front (In 2009 Left front and third front were together). Apart from these National party alliances there are some state parties trying to form what is called third front (I am not sure if it has been formed). As an answer I would say its an Alliance based government and the infobox depicts two major alliances. As I mentioned there are three alliances NDA, UPA (which are in infobox) and third front (which was there before and was removed because if wasn't officially formed at that time) I am not sure if it has been formed or not and who are its members. For example check the previous election pages, forget 2014: 2009, 2004, 1999, 1998, 1996, 1991 follow links, you will get more Shriram^Talk 14:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, infoboxes are useful to illustrate the playing field of main contenders. In the case of India we could either opt to list the six national parties recognized by ECI or list the 9-12 largest parties of the 2009 election. --Soman (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  
  

The infobox doesnt hol dmore than 9.Lihaas (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, @Logical1004 yes I agree with you but main contest in two parties are Congress (UPA) and BJP (NDA). CPI, CPM and BSP are also national party but these three parties has very less vote percentage and seats in compare to Congress and BJP. In previous election CPM won 10, BSP won 21 and CPI won 4 seats, where congress won 206 and BJP won 116. So I think infobox should be Keep.Prateek Malviya^Talk 14:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

keep as we do on other election articles. The US for one is NOT a bi-party affair. More pertinently, in the UK we dont list other parties either. And in regards to the OP, these 2 parties are by far and away the largest (as in the UK)Lihaas (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep As per the general practice. The NDA and the UPA are the biggest forces in Indian politics. Three other National Parties do exist, but even their presence is limited to 1-2 states. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment; no, the influence of the other 4 national parties are not limited to 1-2 states. On the contrary each these parties have presence in most states, and both CPI(M) and CPI has won Lok Sabha seats from many different seats in the last 2-3 elections. Compare with Swedish general election, 2014, there is clearly only 2 parties able to lead a gov't and claim the PM post, but all 7 parties in parliament are listed. There is no prescedent to limit the infobox solely to the 2 largest parties. --Soman (talk) 12:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep: Infobox gives a quick summary of the lead. In my view, only the UPA and the NDA should be included; Third Front, but only if it becomes a possibility after the elections. — Bill william compton^Talk 15:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Bill william compton, what do you think of the Left front idea? As a compromise...although consensus seems to point to the status qupoLihaas (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Lihass, as I've implied above, I'd rather maintain the status quo than including Third Front at this point of time. — Bill william compton^Talk 12:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep but keep clear of POV and SPAMs and Whatnots. For example, why is RaGa's pic in the box? Is he the "leader" as the infobox calls it? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

He is announced as the head of the campaign (and a nother failing one?)Lihaas (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: as in the current form. These are the only two front runners alliances .Shyamsunder (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep: Soorejmg has a good point about equality. But as of now, it is clear that only Rahul and Narendra are the major politicians. So having such infobox wouldn't be a minus point, but plus point. Delibzr (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Remove

• Remove : Wikishagnik I agree infobox are useful to give summarized information of the whole article, but in this scenario, it is not useful. First I want to correct Shriram, there are 6 national parties and 47 state parties registered by Election Commission of India, where reference has been given on the page List of political parties in India. Now, I agree in todays scenario elections are contested on the basis of alliance (as in India, there is a multi-party system and in the past 10-15 years, no party is getting any majority), not on the basis of parties. But still there is no official declaration regarding that. So just for that sake, you can't ignore other parties, that are not in any alliance. Now coming to the practicality, as there are 6 national, 47 state parties, so it will be impossible to display them all in the infobox. So what can be done is that we can display all 6 national parties (not state parties) in the infobox - if consensus is made, or we can show 2 alliances UPA and NDA + 3 national parties (CPI, CPM, BSP) as rest of 3 national parties are covered in these 2 alliances, or best of all, we can remove the infobox-if there is no consensus at all on these. Logical1004 (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Correction. I said two alliances + third front, because in 2009 CPI and CPI(M) were part of left front and left front supported third front. If they are not supporting this time, then left front should be added as it has national presence. So we will be left out with BSP, I don't know why BSP is considered as a national party! Shriram^Talk 06:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Shriram agreed. As there is no third front this time, or may be formed later, so left parties and BSP (as it is a national party) can be added to the infobox. Regarding BSP as a national party: if a party is a state party in 4+ states, then automatically it will become a national party as clearly specified on ECI website, and BSP clearly follows this criteria and hence listed as national party by ECI. Logical1004 (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

So it should UPA, NDA, LF and BSP. Shriram^Talk 07:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Logical1004 (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Support the inclusion of the Left as a viable large alliance but we cant have an image as its got no leader for its campaign as a whole (we did the same in Ireland, I believe, where a blank image was put). Also oppose BSP as its undue in terms of not being the next largest. By precedent we then go to number of seats. I believe, TMC is next (and will be, in all likelihood, AIADMK after this election)Lihaas (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Remove Janmejai (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

We dont vote count, if you want it removed you need a reasonLihaas (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Remove The Userbox has to be removed. As of now , two leaders Rahul Gandhi and Narendra Modi are shown in User Box stating reasons like:

a. They are the biggest parties, Ruling parties and opposition b. As per the election polls, they are shown as leading ones and such excuses.

Until the elections are over, every one has to be considered equally. Highlighting leaders photos in a page in wikipedia creates wrong impression on people's mind and give importance to two parties alone. So either include all parties or keep none. I will opt for keeping none. Remove all Users

Thanks Soorej Soorejmg (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You know any other candidates for Prime minister? Other than these 2. Delibzr (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Too much detail about parties and campaign

There is a separate page about campaigns please remove some of the detail, just include the major issues campaigned for by each party and the members of each alliances, there is no need for every single detail of the campaign by every party on the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amalt995 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed and were coming to discussion on what to remove. EVERYONE agrees there is content needed to be removed.Lihaas (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think someone had trimmed it in past but it looks like its reverted. Trim it. Its too long and complex.. And too many quotes.. Its discussed above in Wiki not change log -Nizil (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Ya, weve all agreed to that and were making progress there. I just issue with a few things...quotes can be unanimously trimmed.(Lihaas (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)).

I agree as well, too much information about BJP in 'Parties and alliances' section. Why is there a BJP leadership picture it can be considered as influencing. To be fair to other national parties (irrespective of the number of candidates), this page should also include other Party (similar) pictures. But that is not what this page is for, I would rather suggest deleting the BJP party picture than including other party pics. --Nasheedaanjum (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Cross/Tick progress

As election progresses, i have changed Y and N with bgcolors.. And also included "ongoing" colour also. Tick/cross look horrible.. Like something yes/no.. Colors are better and smooth.. Is it ok? Nizil (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Well we used it in UP election. But that's fine. You've solved the issue of a colour code, I think we precludesd that but its fine.

And thanks for coming here to say it even though you were in your right to be BOLD(Lihaas (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)).

Resolved

Lihaas (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2014

Lal Muni Choubey from Bihar ( Buxar seat) has opted out. 14.140.201.2 (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or removed from, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2014

P Chidambaram | Sivaganga | Gave the ticket to his son Karti Chidambaram Harin Pathak | Ahmedabad East| Controversy - BJP chose to field actor Paresh Rawal Lalji Tandon | Lucknow | Rajnath Singh, BJP president replaced him 14.140.116.135 (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or removed from, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Trimmed + Copyediting

I am copyediting and trimming parties and alliances section. I will change tense of sentences as polling have started. Will going to removed opinions and quotes not adding substantial info. Last time when I copyedited it, someone restored it to old version. We need to trim it a lot as its biased in many places and have a lot of info which add nothing useful to article about election. Discuss if you find anything worth keeping/ not keeping before restoring to old version. We need to do a lot of work. Regards, Nizil (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Ttheres a discussion above that entails moving this altogether to the campaigning section. As for removing only the tirimming quotes has unanimous consent. The rest ive asked to discuss it piecemeal, please discuss that there before doing this.

Good start on the trimming, theres more quotes to cut.Lihaas (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Remove crores and lakhs

Hi,

This article uses the words "crores" and "lakh". They are easily understood by Indians, but people who want to know about these elections and who aren't used to Indian English will have hard time converting from "81.45 crore" to "814.5 millions".

Using "crores" and "lakhs" is specifically discouraged in the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style, see WP:MOS#Opportunities_for_commonality.

I am replacing these words with the common international English words. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Tthere is also ENGVAR that discusses this, plus there is a wikilink to resolve the conflict.Lihaas (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Huh? WP:MOS#Opportunities_for_commonality says very clearly: "tens of millions" is preferable to crore. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"often preferable " doesn't mean its generally the ruleLihaas (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Look, it's a number. "Millions" is an international word. "Crore" and "Lakh" are completely meaningless to people who aren't Indians. To non-Indians it sounds like a name of a thing, not like a number. A link doesn't help much.

People outside of India want to read this article and to understand it. Forcing them to convert these words is very hard. There is no reason to prefer "crores" here. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

ENGVAR is a reason to do so. The wikilink is there.

There is also a convert formula that automativcally converts it (I don't know how it works though)Lihaas (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

We are going in circles. ENGVAR, as I already wrote, generally says that no regional variety is preferred, and you are preferring the Indian variety. A paragraph right after it says that "tens of millions" is preferable to crore. So why do we still have crores? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Because as you say this says non preferred the other is also vague and needs consensus.Lihaas (talk) 01:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

INR 3.05 thousand crores in USD

The articles says: ₹ 3.05 thousand crores (about US$5 billion).

I am not exceptionally good with numbers and I have relatively little experience with Indian English, but it looks like a mistake. Correct me if my calculation are wrong:

• Crore is 10,000,000.
• Thousand crores is 10,000,000,000.
• 3.05 thousand crores is 30,500,000,000.
• Googling for "30,500,000,000 inr in usd" gives "506,849,000".
• 506,849,000 is US$500 million, not US$billion.

Again, am I wrong? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You are right Amir E. Aharoni, the amount has been miscalculated, It needs to be changed.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

Lihaas (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

April 10 turnout in Sameli in Dantewada in Phase 3 - 10 April

The paragraph on Sameli places too much emphasis on a small voting booth in a small district. Sameli voting booth represents less than 0.01% of the 110 million people who were eligible to vote on April 10. Yet the Sameli para now dominates that subsection. Such undue and over-weight inclusion of fringe incidents/boycott is inappropriate. This para sourced from Al Jazeera should be deleted. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not undue weight, because it is highlighting a notable event. If you want it to be deleted you should propose some new edition. Delibzr (talk) 05:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is it notable? Why give so much weight to what happened among a few dozen people in the morning on a day when 110 million people who were eligible to vote on that day? Even in Sameli, which I just read at Election Commission of India website to be a tiny village and part of Bastar voting constituency, 52% ultimately voted on April 10 2014. The current Sameli summary is not only undue, it misleads the reader. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Irregular incidents are notable and not undue simply tdue to the fact that it is iregular. If other such incidents were reported then they should be listed. its just that there is no report of it.Lihaas (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that irregular incidents are supposed to be notable, but the irregularities should be considered in a broader perspective for such a large activity. There was violence noted in some constituencies of Bihar, jharkand and chattisgarh as per this I recommend changing this sentence to read something in the lines of - Voting was hit by violence in some constituencies of Bihar, Jharkand and Chattisgarh. And probably use the above link as reference.  A m i t  웃   20:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Minor irregular incidents are neither notable nor significant. Of particular concern is these quotes from one or more politician(s) and balance/NPOV. This is an overview article. Such quotes reek of advocacy. See WP:WWIN. I have moved it into a subsection Irregular incidents. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Olease get consensus here. Three others are in favour of having this in. All have said it is not undue except yuouLihaas (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't read support for that quote above by anyone except you - the quote reeks of advocacy. On consensus, see guidelines at WP:PNSD. Another wiki editor removed that quote here, you put it back. Why include it? Read WP:OWN. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2014

Add a field in schedule for remaining constituencies in a state and also change box color of states where polling is done like the colors for polling dates. thank You 59.145.160.162 (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by the first part. Its kinda incluyded in the process field which shows what is still due to come./

second is a good idea.Lihaas (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done(Lihaas (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)).

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2014

The key issues of the Indian Election of 2014 should include the following,

 - Corruption 
 - Lack of Governence, caused by coalition politics, extra constitutional bodies/individuals weakening the PM 
 - Dynastic politics ( mainly the Gandhi family) 

The article describes Telengana as a key point but the Telangana issue affects only the state of Andhra Pradesh and is local to that. It is misleading to state that as a country-wide issue.

Krishsub2011 (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source highlighting the issues you mention?

As for Telegana, yes we can move it from "key" issues, to a more generic "other" issues or something. Although the POV arises as to how to define what "key" is. Maybe "national" issues vs. regional ones.Lihaas (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Phase Colour

The colours in schedule section (here,[6] ) are put up to relate to the map so as to understand polling dates. -Khushank94 (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Either way, its fine. All the variations. Its only temporary till the election is over.

Btw- kudos for bringing it to talke.(Lihaas (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)).

Bright colors

The present colors used are too bright. Especially blue state names on red color background (polling to be held) boxes. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 09:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

A relevent disscusion was started in above section and the edit was reverted but nevertheless as requested it has been diluted -Khushank94 (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2014

The 6th phase of polling has started, please mark it 'In Progress' Msharsha82 (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

""

Resolved

Lihaas (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2014

"Important issues during the campaign included rising prices, corruption, the economy, security, infrastructure such as roads, electricity and water. In a survey[by whom?] for about 14% of people corruption is the main issue of the election."

The survey is done by Zee News. The article says [by who?] message. Source: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-price-rise-is-the-key-issue-in-lok-sabha-election-2014-zee-news-taleem-pre-poll-survey-1969117 Pushingatoms (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Pushingatoms (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

 DoneLihaas (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Ping Lihaas - Hello, please consider marking requests answered by changing "no" to "yes" in {{edit semi-protected}} form. You may find {{ESp}} template helpful while answering semi-protected edit requests. Cheers! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Overly detailed

Please stop removing {{overly detailed}} from the article without resolving the concerns mentioned above. This article is in a bad shape, with incoherent flow and unencyclopedic content such as random quotes (~40 quotes). utcursch | talk 19:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The number of quotes has actually increased since I last raised this concern. Now, the article has ~50 quotations (this is without counting 1-2 words in quotes such as "secular"). Also, the overly-detailed issue is not limited to the NDA & UPA campaigning section - as pointed out earlier, Background, Telangana, AAP and other sections also suffer from this problem. utcursch | talk 20:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you be bold and remove some? Might start the discussion off, if nothing else. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I did. Lihaas reverted my edits citing WP:BRD. There is a thread above, where multiple editors (except Lihaas) have agreed my edits. However, Lihaas has undid the changes twice, and insists that we need "consensus". utcursch | talk 21:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

How is it overly detailed when compared to 2008 US Elections ? Are we applying different standards here ? The lack of coherence or unencyclopedic content do not warrant a {{overly detailed}}, and the details are much lesser than the link mentioned above. Engine Gone Loco (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thats rubbish! You giving examples of other article. Read WP:Other stuff exists. We can also say that its overly detailed as compared to Indian general election, 1951; and comparing it with Indian article is more logical than American one. The crux is; dont compare. I agree that its overly detailed and am simply gonna be bold and cut a lot of chunks off. We already have separate articles of campaining and party wise campaining as well. That should be chopped off from here. Also alliances section is being a dumping ground to write almost everything any party is doing these days. Chop chop! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Go for it. Might take a few swings with the keyboard myself. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is and Indian article if only that is a relevant comparison. and it relates to the last elections, so doubly relevant- 2009. The key is If it is sourced and relevant to the elections do not chop it out, reword what is not coherent, most of what is present is relevant. This is a discussion on an article so no need for "rubbishing" others just because they have a different POV, this is not a fight. If the desire to chop is so strong, please try your luck on the US election page I have given above and see the response you get. Engine Gone Loco (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Once again, you'd be well served by reading WP:OSE. Dharmadhyaksha is not disputing the notability of the stuff here; he is saying they don't deserve to be in this article. We need to ensure the article is readable as well as conforming to our other policies. Several hundred newspapers, tv channels, and magazines publish "notable" stuff every day; we cannot, obviously, include all of that. The option of creating a more specific, more detailed article always exists. Many such articles already do exist. tldr, the article is too long to be readable, and needs pruning. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Dharamadhyaksha did make some comments about Indian articles being more relevant, so showed him more relevant stuff. What would be helpful here is rather than making generic statements about article being too long, if editors could give specifics it would help the article and all editors. For Instance in the Organisation section the first two sub heads "Use of Technology" and "Changes" do not need to be subheads but need to be consolidated into a statement or two, that are not in the beginning of this section, further the "Campaigns and Issues" section under the BJP is too long and detailed and needs to be crisper. These are my own observations- and there can be more- but I still hold on the the beleif that the article is not too detailed- certain sections need improvement- including being more concise. But this is a wrong tag. Engine Gone Loco (talk) 06:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I think at this point those are minor differences. Everybody agrees that there is a lot of stuff that can be removed; let's prune some (with discussion, of course) then the general tag can be removed and section ones added, if need be. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Have done some changes- please help with tackling the Campaigns and issues section of BJP that is too long. Engine Gone Loco (talk) 06:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. By "overly detailed", I don't mean "The article size is too large". For all I care, it can be larger than than United States presidential election, 2008. The point is that there is too much irrelevant content, undue emphasis on certain points. For example, look at the Telangana section: why do we need a 5-sentence quotation from Prakash Javadekar? How is the "Men-ifesto" bit important enough for this article? What's the point of mentioning that the region might turn into a hotbed for Maoist activities? utcursch | talk 13:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Removed all that from Telangana section and hence removed the maintenance tag too. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Reactions section

The "Reactions" section suffers from the usual problems. Generic quotes like "fascinating moment in democracy" or "pretty damn colorful" are not necessary. Things like "awash in illegal cash, serious violence and dirty tricks" should be mentioned in a separate section that lists concerns about the elections. "Reactions" of tabloids or gossip sites like Indiatimes are entirely avoidable. utcursch | talk 13:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)