Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Request for comment (RFC): Chronological order of election polling

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should election (or other opinion polls, for that matter), be listed in forward-chronological (oldest at top to most recent at bottom) or reverse-chronological order?—GoldRingChip 01:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support, per WP:SALORDER. WP is an encyclopedia and therefore historical in scope. It is not a newspaper or a blog.—GoldRingChip 01:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support, as per WP:SALORDER. In addition, most of these tables either are sortable, or can be made sortable, so there is no justification for violating WP:SALORDER in the pristine versions of the tables. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• @GoldRingChip and IJBall: The RfC (as of this timestamp, anyway) is not asking a yes/no question but an either/or one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Does this matter? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

    Obviously "yes", or I wouldn't have mentioned it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks for letting us know. I don't think it's a problem, though.—GoldRingChip 12:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Forward, per WP:SALORDER. While exceptions can be made, they're rare, temporary, and based on maintainability concerns at very long pages.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Reverse-chronological order (or case-by-case basis at most), as per Mélencron and other reasons discussed below. Impru20 (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Reverse-chronological order, as it allows readers to see the most recent information first, and for most casual readers that's what they will be seeking. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose any decision that would determine ordering of opinion polls for the reasons detailed in the discussion below this survey. Mélencron (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
• Reverse-chronological order per how election polls are presented normally (e.g. here or here). Applying a guideline which was not developed with this specific listing in mind seems unhelpful. Number 57 22:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• No particular view, but it seems something that should approached and decided upon on a case-by-case basis. The usefulness of listing opinion polls in reverse order is twofold: one, for in the months before an election for people to be able to find the most recent polls more easily. The second reason, however, is because opinion polls closer to an election are simply of much greater greater relative importance than those longer from an election, something which WP:SALORDER can't account for; i.e., comparing the relative accuracy of the final polls, rather than the polls for an election that were conducted four or five years out. I'd also suggest that readers are perfectly capable of accessing the end of the table and going in reverse order if they so desire, but to do so is significantly less common, even when looking at historical polling (at least in my case – though again, I'm the kind of person who's looked up opinion polls enough times on Wikipedia to think so). There's an obvious solution that accommodates both approaches, which is to make polling tables sortable, but unfortunately that rarely actually happens, as most editors don't know about "data-sort-value" (which was only implemented relatively recently, as far as I know) and as such it's rarely used where appropriate. Mélencron (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Re IJBall: most of these tables either are sortable, or can be made sortable – the prior isn't the case (most, especially in U.S. articles, aren't) and the latter can't be down with considerable effort (that's talking setting "data-sort-value" for polls across hundreds of U.S. articles alone of various obscurity); it's made more difficult when the tables use date ranges in particular, which often aren't in the same format or organized in the same way (compare Greece, Israel, Finland, Turkey, and Ukraine, for instance – wildly inconsistent in formatting so it isn't something that can be done overnight.) There's 179 separate opinion polling articles and hundreds of articles including polling tables, and I don't see why a consensus on this should be determined on a project-wide basis as as opposed to a case-by-case basis where appropriate.

Also, maybe it's just me, but I'm used to reading polls in antichronological order – it's the way it's done everywhere outside of Wikipedia wherever you find poll aggregation or lists of polls: HuffPost Pollster (sadly now mostly inactive due to staff cuts), RealClearPolitics, and FiveThirtyEight; on Wahlrecht.de (Germany) or neuwal.com (Austria), so I'm not sure why Wikipedia should be different in this regard. Is it unreasonable to think that more recent data is more pertinent to particular elections (say, data from 2017 for an election in 2017 as opposed to seeing data from 2012 first)? I lean against a change to chronological order, but I'm not voting because I think that a project-wide RfC is inappropriate since such a change would be a considerable logistical challenge (to either reorder tables or also make them sortable). Mélencron (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Well, SALORDER is not something that should be ignored on a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS basis. More importantly, this is really more about establishing the proper way to handle this going forward. I don't think GoldRingChip or I expect people to go back and "fix" many old articles that don't follow SALORDER, though if this RfC passes, nobody should oppose that happening either. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• SALORDER is a guideline, not a policy – one can make reasonable exceptions regardless of it and doesn't necessarily have to strictly adhere to it in certain cases, and I believe this is one such case. I'm of the opinion that it's reasonable to display opinion polling in antichronological order; a similar exception was made on the French Wikipedia earlier this year with a similar reasoning to what I gave (recency is pertinent to elections, so the polls closer to the date of an election are of greater relative importance). Even when viewing polling data well after an election, antichronological order makes sense since it shows the results closest to that election, not the previous one – and to me, I don't see the point of seeing polling data in chronological order from 2012 to 2017 on an article on the 2017 election. That's my take. Mélencron (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• See GoldRingChip's !vote – it perfect encapsulates my feelings on the issue as well. If people feel there is such value in seeing these in reverse chronological order, then there is an option for that: sortable tables. But, failing that, there is not a compelling reason to not follow SALORDER. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Same, but insert four letters before "chronological". Of the 28 national elections that have taken place so far this year for which opinion polls have been conducted and listed on Wikipedia, 23 have listed in antichronological order compared to only 5 in chronological order. Furthermore, all 27 of 27 opinion polling articles for future elections are ordered antichronologically. At least in the case of election polling, it's clearly more logical to list them antichronologically. SALORDER isn't a particularly challenge to this for any reason other than "it's a Wikipedia guideline" (which, in any case, is neither binding or universal). Mélencron (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Mélencron talks sense, as usual! Key points I agree on: (a) there are problems with making these tables sortable; (b) the reality is that they are nearly all antichronological at present; (c) that is what reliable sources do; (d) SALORDER is a guideline and exceptions are allowed. That said, I am wary of LOCALCONSENSUS and we should try to follow guidelines, as per IJBall.

I note that SALORDER says, "Special cases which specifically require frequent daily additions, such as Deaths in 2017, may use reverse chronological order for temporary convenience, although these articles should revert to non-reverse order when the article has stabilized, such as Deaths in 2003." Opinion polling for future elections (at least, elections that are fairly soon) would appear to fall under that clause. I am tempted to suggest that we stick with antichronological for forthcoming elections, but try to switch to chronological order once an election is in the past. That seems to me to stick to SALORDER closely enough. I realise, however, that the reality is that it seems unlikely that editors are going to go through past articles to 'fix' them. Bondegezou (talk) 10:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Would anti-chronological before the election and chronological after make sense? Too much work? After the election the polls would be historical not looked at as news.--BoogaLouie (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd be OK with this as a compromise, though I still am unclear on why sortability for these tables (going forward) is such an issue – template {{dts}} was created for exactly this (apparent) issue (that, or use of the aforementioned "data-sort-value" in tables...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I have no particular interest in this, but users like @Impru20, Timeshift9, Clesam11, Ron 1987, Nub Cake, and FriendlyDataNerdV2: etc might want to input as they seem to do a fair amount on opinion polling. One thing I would say is that if antichronolgical order is the standard method of presenting opinion polls in the real world, that that's what we should be doing here, regardless of a policy that has been developed without this in mind. Number 57 10:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• I essentially agree with Mélencron's points. I actually find the SALORDER policy a bit confounding, given that it doesn't give an explanation as to why lists should aim for chronological ordering. Clesam11 (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Agreeing with Mélencron's points. SALORDER is not an actual policy but more of a guideline, plus the fact that the only reasoning being brought forward for its enforcement is that "it's a policy and it must be applied". Look, WP:IGNORE is an actual policy. In the unlikely scenario where we actually acknowledged SALORDER as an actual policy, reasons for listing opinion polls anti-chronologically have been explained and detailed, and they're all reasonable and logical. The claim for applying SALORDER seems to be just that "it must be done like it because it says it". So, I not only agree with all the reasons for using anti-chronoliogical lists for opinion polling articles–which do clearly improve reading and help readers in that most recent polls (which are arguably the most important ones as those are the nearest to the election date) are placed first–but I also add a new one, which is that "if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it". Impru20 (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Except not one of you has dealt with the issue of sortable tables, which would allow SALORDER to be followed, while still giving people access to reverse-chrono order listings... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I thought someone had already explained that making these tables sortable would mean a titanic effort (creating some other issues along the way, as I've seen in the few opinion polling articles using sortable tables), as well as the fact that these tables are not usually made sortable in most cases. We have also the fact of (reliable) sources using reverse-chrono order listings for opinion polling lists, so it's not that it's us alone that think it should be done this way. Maybe you could explain why is the application of SALORDER so badly needed (given that it's not a policy, that it also speaks of "should" and not "must", that it provides exceptions may exist and that no reason other than applying it for the sake of it is argued, against many reasons argued against it) so as to require any of us to take on such an enormous task, which involves having to manually apply "data-sort-value" or whatever other template individually over hundreds (if not thousands in some cases) of opinion poll entries per article, over hundreds of such articles in Wikipedia. Impru20 (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Impru20 and Clesam11: Perhaps worth noting that if you are against it, there is a !vote section above (this is an RfC). Number 57 14:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

And, again, this is more about how these tables should be done, going forward, and much less about "fixing" old tables (though that should be allowed too, should some editors want to undertake that...). I have yet to hear of anything that would make formatting these table as sortable to be too great a technical challenge from this point on. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the tag, @Number 57:. I think we should order tables with most recent polls first, quite simply because most readers come to Wikipedia seeking the most recent information, especially on current elections. It's how such tables are presented in the real world because it's the most recent information. It's the most common sense thing to do in my view and I'd be strongly against changing it. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not a "news" wesbite – it's a historical record of events (which is why SALORDER exists). User:BoogaLouie's suggestion up-thread would be acceptable as a compromise, by GoldRingChip's overall point above is valid, especially for organizing these polling pages, post-elections. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The historical order of opinion polls does tend to be in reverse order, however – as I've mentioned above, outside of Wikipedia, other places where opinion polls are aggregated list them in reverse order. SALORDER isn't a compelling argument here other than for the apparent need to comply by a guideline, which, in any case, can be reasonably ignored. Mélencron (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

And, yet, I still don't see how sortable tables doesn't just solve both problems – then tables can default to SALORDER, but can easily be sorted in reverse-chrono. I have yet to see anyone explain why we shouldn't just do this, as it solves all the issues. I'm really not trying to be difficult here – making these sortable tables, from henceforth, really is the best answer. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not if the default set-up is chronological. If they were sortable with the default being reverse-chronological, very well. I've not seen any other suggestions that this is an issue, I'm surprised it's suddenly become one. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not an issue to the small set of WP:WPE&R "regular" editors. But it is an issue to the wider set of editors who aren't WP:WPE&R "regulars" or election junkies. This is a common issue – a specific wikiproject develops a set of "standard practices" that are at odds with the wider En Wikipedia community. This isn't the first example of this, and it won't be the last. (P.S. Going to a standard practice of sortable tables, defaulted to reverse-chrono order, would be better than nothing IMO, but it still would not be my preferred outcome here, as I'd rather we stick to SALORDER, esp. post-elections...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

How has WP:NOTNEWS any relation to the fact that placing most recent opinion polls first is more useful to readers? Opinion polls are pollsters' predictions of what the next election results are going to be. An opinion poll released 10 days ahead the election is going to be much more relevant than one conducted three years previously. Always, in every country you may think of. For the simple reason that opinion polls are meant to predict an election result, and predictions released closer to such an election have much more media prominence and relevance than those conducted farther away in time. The historical order of opinion polls is shown reverse-chronologically by reliable sources; what's the issue of us doing exactly that? Impru20 (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

If your only metric is the ultimate election result, then you may have a point. If, however, you're using opinion polls to gauge party support over time (which is more likely to be one of the aims of a "historically-minded" encyclopedia like this one), then putting the polling results in forward chronological order has more historical value. I mean, otherwise, why don't we put the polling figures/graphs at these articles in reverse chronological order as well?! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I mean, otherwise, why don't we put the polling figures/graphs at these articles in reverse chronological order as well?!

Charts/graphs are horizontal. Tables are vertical. Gauging party support over time is done equally with both a forward-chronological order and a reverse-chronological order when put vertically, but it may indeed cause some issues when done horizontally. Nonetheless, horizontal charts/graphs have nothing to do with SALORDER, so I don't know what connection does it have to this.

This is not a matter of people preferring anti-chronological order for opinion polling tables for the sake of it, but because it serves a purpose, and because it's what reliable sources usually do as well. I still have yet to see what is the purpose of trying to enforce a non-policy such as SALORDER for opinion polling tables other than doing it because, somehow, it "must be done so". Impru20 (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

And I'm still back to why can't we just make the tables sortable, so we can follow SALORDER and allow for reverse-chrono. listing for anyone that wants it as well? It's the best of both worlds. Bottom line: Even if reverse-chrono. ordering is kept, these tables should be made sortable from now on, for anyone who wants to check chronological ordering in either direction. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

You were already replied on this several times by several users.

such a change would be a considerable logistical challenge (Mélencron)

the reality is that it seems unlikely that editors are going to go through past articles to 'fix' them (Bondegezou)

making these tables sortable would mean a titanic effort (Myself)

And also this: There's 179 separate opinion polling articles and hundreds of articles including polling tables, and I don't see why a consensus on this should be determined on a project-wide basis as as opposed to a case-by-case basis where appropriate (Mélencron)

I'll try to explain it again in a detailed way. In order to make these tables sortable, you'll be required to

1. Manually apply "data-sort-value" or whatever other template individually over hundreds (if not thousands, in some cases) of opinion poll entries per article
2. Do that over hundreds of such articles throughout Wikipedia
3. Then making sure such a change is done properly without causing serious issues to the way opinion polling tables work, because otherwise you would require to re-edit all of these again
4. And I don't see you offering yourself to try to accomplish such an enormous task, so I fear this will end up being tasked to those who–like me–do frequently edit and keep these pages up to date. Specially if this is intended to be imposed through a RfC instead of done in a case-by-case basis

And if there was any urgent, relevant and/or useful reason to merit such a titanic effort, then I'd say "well, go ahead". But from the beginning I'm seeing no reason other than arguing that SALORDER must be applied to those for the sake of it, when it is not even a Wikipedia policy or a compulsory and unavoidable guideline. Impru20 (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

You keep ignoring the fact that on multiple occasions in this thread, I have made it clear that I am not advocating that "old" articles be fixed. What I am saying is that all such tables from this point forward should be made sortable. Yes? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Two thoughts... If tables can be made sortable on date, then that would be a good thing. I realise that is difficult and there are many articles to cover, but if someone wants to do it, then let them do it. As for what reliable sources do, most reliable sources covering current politics use reverse chronological, but chronological is used, and I think is more common, for academic, historical papers. Bondegezou (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Two-round policy for Presidential articles

So far, there is consensus to remove every candidate who didn't ascend to the second round of a two-round election from the Wikibox. While I guess such a thing makes sense in America, where the Presidential elections are a two-horse race where the Green and Libertarian parties don't really matter, thre US doesn't use a two-round system, and in many countries that do, the Presidential election is not a two-horse race and both rounds actually matter - the French presidential election, 2017's first round, for example, had four major candidates (Macron, Melenchon, Le Pen and Fillion), yet only Macron and Le Pen, who went to the second round, are listed.

So, if Irish presidential election articles get to show both the first preference votes and the votes after all transfers for all candidates, shouldn't the Presidential election articles in, say, Ukraine or Chile show all candidates with both first and second round results? I mean, | states_carried = is its own parameter, yet it's only relevant to presidential elections in the US, Kenya, Nigeria and Indonesia, while something relevant to two-thirds of all direct presidential elections isn't even icluded in the wikibox!

It's improtant to note that I don't mean the rare two round legislative elections, such as those of the Czech Senate, should have both rounds. Only that two round presidential elections, which are ridculously common, should.

Glide08 (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Hello Glide08 -- While I agree with your sentiment to include candidates in the first round of two-round elections, I believe that your characterization of American elections suffers from a fundamental ignorance of how they work. You assert that Green and Libertarian parties don't matter. In the United States Congress, that was the plan of the founders. A two-party system is the inevitable result of an election scheme that selects a single delegate for each area. Without the support of a national organization and congresspeople, Green and Libertarian candidates struggle to get votes. They do count in presidential elections. In 1992, Ross Perot took 18.9% of the popular vote. In 2000, Ralph Nader took 2.7% of the vote in a race that had the two major parties' candidates separated by a half of one percent.

You dismiss the primary process in the United States. While it is true that the big race in November is between two, the primaries start with dozens in the fray. That is the analog of first-round elections in other countries. Rhadow (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Huh, sorry for that. Do you think this turns people off from my Idea? Glide08 (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm in favor of including multiple candidates within the infobox in two-round elections, but it's a somewhat well-established precedent at this point. (In some cases, I think it's an absolute necessity, as with French legislative election, 2017, however; in those cases one can just add the necessary infobox parameters.) Mélencron (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, want to help me change it? :) Glide08 (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'm strongly against changing the status quo on this. It will only lead to additional complexity in infoboxes that are supposed to be simple summaries. And I suspect it will also lead to a lot of edit warring over which first round candidates should be included). The only way I can see this working is if a new infobox is created that organises the information in a different way to {{Infobox election}} as we did with the {{Infobox legislative election}}. Number 57 17:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm strongly against changing the status quo on this. It will only lead to additional complexity in infoboxes that are supposed to be simple summaries.

They'll remain simple. Now they're simple yet incomplete. I'm not saying anything about legislative election infoboxes, Number 57. Legislative election infoboxes can stay as-is - this is about presidential ones.

And I suspect it will also lead to a lot of edit warring over which first round candidates should be included.

Same ones that were included between the first and second rounds. Problem - solved.

The only way I can see this working is if a new infobox is created that organises the information in a different way to {{Infobox election}} as we did with the {{Infobox legislative election}}.

There's no need to - as I said, there's already a parameter for | states_carried =, which is only relevant to presidential elections in the US, Kenya, Nigeria and Indonesia. It's not that much of a stretch to add | popular_vote_firstround = and | percentage_firstround =., and the London mayoral election articles are a precedent for what a two round election wikibox containing both rounds may look like - they include both the first and second rounds (of a supplementary vote, but it's close enough to true 2RV to count).

Glide08 (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

(a) Trying to include more candidates and more data will inevitably make the infobox less simple and comprehensible

(b) You've misunderstood my comment about legislative elections. I was just citing that as an example of where we developed a new infobox better suited to displaying the information.

(c) Currently we only include the top two candidates between the first and second rounds. Your suggestion seems to be to include them all (which in some cases can be over 10)

(d) As I commented in the discussion at the election infobox template, I don't that is necessary. Also not sure why that discussion is now being duplicated here? Number 57 17:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

(a) Well, not include them all. Only the ones that appear pre-first round.

(d) Because, Number 57, if this is acceptable:

Actual Wikibox from ''London mayoral election, 2016'' London mayoral election, 2016 5 May 2016 Turnout 45.3% 7.2 pp   Candidate Sadiq Khan Zac Goldsmith Siân Berry Party Labour Conservative Green 1st Round vote 1,148,716 909,755 150,673 Percentage 44.2% 35.0% 5.8% 2nd Round vote 1,310,143 994,614 Eliminated Percentage 56.8% 43.2% Eliminated Result of voting by London borough. Red boroughs are those with a plurality of (first-preference) votes for Sadiq Khan and blue are those with a plurality for Zac Goldsmith. Mayor before election Boris Johnson Conservative Elected Mayor Sadiq Khan Labour

Shouldn't this be too?

French presidential election, 2017 23 April 2017 (first round) 7 May 2017 (second round)   Nominee Emmanuel Macron Marine Le Pen François Fillon Party EM FN LR 1st Round vote 8,656,346 7,678,491 7,212,995 Percentage 24.0% 21.3% 20.0% 2nd Round vote 20,743,128 10,638,475 Eliminated Percentage 66.1% 33.9% Eliminated   Nominee Jean-Luc Mélenchon Benoît Hamon Party LFI PS 1st Round vote 7,059,951 2,291,288 Percentage 19.6% 6.4% 2nd Round vote Eliminated Eliminated Percentage Eliminated Eliminated Results of the second round by department   Emmanuel Macron   Marine Le Pen President before election François Hollande PS Elected President Emmanuel Macron EM

Glide08 (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

These are two different electoral systens. London mayoral elections are done in one round of voting using second preferences. Even then, I don't really see why Sian Berry should be included. I guess it's because in some ways it's a one round election and she crossed the 5% threshold usually used to decide whether candidates should be included (also IMO if it's a clear two horse race and decided in one round, third or fourth candidates should be omitted). Number 57 18:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The dirrefence between the London system and proper two-round is the same as the difference between Instant runoff and exhaustive ballot - which is one takes place with ranked ballots on the sname day, the other takes place with bullet ballots on different days. Glide08 (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

STV and IRV

Here is a true thing: transferable vote is a redirect to instant-runoff voting, which asserts that IRV is sometimes called transferable vote. Transferable vote system redirects to single transferable vote, which asserts in its lead "STV is the system of choice of groups such as ... FairVote in the USA (which refers to both STV and instant-runoff voting as ranked choice voting, although there are other preferential voting methods that use ranked-choice ballots)" (citations omitted). The bolding on "ranked choice voting" suggests that it is a redirect to STV, but in fact it is a redirect to IRV. Meanwhile, the link to "preferential voting" is actually a pipe to ranked voting system, which begins "Preferential voting or ranked-choice voting describes ...." (Aside: the use of the verb "describes" here is problematic, the article should be about the referent, not the descriptor.) I can't decide if the situation here is that there are too many articles or too few, but in any case the system of redirects, bolding, and leads seems very problematic. --JBL (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, also, there is ranked voting. And preferential voting is a disambiguation page. --JBL (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting#United States election stub sorting by state|Who wants to help Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting sort some American election stubs?]]

No, I'm not in either WikiProject. I'm just tired of doing all of these monotonous edits by myself, manually, without a script because I don't know how to write one. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 19:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Notification of discussion which may be interest to users

There is currently a discussion regarding they layout of Scottish parliamentary constituency articles here. It relates to how seats are presented after boundary changes and if every election of a member should be included and if their picture should be included. Sport and politics (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

You, here, are getting blamed for changing the TRUTH to false information.

A wikipedia page for a special election for US Congress with three candidates on the ballot is being repeatedly altered to EXCLUDE the third party option, and the blame is being shifted to this community. Do you want to own the FALSE TESTIMONY? I don't!

What is next? Should no nation gets to send any athletes to the Olympic Games unless it has earned 5% of the gold medals in the past Olympic Games?

The threshold to meet is getting onto the official ballot. Once the ballot is set, then history is written. When the vote totals come after the election, another chapter of history gets written.

There is no sense in any 5% rule in advance of voter decisions being made. No crystal ball exists to predict the future. The purpose of democracy is prevent the majority from crushing, stealing, and causing genocide to the minority, not perpetuate it.

I've been a wikipedia editor since its launch. In political circles, I put forth a ballot referendum in my city in November 2017, and it got 73%, more than 32,000 votes YES to change the city's charter. This is the same area where I've stood for office on multiple occasions. I've never seen a more shameful acts of bad behavior in the squashing of the Libertarian's appearance on the page for the Special Election for US Congress 18. I put his name and photo in the info box 23 January, 2018 -- and the battle wages on.

Not in my name!

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania%27s_18th_congressional_district_special_election,_2018
• Drew Gray Miller should be in that info box and that page needs to reflect the actual ballot before the voters.

Rauterkus (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you specifically talking about the candidate's non-inclusion in the infobox? An infobox is a short summary of the article. Details of the candidate are in the main body of the article. Bondegezou (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Election box for Labour (Momentum) UK

I've created an election box for Momentum, for use when candidates are definitely known, e.g.

• Williams, Jennifer (16 November 2017). "'A decade-long fight for the soul of the Labour party' - how Momentum are gaining ground in Manchester". Manchester Evening News. Retrieved 22 February 2018.

Details are here, and an example of it in use can be seen here. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is currently taking place about this election box here. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion/exclusion of elections from a template

Lmmhnh and myself have been having a rather circular discussion about whether the referendum and sanitary board elections should be removed from {{Hong Kong elections}}. The main thrust of the argument is around whether elections at a time when there was a very limited franchise should be included on the template. I won't repeat the arguments for/against that have been made so far, but just invite further input (probably best to continue it here). Cheers, Number 57 14:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Double checking an article I made

Hey y'all-- I created an article for Ileana Ros-Lehtinen's first special election at Florida's 18th congressional district special election, 1989, found a bunch of sources and stuff but I have no idea if this thing's formatted according to the standards here. If someone could take a gander that'd be great. I'd also love to get an official photo of her from then along with Gerald Richman, but I'm not sure where I could pull that easily. Thanks in advance! Nomader (talk) 07:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

RFC - Infoboxes and Third Parties who may have been a spoiler

This is the second of two RFCs intended to supplement, not change, the RFC on the 5% threshold we discussed last year. The eariler RFC did not consider the specific scenario in which a third party who does not receive 5% of the vote nonetheless claims enough votes that their total exceeds the difference between the two major party candidates. This question is not about mind reading. It's only about the situation when the math creates a possibility. UPDATE - This is a US-focused question. Maybe it matters elsewhere also, maybe not.

Question

Regarding the 5% threshold for inclusion in election infoboxes after an election, should an exception be created to allow the inclusion of a third party candidate whose total vote count exceeds the difference between the first and second place contenders, and may have theoretically determined the outcome due to the Spoiler effect

Options - Yes or No or (invent a new one then explain in the discussion section)

Prior discussion - I have not seen any discussion on this specific point. If you know of any, please post a link(s)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey and discussion

• Yes Because we follow the RSs and whenever the simply math works out, the RSs always discuss the possibility that the race may have been decided by the Spoiler effect NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
• No. The result of this policy is that you could get two candidates who got more than 45% of the vote in the infobox alongside a candidate who got 1% of the vote. If RSs suggest that a third candidate was a spoiler, there could be some justification for mentioning this in the text. Anywikiuser (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

So? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

So what? Anywikiuser (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

So.... in your example you imply it would be a problem if we showed the third party candidate who got a 1% vote alongside the pics of the major party candidates who each got 45% of the vote. In the prior RFC there were lots of opinions, but there weren't any reasons offered why doing this a problem. My question then is, given your example that we'd be showing a 1-percenter alongside two 45-percenters, so what? Why would that be bad, especially when their vote count prompts RSs to discuss their potentially determinative effect as a spoiler? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Because providing a neutral point of view does not mean that all candidates must be treated equally in every way possible. Giving undue weight to a cause that few support is not neutrality. If the polls, campaign spending, campaign activity, media coverage and the ultimate result are dominated by two parties or candidates, then the article should reflect that and give minor parties less prominence. Anywikiuser (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Other I think the 5% standard is far too onerous. The final vote totals in a given election are not necessarily reflective of how reliable sources cover an election. A candidate can receive few votes and have a major impact on the campaign based on a number of factors. The post-election infobox should reflect the sources, not the vote totals. Downplaying the role of those who receive relatively few votes is its own form of POV pushing, just as it is prior to the election.--TM 15:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
• No Per Anywikiuser. We can mention the spoiler effect in the article text, but including candidates who got tiny fractions of the vote in the inbox doesn't make any sense. What if its something like 2010's Illinois Senate race or governor race, where two third parties could both claim to be spoilers? We can't include only one of them, and including two parties that got like 3% of the vote would not be ideal as well. 5% is a very rational threshold to stick to. Toa Nidhiki05 16:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Like Anywikiuser you simply say it wouldn't make sense, as though it were obvious why that is so. Well, it isn't obvious why that is so. Why not? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• No. It is appropriate for the article content to discuss "spoiler" candidates or candidates notable for any reason, whatever RS deem interesting, but the infobox should summarise the election result and what matters there is the actual vote. Or else you get into messy stuff like this: Talk:New_Zealand_general_election,_2017#Sixth_Party. Bondegezou (talk) 09:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. This RFC proposes including what you call the "actual vote" claimed by a third party that was a potential spoiler. The link to the talk discussion doesn't really explain what messy thing would result from including potential spoilers in the infobox based on actual vote totals. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I mean that the "actual vote" for a candidate should determine whether they are included, not the actual vote compared to the difference between the top two parties.

Sorry, no, I didn't really explain the New Zealand case, did I?! My apologies. This is somewhat tangential, but... go to the article, New Zealand general election, 2017, and there's an infobox. There are 7 parties listed in the infobox. Let's take the 7th party listed, United Future. How do you think they did in the election? Not very well: they're only seventh in the infobox after all. But lots of small parties stand, so they must have done quite well to be included. You might think they probably did 7th best. But, no, United Future came 13th in the election. The party listed 6th came 7th, and the party that actually came 6th and those coming 8th-12th are not included. This seems to me to be completely wrong-headed, but I gave up arguing against a strong WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The argument made was that it is interesting and thus notable how United Future did because they had won a seat at the previous election, whereas the parties coming 8th-12th hadn't. In the end, the infobox syntax had to be bodged so it didn't say "Seventh party" next to a party that wasn't 7th. I may be stretching things, but I see a similar rationale behind the current proposal: a supposed spoiler candidate is interesting and thus should be in the infobox under an unobvious rule. I think this doesn't work. I think we need to keep it simple for the reader, with a straightforward cut-off (5% for a single seat seems sensible). When the reader sees a Wikipedia election infobox, they then get used to something straightforward. Having an unobvious rule confuses the reader. Bondegezou (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• No as this would arbitrarily determine whether third-party candidates are included within the infobox despite similar vote shares (e.g. Victor would be included in the 2012 AZ-Sen infobox, but other candidates with similar vote shares would be excluded under the 5% standard when the overall margin of victory is larger). Mélencron (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment We have a live case study in Pennsylvania's 18th congressional district special election, 2018. Lamb beat Saccone (well, there's still some arguing but leaving that aside) by 0.28%. A Libertarian candidate got 0.6%. Under the proposed rule, that candidate would be listed in the infobox. However, contrary to the strong claim above that "the RSs always discuss the possibility that the race may have been decided by the Spoiler effect", I'd seen nothing about this Libertarian candidate in the election coverage so far (I've not been following this election very closely, but I've been following it with some interest). If you search for the candidate's name "Drew Gray Miller", there is some coverage of him, but I wouldn't characterise it as lots. None of it has been cited in the article; there's no discussion in the article of his role as a spoiler, so it would be odd to include him in the infobox on that basis. And I would feel very odd about including someone who got 0.6% of the vote here, while excluding people with 8 times that vote in other infoboxes. Bondegezou (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, it ain't over yet and the blogs and borderline RSs are buzzing though I wouldn't want to hang our hat on those. Better RSs are likely to come when the final numbers are certified. For now, see e.g., https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/drew-miller-libertarian-spoiler-special-election_us_5aa98129e4b0600b82ffaa03 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• No The infobox should be a quick summary, and whether a third party may have affected an election is best left for the full body of the article, although it might appear higher up than the typical also-run mention at the end. The 5% remains a good threshold. The spoiler effect is debatable anyway. altjira (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the spoiler effect is not debatable among us editors because that would be WP:FORUM. All we care about (theoretically) is what's in the reliable sources. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

But the infobox is a summary, done in a somewhat consistent way across many articles, so we do have to make choices about what goes in it. Reliable sources say many things that don't get in the infobox. RSs discussed sexual misconduct allegations against Roy Moore at length, but the infobox for United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017 doesn't mention them. The question is not what do RS discuss, but what of the things RS discuss do we put in the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• No Unless that third party candidate took an active role in the race with significant relative media coverage during the campaign and followed through with a modicum of popular support, they should not be in the infobox. A race being very close between two candidates does not necessarily mean it was spoiled (i.e. those votes may have otherwise gone to the winner anyway). Reywas92^Talk 23:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

How To

I have 2 questions and I'm sure I'm in the right place:

• Are there any How To guides which describe the procedure for creating presidential election electoral college maps? i.e. the red & blue US maps.

• Are there guidelines for creating the election results boxes? I.e. the tables that candidates, party affiliation, percentage of vote, etc.

Thanks! – Lionel^(talk) 09:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Election gains and election holds

It seems to be a not uncommon in local politics to see politicans changing sides, joining and leaving different parties or political groups. I recently started an article on the Marl ward in North Wales, for example, because of its colourful history. Of the two Liberal Democrat councillors elected in May 2012, one joined Welsh Labour two years into his term of office. Therefore at the May 2017 election one seat was won by the Lib Dems and the other by Labour. This looks to me like it would be classed as a Labour gain from the Liberal Democrats, even though in actuality the two sitting councillors were re-elected.

Is this a Labour gain or a Labour hold? Sionk (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a gain. Reliable sources generally report results with respect to the previous vote, ignoring defections. Bondegezou (talk) 08:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Consensus on posting voter intention polls in election articles

I posted voter intention polls like this one, but they were removed. I thought they might be useful. I would like to have a consensus on whether they should be allowed in election articles or not. Kart2401real (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

"Inclined to re-elect" and "Not inclined to re-elect" aren't voting intention questions, which is why I removed them. Mélencron (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

"Inclined to re-elect" is just an alternate wording for the question "would you vote for". It's obviously a question of voter intentions. For example, here's the LA times using that same poll as a way to predict how people will vote. And here's the Washington Post using the phrases "inclined to vote" and "plan to vote" interchangeably. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but are you given "don't re-elect" on the ballot? I don't think so. Mélencron (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Now you're moving the goalposts. You said you removed that poll because it didn't reflect voter intentions. It does reflect voter intentions, since it's simply a question "would you vote for X, yes or no?" Now you're saying that it can't be used because ballots don't contain language of that sort (obviously not, since ballots contain a list of choices, not a yet/no question). Red Rock Canyon (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

That is not voter intention. It just asks whether voters would like to see this guy re-elected, but that is not a voter intention question (i.e. it doesn't ask for voting intention for other candidates or for whether voters would actually vote for him). This would be similar to arguing that approval/disapproval polls are reflective of how respondents would cast their votes. If the source does not explictly place this as a voter intention poll, it's not for us to make such an interpretation ourselves, as per WP:SYNTH. Impru20 (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I could be wrong. But just look at some of the newspaper coverage of these polls: LA Times and SFGATE. I don't think these polls are intended to be exact predictors of final results, but couldn't they still useful as indicators? These newspapers at least seem to think so, and analyze them as such. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Antiguan general election, 2018

Two points:

1. What should the titles of this article be and the series of articles. Should it be as it is or should it be Antigua and Barbuda general election, 2018.
2. Can I get some help improving this article, so it can be on the in the news section.

Thanks. WTKitty (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

There's definitely a mismatch somewhere. Reading between the lines, it looks as if the titles should have been "Antigua and Barbuda..." since the 1981 election, when the state had gained its independence. Maybe someone has simply been copying the previous election articles as a template for the following elections. Sionk (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The current title is correct per WP:NC-GAL. Number 57 10:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The problem here is the policy does not apply as simply as is being said it does. If the policy was to be applied in the way above why is it United Kingdom general election, 2017, United Kingdom general election, 2015, United States presidential election, 2016, United States presidential election, 1792. As opposed to British or American.

The other thing here is that Antiguan, refers to an individual from the island of Antigua. It does not cover Barbuda which is a separate island entirely and the denonym for people from the island of Barbuda is Barbudian. Having the current title is misleading as by definition it only covering the island of Antigua and not the whole state of Antigua and Barbuda. Please see Wiktionary:

1. Definition of Antiguan
2. Definition of Barbudian

It is wrong by definition to call the article Antiguan and the current title is incorrect. The correct title to refer to the whole sovereign state is Antigua and Barbuda, not Antiguan or Barbudian. WTKitty (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The American and British article titles are the ones with the problem. My understanding of the reasons for them not being currently at "American" and "British" is that in the case of the former, some editors deemed "American" to be ambiguous and therefore "American presidential election, 2016" would be confusing (personally I strongly disagree). In the case of the latter, Irish nationalist editors were unhappy with the idea of an election in which Northern Irish voters participate being described as "British". In this case, Antiguan is the common demonym for the entire country of Antigua and Barbuda (I guess because Antigua is by far the largest part of it). See, for example, usage by the BBC. In any case, if Barbuda were to be included in the title, it would be "Antiguan and Barbudan general election, 2018" (per e.g. this). Number 57 12:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

If Antiguan is the common denonym for the whole sovereign state show that it is. At the moment the Wiktionary is conclusive. These articles are supposed to be titled correctly based on fact not on opinion. The Wikipedia article as it currently stands for Antigua and Barbuda lists the denonyms Antiguan and Barbudan. This feels like not wanting to lose and be wrong; as opposed to actually having a correctly titles article. If Antiguan is commonly used to refer to the whole of the sovereign state show that it is. Also the contrived title is simply splitting hairs Barbudan and Barbudian are both acceptable alternatives to each other for the denonym for a person from Barbuda. What is wrong is calling everyone from the country of Antigua and Barbuda Antiguan. This is encyclopedia is supposed to be accurate based on facts. Wiktionary states clearly and unambiguously Antiguan refers only to the island of Antigua and not the whole sovereign state. Stating Antiguan refers to the whole sovereign state is an opinion not a fact. There are simply no facts provided backing up this claim.WTKitty (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Apart from the link I provided to the BBC. Not sure what you mean by "contrived title", but based on Google books, it would appear that "Barbudan" is more common than "Barbudian" by a factor of 20. Number 57 14:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

This simplest reply to the above is "so what". The above has not addressed the point of the title being inaccurate and incorrect and not based in fact. It has just been said the BBC said so therefor it must be so which is a self-detonating argument. It is claimed that Antiguan is the denonym for the whole sovereign state of Antigua and Barbuda but no evidence to support this has been provided. What has been evidence is that Antiguan only refers to the island of Antigua. As for the denonym for the island of Barbuda it has not been shown Barbudan or Barbudian is incorrect just that one is "more common" without providing evidence and links to back up this claim. "Most common" is completely irrelevant all that is relevant is accuracy and fact. Wiktionary is clear here the demonym for the island of Antigua is Antiguan, the denonym for the island of Barbuda is Barbudan or Barbudian. There is no single denonym for the whole sovereign state if there is please provide evidence to support this. WTKitty (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Evidence has been provided for all the issues you have raised. To make it clear again:

BBC reference to Antiguan government (the government of the entire country)

Barbudan vs Barbudian on Google books.

Antigua Observer use of "Antiguan and Barbudan" as demonym for the entire country. There are hundreds more examples on Google Books.

Number 57 19:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

As evidence has been shown referring to a denonym for the whole sovereign state that should be the name of the article, and all previous election articles. The title should be Antiguan and Barbudan general election, 2018.

All of the other fluff such as the BBC and which is the more common denonym for the Island of Barbuda is a distraction, irrelevant, and pointless. Opinion and "more common" do not override fact. Fact is fact and the denonym of Antiguan is for the island of Antigua is and the denonym Barbudan or Barbudian is for the island of Barbuda. Fact! Not opinion or "more common". WTKitty (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

What is more common is entirely relevant when it comes to deciding on naming – that's why we have WP:COMMONNAME as a key part of our naming policy. Number 57 20:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

It all seems a bit *rse backwards to base naming on a one-size-fits-all Wikipedia guideline, rather than what the sources say about the election. Caribeeanelections.com calls the election the "Antigua and Barbuda General Election"; the Montseratt Reporter], reporting on the election results, calls it the "Antigua and Barbuda General Election". Surely that is the basis of WP:COMMONNAME, rather than abstract arguments about what people from Antigua and Barbuda are called. I challenge anyone to find a source that calls the event the "Antiguan and Barbudan general election". Sionk (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The articles were all originally called Antiguan and Barbudan general election, (year) until in June 2017 Number 57 went round and changed them to Antiguan general election, (year). I would far prefer to call the articles Antigua and Barbuda general election, (year). In the spirit of compromise and for a much more inclusive name (one that does not ignore Barbuda) and for a much more accurate title the current name has been come up with. The name Antiguan general election also makes out that the election only took place on the island of Antigua and not the whole sovereign state. I am in favour of returning the articles to their pre-June 2017 name. It is a damn site more accurate and as Sionk points out supported by evidence from those covering the election.

In summary I am in favour of undoing all of Number 57's June 2017 moves and resorting the original tiles of Antigua and Barbuda general election, (year). WTKitty (talk) 06:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

It's fine as it is now, which appears to be the compromise version. The original title was in conflict with the naming guideline. Number 57 07:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Changes to the beginning

Number 57 is insistent on stopping any change to the beginning of the article. There is an odd reason of "consistency" but that cannot override improvements to the article. "Consistency" is only what is currently in place, it is not a reason to threaten others, they have sent me a message with the line "If you continue to change it then I'm afraid I will will eventually be forced to report you for disruptive editing". Number 57 seems to be controlling this article (and the series as a whole) and is making any change very very difficult. Number 57 unilaterally changed all of the titles to an incorrect title and are now trying to stop all changes to the beginning of this article. More editors are needed on this article and the whole series, these articles need improving and the more people who can help the easier it will be. WTKitty (talk) 08:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Well at least it is factual. The name of the article itself is where the ugly comprise arises. Other coverage often says "an election will take place in..." or "the election in Antigua and Barbuda" or variations on that theme. If we're going to settle the matter we'd need to widen the debate to have a 'page move' discussion. Sionk (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Lets widen this out and really get this sorted. WTKitty (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Candidates in parties without ballot access

California U.S. Senate candidate Don Grundmann is a Constitution Party candidate, but the party has no ballot access in the state. Should candidates like this be described as an independents instead? Kart2401real (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, especially as there are no party primaries there. Reywas92^Talk 21:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

If there is reliable source confirmation that he belongs to a political party then we should state that. Calling someone an independent who belongs to a party, even if it is a micro-party is factually inaccurate. However, not having ballot access might justify some kind of explanatory note. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The CA Constitution Party lists him as a Constitution Party candidate. The Libertarians and Greens have ballot access in CA, but not the Constitution Party. What should be done? Kart2401real (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Leave United States Senate election in California, 2018 as it is, as a non-recognized party should not have its own section, but his denotation is fine. Though there's not a need to separate parties in sections anyway since they all run together. Reywas92^Talk 04:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Further work needed on Lebanese general election, 2018

see Talk:Lebanese general election, 2018. --Soman (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Ireland abortion referendum

We could do with some additional input at Talk:Thirty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2018 (Ireland) on how to handle endorsements. Comments welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Asking again... The question is what endorsements to include: just registered political parties; those + registered entities campaigning in the referendum; or also including prominent (notable) individuals. Bondegezou (talk) 09:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Use of phrase "General elections"

There appears to be the use of the phrase "General elections" at the beginning of elections where only one general election is the focus of the article. This is an incorrect pluarlisation. While there may be more than one individual election at a general electionthere is only one general election taking place. I have attempted to correct this error but have been threatened by Number 57 over this issue. This needs to be discussed and corrected as pluralising in this way is gramatically wrong. Here is an example of the UK government using "General Election" and "General Elections" correctly for British English: UK government information page - "General Elections occur every five years", "to vote in a General Election". The plural "General Elections" is wrong for a single "General Election". WTKitty (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I would've thought the phrase "_____ election/s" being plural depends on the first word. If it's an adjective like "general", "legislative", "parliamentary", or "presidential" it is almost always singular. Like "general election", "parliamentary election". If it's preceded by a noun (like the name of the legislature), it depends if there are several concurrent elections in multiple constituencies. For example, House of Representatives elections, Senate elections, Assembly elections.

For some reason, it's at "Scottish Parliament election, 2016" though. We'd need more help from someone who knows grammar. –HTD 13:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

In my experience it's largely plural regardless of the body/post being elected. I had a discussion a few years ago and found official, academic and media sources used the plural. It's patently incorrect of WTKitty to say that "General elections" is wrong for a single election given its ubiquitous usage. Number 57 13:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, "general election" is just as widespread. It takes something more than Google searches to convince people if it's the right one. Almost all of our article titles are in the singular form. Are we going to move those? I'd rather ask someone at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language to clear this out. –HTD 14:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The article titles are singular due to the naming format WP:NC-GAL. As it's a formulaic method of deriving a title, I don't think it has any particular bearing on the text used in the article itself (we wouldn't start an article with text matching the title because "Scottish Parliament election, 2016" can't be fitted into a sentence). The Google search wasn't meant to prove what was more common, just that it is not wrong as WTKitty claimed. Number 57 14:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

We won't necessarily say "United Kingdom general election, 2016" is the actual article text, but if the article name says "general election" and the text calls it as "general elections", it'll lead to confusion. It's not as if singular is wrong either. –HTD 14:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't see there being any confusion personally. Number 57 16:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Apparently someone else did. Should we avoid that? –HTD 17:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd hesitate to take Number 57's google search too authoritively, apart from the Texas news article the use of "general elections" is from countries where English is a second language. Sionk (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Sort of off-topic: Since you've touched about it, considering you won't think of making mass moves of hundreds of articles, do you prefer the current convention or the "2017 United Kingdom general election" one? –HTD 14:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure where I've said I wouldn't consider making mass moves? I've previously suggested a change in the naming format to "2016 Scottish Parliament election". Number 57 16:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I was referring if you will ignore the effort of doing mass moves. Moving lots of articles is a deterrent in move discussions. FWIW I also prefer "2016 Scottish Parliament election" convention. –HTD 17:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

A request for an opinion has been made on the language reference desk at this discussion. WTKitty (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary IMO. It's clearly grammatically correct, otherwise it wouldn't be used so widely. Number 57 16:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to try to shut down the discussion there... –HTD 17:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

An opinion has been provided which is as follows

From the examples which the other editor there linked to, the plural form appears to be an Indian subcontinental/African variant. Suitable for those contexts, but it would be very unusual in e.g. UK usage. Henry^Flower 17:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I would also invite Number 57 to welcome all input in to this discussion as the more views and information the better the encyclopedia will be and the stronger everything will be in general. This is not a one user show. No single person is more or less important than any other. Number 57 should not be shutting off (or attempting to) any opinions on this or any topic. It is clear there is a dispute as to what is and is not classed as correct. I would also like to point out just thinking one is correct does not mean one is that is closed minded and not wiling to work with others it goes against the whole point of discussions. WTKitty (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not trying to shut down any discussion. However, I do feel that this discussion is basically happening only because of you developing a grudge that extended to WP:POINT-making at the Sierra Leonean election articles. Number 57 17:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd be okay with it if WP:RS in a specific article predominantly use pluralized "general elections" to use the plural form throughout the article, or at least in the WP:LEAD. –HTD 17:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

First, as Number 57 says, there is no question of grammaticality here. "General elections" is clearly a wholly grammatical, well-formed, noun phrase in any variety of English, and nobody would object to it in a phrase like "the two general elections of 1974". The issue is whether it is appropriate to use it to refer to the whole assemblage of parliamentary elections going on in a polity at one time. Certainly I have never heard it used in that sense in the UK. But the Google search that No 57 gave makes it quite clear that it is used in some regional varieties of English, so the relevant policy is WP:ENGVAR. Where more research is needed is to find out whether the singular is also used in those varieties, or whether the plural is the only acceptable form there. If the singular is also acceptable, then the policy says that the common form is preferable except in an article whose subject is related to a region where the plural is preferred; but if only the plural is accepted in some places, this is a harder problem, and I think the policy says that either form may be used, and whichever form was first used in an article should be retained. --ColinFine (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@ColinFine: I don't think this is an ENGVAR issue. The ones that come up in Google News are the ones that have recently or will be holding elections soon, so their election cycles are in the news. Number 57 17:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I would like Number 57 to assume good faith. I have no idea what number 57 is on about regarding "this discussion is basically happening only because of you developing a grudge" and "extended to WP:POINT-making ". Number 57 appears to want to throw a lot of rubbish at me and I would like it to stop. WTKitty (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I think this can now be summarised as being that the Use of "General Election" or "General Elections" will depend on the variation of English the article is written in and reliable sources backing up the variant usage. WTKitty (talk) 06:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I have another question. What is the election article is named after the legislature? Like "Senate elections" or "National Assembly elections". Is it always plural, always singular, or it depends? –HTD 18:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Based on the naming guideline, it should be singular, and I believe it is in all cases except American and Philippine elections ([edit] After doing a thorough search I only uncovered a single example outside of these two countries – Iranian Senate elections, 1949 – I have since moved it to the singular to bring it in line with the other body-specific Iranian election articles). The only time it should be plural (IMO) is when the article covers two or more separate elections to the same body during a year (e.g. Indian Rajya Sabha elections, 2014, Indian Rajya Sabha elections, 2016 etc). However, I suspect the chances of getting the American articles in particular to fall in line are practically zero. Number 57 19:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Aren't elections in different districts/constituencies different "separate elections to the same body during a year"? How about legislatures that have multiple electoral systems like MMP? Aren't those "separate elections to the same body during a year" too?

How about French Senate election, 2017? This is an indirect election which is "separate elections to the same body during a year". The title is in singular form, but the lead says "Senatorial elections have been held on 24 September 2017". Should the article title be in plural form, too? –HTD 17:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't believe they are separate elections if they're to the same body and held on the same day. Number 57 08:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Consensus-seeking discussion notice

Notifying project members of a consensus discussion taking place at Talk:Trump–Russia dossier. Discussion is currently found in sub-section titled Seeking consensus to restore content challenged by _____. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Bar boxes

These have been added to a lot of election articles, often by IPs. Personally I've always thought they were a waste of space, especially when boxes are added for both votes and seats. They are usually added below the results tables, but can be moved to the side (e.g. here), which I think is an improvement.

I was wondering what other editors' thoughts on them were, as IMO it would be better to get rid of them. Number 57 14:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment – they don't add anything of value that isn't already conveyed in results tables. Mélencron (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

And they frequently display wrongly on some screens. Bondegezou (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I like the proposal of moving it to the side, but some result tables are wide enough. I would've wanted putting all of these as one long bar graph, one for votes, and one for seats, either at the top or bottom of the results table. –HTD 17:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Election template deletion discussion

There is currently a deletion discussion on a couple of election templates that is relevant to the project. Input would be appreciated. Cheers, Number 57 16:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

This has now spread to edit warring at {{Estonian elections}}. Some assistance in dealing with the Estonian nationalists would be appreciated. Cheers, Number 57 14:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

It takes two to edit-war, and you are contributing to it. I don't think labelling people you disagree with as "Estonian nationalists" meets the criteria of a neutral notification per WP:CANVAS. --Nug (talk) 03:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Apparently Number57 believes some editors are trying to make it appear that Estonia was not part of the USSR[1], which is complete nonsense. The template {{Croatian elections}} doesn't include Yugoslav elections but provides a link to them, nobody is attempting to make it appear that Croatia was not a part of Yugoslavia. --Nug (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • It includes a link to a template with the national elections in Yugoslavia. If the dates of the Croatian legislature elections during the Yugoslav era were known, they would be on the Croatian template like this: {{Montenegrin elections}}. And yes, there is a group of editors with a long history of trying to make it appear that Estonia was not part of the USSR – for example removing "Soviet Union" from the birthplace of biographies. Number 57 03:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Apparently, User:Bbb23 must be an "Estonian nationalist" too[2]. In my experience the only people that seem to get really upset over it are those that appear to adhere to a Russian nationalist viewpoint themselves. --Nug (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
      • You posted this nonsense on another page and it was pointed out that Bbb23 doesn't have a decade-long track record of making these edits and was probably only responding to reports of vandalism or sockpuppetry. The inference that I have a Russian nationalist viewpoint is laughable. Number 57 04:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
        • The inference that I have an Estonian nationalist viewpoint is equally laughable, I am from Australia. --Nug (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
          • I invite other editors to take a look at your editing history and judge for themselves. Number 57 04:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
            • And you have a significant history of creating Israeli places, politics and society articles, that makes you an Israeli nationalist too? --Nug (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
              • I invite other editors to look at the types of edits I've been making on Israel-related topics and judge for themselves. Editing in a topic area does not make someone a nationalist – it's the content being changed/added/removed that highlights the POV. Number 57 04:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
                • What you really meant to say was: Editing in a topic area does not make someone a nationalist – it's the content being changed/added/removed in a way I personally don't like, that makes them a "nationalist". --Nug (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Number57 really needs to drop the stick and stop trying to re-fight his past personal battles long gone as it is poisoning the discussion, and look at the current issue which spans all of the post-Soviet space. In regard to Estonia (which applies equally to other post Soviet countries), it makes no rational sense to include Soviet elections in the {{Estonian elections}} template, they represent a completely different polity, any citizen of the Soviet Union could vote in Soviet Union's constituent republic elections only if they reside there. On the other hand only Estonian citizens can vote in Elections in Estonia regardless of where they reside. There is a distinction. The template {{Soviet elections}} has a section "Regional elections", which duplicate (and links to articles on) elections held for the Supreme Soviets of the Soviet Union's constituent republics. So SSR elections really belong in an expanded {{Soviet elections}} template, which can be linked to from the current country templates. It just makes sense. --Nug (talk) 05:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC notification

There is an RfC at the Trump-Russia dossier talk page found here that members of this project might interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Dan DeBono (SEAL)

Anyone know what page this should redirect to? He's running in New York’s 3rd Congressional District this election.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

New category

I’ve created a new container category for eponymous categories about specific elections and I would appreciate assistance in filling it. Charles Essie (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)