Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Meta color templates using Wikidata?

Meta color templates are not ideally implemented. We have to make a separate template for every single party in every single different language Wikipedia. My proposal would be to do it this way:

• Wikidata already has the property "sRGB color hex triplet" to store these (see e.g. d:Q9630)
• We could make a single template that draws this from Wikidata
• Without parameters set, it would draw the value for the article it's transcluded in (i.e. when used in {{Infobox political party}} and election results section in the party article)
• With a Q number (or name or abbreviation if that works) parameter set, it would draw the value from that Wikidata entry (i.e. when used in election articles, legislature articles)
• (The template would be easy to import to those 48 Wikipedia editions that allow templates to draw data from Wikidata.) Edit: This would be a long term goal, and it's up to individual Wikipedias to chose to import the template or not.

(Pinging @Number 57, Frietjes)

Thoughts? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Finnusertop, yes, this is how it should be done. using the Q number would be robust, and allow for copying between different languages. full article name would be useful as well. abbreviations are problematic, unless they are already page redirects. we should do any conversion carefully since it's possible that an could have a value set for Q9630, but have colouring for other parties as well. Frietjes (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Frietjes: do you know how to set the wheels in motion? First, we need consensus. Second, the template of course. Third, we probably need to import data from the meta color templates to Wikidata. As far as I know, not every Wikidata entry for a party has the "sRGB color hex triplet" property although we have a meta color template for it. We will probably need a bot at Wikidata to import those. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

My main concern with this is that practices differ across different Wikipedias for the choice of colors, whereas this would attempt to unify around a single color when the colors used across different wikis currently differ for deliberate reasons (e.g. emphasis on ideological classifications for minor parties compared to "official" colors). Mélencron (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mélencron: let's concentrate on a local template first. Whether or not other Wikipedias want to import it is up to them. Even for just us, this single template would replace thousands(?) of actual and tens of thousands of potential templates. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good in that case; it's worth a try. Mélencron (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

How would this affect Election results boxes? doktorb _words^deeds 20:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I guess it would work the same way – at the moment they use the meta templates, so they'd just have to be configured to use wikidata instead. I support this happening btw, as long as an easy guide on how to edit/create the colour on wikidata is written! Number 57 21:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Number 57: I was thinking about displaying the color inside a box in the |colors= parameter of {{Infobox political party}}, but with the "edit this on Wikidata" pencil icon next to it (). Sure, a guide can be written as well, but editing the color by clicking on the icon in the party article is as intuitive as it gets. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Not sure that is a good idea from an aesthetic perspective (it's potentially just extra clutter in an infobox), and it could make it clearer to IPs how they can vandalise it (as I'd imagine very few people watch Wikidata items). Number 57 21:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way to edit automatically all parliamentary diagrams and election maps (at least the SVG ones) so that all files use these same colors, and change if it's changed at Wikidata? Is that even possible? Howard the Duck (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe so. However, for the diagrams it might be possible to create one in the form of a template (albeit a very complex one as it would have to have literally hundreds of configurations to account for different sizes of legislatures), which would be able to take colours from meta templates or wikidata. Number 57 13:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

European Parliament election results in opinion polling tables

Should tables of opinion polls for regular Parliamentary elections in EU countries include a row for the recent European Parliament elections? I'd not seen this before and it's not done on Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, Opinion polling for the next German federal election, Next_Romanian_legislative_election#Opinion_polls, Opinion polling for the next Dutch general election, Opinion polling for the 2019 Belgian federal election, or Opinion polling for the next Czech legislative election. But it is on Opinion polling for the next Italian general election, Opinion polling for the next Spanish general election, Opinion polling for the 2019 Polish parliamentary election, Opinion polling for the 2019 Greek legislative election and Opinion polling for the 2019 Portuguese legislative election. (That's all EU countries with populations >10M. Haven't checked further.) The UK and Czech articles includes a row noting the elections took place, but not including figures.

I suggest they should not be included. They are different elections; we know voters treat these elections differently. The UK/Czech approach (a row noting the elections with a link) seems more appropriate. But what do others think?

This discussion began at Talk:Next_Irish_general_election#Opinion_polls_and_EU/local_election_results. The Irish article also included a row for local election results, which I've not seen elsewhere and also oppose. Bondegezou (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

This has been seemingly done for years in a number of elections (also see German state elections: 2019 Bremen state election, 2019 Saxony state election, 2019 Brandenburg state election, 2019 Thuringian state election and so on). In my opinion, it is useful to include these for visual reference as they are actual election results, not mere opinion polls (but limited to the tables only, not the eventual charts that may be created). However, I think that it may depend on the country. In some countries it is a certainty that voters tend to vote very differently depending on the type of election (i.e. the UK), but that is not true for other countries (i.e. Spain, Germany, italy... where EP election results tend to resemble the national opinion polling trends). Impru20^talk 13:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that it's always useful to match up the results in the German case, as state and federal voting is often disjoint, even if they follow the same overall trends over time... I think that it, again, varies by country, but I'd lean against doing it in general, and the only reason I've done it on the German polling tables was to follow the state of the tables before I started editing, not because I'm overwhelmingly in favor of it – I haven't done it on any of the other polling tables I currently update, and I don't think it's especially useful when there are actual national opinion polls before and after the EP elections that can be added. Mélencron (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a case-by-case thing. As noted by everyone else, European elections in some countries are held using a different electoral system and/or are often used as anti-EU protest votes. However, I am not familiar enough with each countries' politics to agree that a blanket ban is a good idea. Number 57 14:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that it shouldn't be a case-by-case thing: that's why I brought it here! These are not comparable figures: EP election results may be closer to national results in some countries than others, but that changes over time. The general principle remains: should a table of opinion poll results be just of opinion poll results, or should we insert a range of other things? I suggest that we avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH implications if we just included opinion poll results. Bondegezou (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

If the principle we use is that opinion polling tables are only for opinion polls, then why general election results are included anyway? We have the very awkward situation of Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election using two sets of general election results depending on the geographical scope, so that's valid? Further, in a strict sense opinion polls conducted by different pollsters may not be comparable to each other due to the different polling/weighting/prompting methods used, so if we are using comparability as an argument then no tables should exist at all, which is absurd. As said, EP/local election results, when included, are only for reference purposes, and I don't think their inclusion does any harm to the table. Specially because, unlike most other random events that people find nice to add to the tables, EP/local/other elections do typically have an effect in opinion polling, even if only because they help pollsters to adjust their polling methods and because they re-arrange the electorate's own voting preferences. Impru20^talk 13:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

As said at the Irish article: it is not the job of Wikipedia to innovate. We are very clearly warned against interpreting primary sources. If reliable secondary sources interleave opinion polls with European election results, then we can do the same. If they do not, then it is WP:OR for us to decide it is a useful juxtaposition.

General election results topping and tailing opinion polling tables is OK because reliable secondary sources present results in those ways. The opinion polls are explicitly trying to estimate those figures, so the comparison is obvious. Bondegezou (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

But then that's a case-by-case thing, because that depends on the treatment given to EP results by reliable sources when compared to opinion polls. And such a treatment may be different depending on the country. Impru20^talk 13:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I fully support including both the previous election results and the actual results (after the election happens), as well as selected major events if it may be warranted to note them (e.g. a change in party leaders). This is very relevant to have a visual comparison - polling statistics need context of what has changed since the last election and how close the final results were. Reywas92^Talk 17:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Presidential election result table templates

Hello,

I have worked on templatizing the US presidential election results tables that you find on county/city pages. I was surprised that they weren't already templates so I made them templateable.

There are three basic templates, each with different uses:

• {{PresHead}}, used for the header,
• {{PresRow}}, used for individual rows, and
• {{PresFoot}}, used for the footer. (Optionally, PresRow can also be used for the footer.)

PresRow (and by extension PresFoot, which transcludes PresRow but adds a WikiTable closer to it) automatically calculates the percentages of each party based on vote number, and automatically bolds the party winner. It uses {{Gopwhig}} as a cutoff to determine whether to use Republican (1856 and after) or Whig (before 1856).

Here is an example with made-up results for Wisconsin, copied straight from the test subpage. The code

{{PresHead|place=Wisconsin|whig=yes}}
{{PresRow | 1848 |Whig|15,000|3,000|10,000}}
{{PresRow | 1852 |Republican|15,000|3,000|10,000}}
{{PresRow | 1852 |Whig|15,000|3,000|10,000}}
{{PresRow | 1856 |Whig|15,000|3,000|10,000}}
{{PresRow | 1856 |Republican|15,000|3,000|10,000}}
{{PresRow | 1924 |Progressive|5,000|3,000|10,000}}
{{PresRow | 1932 |Democratic|5,000|13,000|10,000}}
{{PresFoot | 2016 |Republican|15,000|3,000|10,000}}

Gives

United States presidential election results for Wisconsin

Year	Republican / Whig		Democratic		Third party(ies)
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
1848	15,000	53.57%	3,000	10.71%	10,000	35.71%
1852	15,000	53.57%	3,000	10.71%	10,000	35.71%
1852	15,000	53.57%	3,000	10.71%	10,000	35.71%
1856	15,000	53.57%	3,000	10.71%	10,000	35.71%
1856	15,000	53.57%	3,000	10.71%	10,000	35.71%
1924	5,000	27.78%	3,000	16.67%	10,000	55.56%
1932	5,000	17.86%	13,000	46.43%	10,000	35.71%
2016	15,000	53.57%	3,000	10.71%	10,000	35.71%

This should help in some level of standardization of those tables, and given that they're based on WikiText they can be placed inside of the currently-existing tables, as found here. For a more complete example, I reconstructed the entire results of Washabaugh County, South Dakota here.

There are three main disadvantages to these templates I can think of:

• The code doesn't allow for inline citations within PresRow or PresFoot, and requires that such refs be placed in PresHead. This isn't that big a problem, since such citations aren't usually placed in rows anyway.
• The code for PresRow/PresFoot only provides a link to "{{{Year}}} United States presidential election" rather than the "{{{Year}}} United States presidential election in {{{State}}}" links that currently exist at certain states.
• Transcluding too many templates can result in the page running afoul of MediaWiki's template limits.

All of these issues can be fixed by simply substituting the relevant PresRow (although substituting PresHead or PresFoot is discouraged) and making the desired changes. Either subst: or safesubst: is fine.

Hope you enjoy this, and if you feel like you can improve the templates even further don't hesitate to let me know. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• @John M Wolfson: Looks fine but the tables ought to be in regular chronological order, not reverse. —GoldRingChip 01:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • True, as per WP:SALORDER. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @GoldRingChip: That's another beauty of these templates, you can just simply cut and paste each PresRow template to change the chronological order. (Unless they're substituted, in which case it's slightly messier, but still. On an unrelated note, all the presidential election results tables have historically been in reverse chronological order, but that may or may not change with this.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, I agree, they work well that way. However, I think we should encourage people to use the correct order so I'm just asking that you display them that way here. That's all. —GoldRingChip 01:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, done. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

MP lists in multi-member constituency articles

Is there a better way of listing MPs for multi-member constituencies than the current format used in articles like Liège (Chamber of Representatives constituency)? Creating a separate column for each MP really doesn't work once a constituency goes beyond two or three MPs, and articles like this must be awful to try and read on a phone or tablet.

Might it be better to list the MPs vertically rather than horizontally (see example below)? I appreciate this loses the effect of showing continuity between MPs who retain their seat over several electoral cycles, but I think it's more effective at showing how many seats each party has. Cheers, Number 57 22:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Current format
Election	Rep. (Party)		Rep. (Party)		Rep. (Party)		Rep. (Party)		Rep. (Party)		Rep. (Party)		Rep. (Party)		Rep. (Party)		Rep. (Party)		Rep. (Party)		Rep. (Party)		Rep. (Party)		Rep. (Party)		Rep. (Party)		Rep. (Party)
2003		Alain Mathot (PS)		André Frédéric (PS)		Benoît Drèze (CDH)		Daniel Bacquelaine (MR)		Danielle Van Lombeek-Jacobs (PS)		Jacques Chabot (PS)		Josée Lejeune (MR)		Luc Gustin (MR)		Marie-Claire Lambert (PS)		Melchior Wathelet (CDH)		Muriel Gerkens (Ecolo)		Philippe Monfils (MR)		Pierrette Cahay-André (MR)		Robert Denis (MR)		Thierry Giet (PS)

improvements to a flagged article

Hello.

I was looking for a reliable date reference for the Progressive Conservative leadership election, 1993 and found the wiki page had maintenance issues due to relying on one source. I've found a couple of other sources and added the citations to the page. However, my area of expertise is not in elections and referendums but in biographies. So I'm hoping someone here can take a quick look and see if the references are valid and can remove the maintenance tags. Many thanks - I appreciate there are far bigger topics you'll be prioritising. Moira Paul (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Placement of previous general election results in opinion polling tables

This may have already been answered, though I couldn't find anything in the archive.

Is there a reason, other than chronological, that the previous general election results are placed at the very bottom of opinion poll data? To me it would seem more logical to place the previous GE data at the top (or in a separate table/heading) to make it easier to compare results and the most recent polls.

The graphs offer some kind of accessible comparison, but in many cases (such as polling for the Danish election), there are so many parties that it is hard to discern how each party differs, other than very broad strokes, between then and now.

I'm sure this has been discussed at some point; as someone who often reads opinion polling pages, it seems to negate the point of such pages if they make comparisons harder--especially as elections draw close and new polling data is added on a near-daily basis, thus pushing previous GE numbers even further down the page. — MouldyFox (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes they're placed chronologically, i.e. at the bottom of the table. Sometimes they're placed at both the top and bottom for easier comparison. I can see no particular reason why it's sometimes done one way and sometimes the other. Bondegezou (talk) 08:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

It makes sense that they're set in chronological order, it would be useful if they were cited at the top as well—at least until the next election had been completed. Is there a way to propose this as a kind of policy/style rule and get others' opinions? — MouldyFox (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Party shading/Independent (United States)

Moved from Template talk:Party shading/Independent (United States)

 – —GoldRingChip 21:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no reasonable justification for a seperate shading for independent politicians in the United States, and it certainly should not be yellow if it must exist.

There has been no demonstrated extensive use of yellow to represent independents anywhere other than Wikipedia. In fact, the color yellow in the United States political system is typically representative of the Libertarian Party. The last major independent candidate for president, Ross Perot was represented on NBC News election night coverage with the color gray. Yellow is sometimes used in network coverage of elections on CNN to indicate a race not called.

Independent politicians are by nature not affiliated with any political party and therefore a neutral color should be used as elsewhere. Use of the current shading falsely implies the existence of an "independent" party using yellow. Neutral gray adequately represents the fact that these politicians are not affiliated with any major or minor party organization and are therefore not fitted into the typical party shading scheme.

Independent politicians in the United States are fundamentally no different from those in other nations. If anything, the presence of a national minor party prominently using the color yellow should be grounds enough to correct this. Since it would easier to revert this template to the international standard than to replace every instance of its use across Wikipedia, the color ought be changed to comply with the more reasonable international standards. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe. Much of the U.S. media uses yellow for independents, so it's not arbitrary. Grey is sometimes used for inactive elections, such as states in U.S. Senate maps where there isn't a race that year. Grey is also used when a race is undecided. I agree with you that there could be confusion with Libertarian, so perhaps we could differentiate the shades of yellow better? I also agree with you that there could be an implication that Independents are a party when they are not, but I don't think this is as much of a concern because using a color doesn't make you a party. Still, I think you bring up some valid points and I'm curious about what other editors think! —GoldRingChip 21:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• I would support using gray in tables. I agree with the reasoning that no party = no color since there is no affiliation. GRC's point on maps makes sense (like at 2018 United States Senate elections which has more of a gold) but even in that article the infoboxes and maps use gray in the Maine and Vermont sections. 2018 United States Senate election in Maine on the other hand uses yellow in the otherwise identical infobox (under the photo) but I don't see an inherent reason to do so. The polling and results tables would work just fine with gray there. I think the default should be light/neutral gray per the proposal, but other colors may be permitted like when gray is used elsewhere – keys are necessary anyway! https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/06/us/elections/results-senate-elections.html NYT]'s 2018 senate map used green for Sanders and King, WaPo used orange, and CNN purple so yellow certainly isn't universal. I also don't like how 2018 Senate groups the independents as the yellow party in the infobox – although King and Sanders both caucus with the Dems, they're independent for their own reasons and needn't be lumped together, but that gets into bigger questions. Reywas92^Talk 21:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Gray's a neutral color and should be used by default, as is used by all other outlets, over the arbitrary choice of using a light yellow; I'd rather just redirect it to #F8F9FA if possible. Mélencron (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• If we're going to change the template color (which was apparently done today just out of the blue), then why even have a separate template for American and international independents? Nevermore27 (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, its meta template, #F8F9FA was changed, out of the blue (or yellow?) yesterday by BM6 (talk · contribs), who honestly didn't know this discussion was happening, so that's ok! I'm the chief proponent of yellow over grey, but I didn't revert because I think changing to grey is inevitable. I'm just not wild about it, but I think it's probably for the best (grumble grumble). As for "why keep this template at all?": I think we should make a different grey to distinguish from "no race" or "nothing," per Reywas92 (talk · contribs)'s points above regarding Senate elections. —GoldRingChip 12:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I'd agree about making sure the grays for "no race" or "nothing" are distinguishable from a gray that indicates "Independent." That would be the main reason I would think to stick with/go back to yellow for Independent because while gray indicating absence of a party makes some sense, it makes even more sense (in my mind) for gray to indicate an absence of a race/election/contest. Carter (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I just changed it to #DDDDCC, which is slightly off from #DDDDDD so it looks different from other grays. How's that look? —GoldRingChip 12:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• I really think changing it from yellow to grey is a bad idea, for the sole reason that there's no longer a visible difference between #F8F9FA and #F8F9FA in American election infoboxes with multiple viable independent candidates (i.e., 2010 Maine gubernatorial election). This also creates a problem with the map in that article, as someone glancing at it without reading the caption could think Moody won counties. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 01:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • But on that point, there are different shades of grey ;) doktorb _words^deeds 04:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    • We use various shades of grey on maps to indicate the percentage of votes received. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC of interest

The following RfC may be of interest to members of this group: [1]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

1986 California Proposition 65

Hi together, phaps sombady can look for the 4 last qestion at Talk:1986 California Proposition 65 thank you--Calle Cool (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Pre-referendum

Seeking some thoughts on whether this is worthy of an article on en.wiki. Unlike in most countries where people have to collect signatures to force a referendum on an issue, in Uruguay people actually vote on whether to have a referendum. However, as not enough people voted, the referendum won't take place. Should we have (a) a new article on the failed vote, (b) a new article on the trans law that mentions the vote, or (c) add a section to LGBT rights in Uruguay. Cheers, Number 57 16:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

(a) I think it's worth an article: it clearly passes WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Next elections notability

Need your thoughts on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(events)#How_soon_can_someone_post_about_the_next_election? Thanks. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Appropriateness of the term 'statutory referendum'

Impru20 and myself have been having a dispute over the use of the term 'statutory' with regards to referendums on Statute of Autonomy in Spain. The articles were originally located at (e.g.) 1931 Catalan autonomy referendum. Impru moved them to 1931 Catalan statutory referendum. This led to a discussion about the meaning of 'statutory', which Impru had interpreted as being 'about a statute' as opposed to 'required by statute'. As a compromise the articles were then moved to 1931 Catalan Statute of Autonomy referendum.

However, Impru has now insisted (by way of reverts) on inserting the word 'statutory' in the first sentence of the articles, so they read A statutory referendum on the approval of the Catalan Statute of Autonomy was held... I do not believe this is appropriate as the meaning will not be entirely clear to readers, and suggest 'statutory' should either be replaced with 'binding', or simply removed (for clarity, the referendums were required by law and were binding. I have argued that the latter is more important and worth mentioning in the introduction; Impru argues that 'statutory' covers both).

Comments on the appropriateness of using 'statutory' here would be welcomed. Earlier discussion can be found on both our talk pages. Cheers, Number 57 21:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I think a mountain out of a molehill has been made here. It should be noted that, despite what Number 57 is exposes in his first paragraph, I'm NOT defending the use of "statutory" as "about a statute": this was an issue in a previous discussion yesterday which (I thought) had ended in compromise. "Statutory" is used in the lead because those referendums, beyond binding, were specifically required by law, i.e. their cause was that a specific law required for them to be held (and of course, result in specific thresholds of affirmative votes being gathered) in order for the Statutes to be approved. This is specifically explained (and sourced) in the lead sections next to the A statutory referendum on the approval of the Catalan Statute of Autonomy was held...-bit, so I cannot understand what is the argument for this not being clear. I think it is of much more importance to convey to readers that these referendums were legally mandated by law (because that is their direct cause), rather than being merely "binding" (which a legally required referendum would always be, in any case).

Nonetheless, I think the description that Number 57 makes of me personally is very unfair. Yes, I reverted your edits that "this wording doesn't work as it effectively means 'A legally required referendum...'" by replying that it was "INTENDED to mean "legally required" in this sentence and context", then you went on reverting again (going against WP:BRD along the way) by merely replacing "statutory" with "binding", and only arguing that it [the use of "statutory"] "may not be entirely clear to readers" (despite having been confronted on this and despite the issue having been made very clear already), and that this somehow went against "English that is correct and understandable". Yes, it may be that in your whole history researching to write Wikipedia articles, you "do not recall ever seeing the term 'statutory referendum' used", but this does not change the fact that, in the end, even you yourself acknowledge going against this because of a personal preference on wording. I'm not even intending for "statutory referendum" to be recognized as an expression or anything like that. I've merely used "statutory" as an adjective defining the scope of an event that was held because it was legally required. As simple as that. I think all of this is way excessive. Impru20^talk 22:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I did not acknowledge that this is about personal preference, and I explicitly told you that it wasn't when you made the accusation during our earlier discussion. Also, with regards to WP:BRD, these articles did not have the word 'statutory' in them until yesterday (see last version before this started), so it is not me who is breaking the convention by reverting it back in here. Number 57 22:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you have. And about breaking convention for using one word??? Which convention? Again, you are not explaining why "statutory" is not "correct or understandable English" or what is the exact clarity issue with its use. But I don't really care. Change the word if you wish, I'm not getting embroiled in a massive and absurd discussion with personal accusations just because of an user's obsession with a single word. However, I do really hope all of this mess you have created around it, including your personal accusations on me along the entire process, was really worth it. I'm out of this, bye. Impru20^talk 04:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

So is this is all you wanted? To force me into submission through personal accusations, edit warring, greatly magnifying the issue and trying to feign some discussion-seeking willness, just to have your derided word removed without even explaining your own motives for it? And all your "convention" and "binding"-attempt of argument... for nothing? You have not even awaited for your mostly asked "third opinion" from other users to conduct your move. You have not even cared to actually reply to the above comment before making your move. All you wanted for was for me to say what I said in the above comment. Sincerely, this whole process has been disgraceful. I sincerely hope no one else puts you through the pressure and menacing behaviour you put me through, just to have a wholly appropiate word removed just because of a personal preference. Surely, I wholly expect I'm not required to have any discussion with you on anything for a long time. Impru20^talk 20:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

All I wanted was for the articles in question to avoid being poorly named or using incorrect or unclear language, and I have repeatedly explained that this is the motive. The only personal accusations here are your ones about personal preferences. And the reason I didn't respond to your comment from this morning was that it seemed to have concluded and I didn't see the point in continuing this unpleasantness (I did consider trying to point out that 'the convention' was referring to WP:BRD, but decided it was best to just avoid any further possible confrontation). As such, I certainly agree with your last point. Number 57 21:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

BRD? You mean like the BRD you didn't apply to yourself? Because acussing me of "trying to make a point", referring to me as the one reverting (unlike you, huh?) or opening this same discussion on the premise that my stance on this was that I interpreted "statutory" as "about a statute", when the discussion on such an issue ended when the compromise was reached; from there, it was you making the wrong assumption that I was using "statutory" with such a meaning. Far from acknowledging your error, you went on reverting again under a different premise. The reason didn't matter, it was just a matter of getting that word out for you at any cost. So yes, it is quite unpleasant to find one user organizing such a fanatical melodrama to get one word removed without even caring to explain his motives, while rather trying to win over by assertion, intimidation and lies. Hope it was worth it. As said, I'm out of this. Impru20^talk 22:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

External links update

After discussions spread over the last couple of years, we have finally updated Wikipedia:External links#Links in lists with some new advice about how to format external links in some stand-alone lists. This format is not mandatory, but it may be helpful in some cases. Please feel free to try it out in pages that you think are appropriate, and leave feedback on the guideline's talk page. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC on inclusion criteria for lists of political endorsements

FYI, I have just opened an RfC relevant to this WikiProject here: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC on inclusion criteria for lists of political endorsements. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Looking for a graphs expert: UK opinion poll page

File:UK_opinion_polls.svg is a rather prominent feature of our article about the opinion polling in the UK. With an election now called, it's not great that the chart is so out of date. The respective charts for Scotland and Wales are now hidden because they've not been updated since May. If anyone has the expertise to update the main chart at least, that would be great. A lot of consensus editing has gone into developing the chart to the point it's at now, so we're not looking for an overhaul, just an update. Many thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

2020 national electoral calendar

Is the project dead? or there is already someone who is working offline on 2020 national electoral calendar?! --Yoosef (talk) 08:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

UK Local councils

I'm trying to gather a general consensus of opinions regarding creating a new task force solely concerned with UK local councils. With 100s of councils, and 1,000s of wards, and 1,000s of election pages, I believe that this is sufficient for the creation of a task force What are your thoughts? SmartyPants22 (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan election names in leading paragraphs

@John M Wolfson: @Lmmnhn: Elections in Taiwan don't have official or universal English names. The media tends to use the year, therefore the title names should be used. Ythlev (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Okay. It's just weird to put a {{citation needed}} right beside the article's title. Other than that I have absolutely no preference in this. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

http://vote2016.cec.gov.tw/zh_TW/index.html Please refer to the official website. Lmmnhn (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Please refer to the two reference links. Ythlev (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Also the name you use for legislative elections don't match that website. Ythlev (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This seems to be about the opening wording of the articles. "The 2020 Taiwanese presidential election was held on 11 January 2020" is very clearly better than "The 15th Presidential and Vice Presidential election of the Republic of China (Chinese: 中華民國第十五屆總統副總統選舉) was held in Taiwan on 11 January 2020". Number 57 21:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I think we should stick with the official name but I'm open to discussion before further disruptive editing war. Lmmnhn (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

As I said, they don't have official names. Ythlev (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

As someone who has been watching this particular issue from the sidelines, I think MOS:BOLDLEAD summarizes it very clearly: If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence. There will not be any disagreement in that "[Year] Taiwanese presidential election" is a widely accepted name for the subject (more so considering that the article title is based upon a well-established naming convention), so the "The 2020 Taiwanese presidential election was held on 11 January 2020" format should be preferred. This does not preclude the fact that the full info can be added next to it. Something along the lines of "The 2020 Taiwanese presidential election was held on 11 January 2020. It was the 15th presidential and vice-presidential election of the Republic of China" would not be discouraged (though I don't think the Chinese translation should be added. It provides little, takes up much space from the lead and is not consistent with election articles elsewhere). Impru20^talk 02:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Spliting discussion for 2020 Irish general election

An article that you have been involved with (2020 Irish general election) has content that is proposed to be removed and move to another article (Opinion polling prior to 2020 Irish general election). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at Talk:2020 Irish general election#Splitting proposal. Thank you. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:RSN#RfC: Is The Green Papers a generally reliable source for reporting election-related information?

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:RSN#RfC: Is The Green Papers a generally reliable source for reporting election-related information?. - MrX 🖋 20:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC) - MrX 🖋 20:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Change in consensus on future elections articles

Based on the recent precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 in the Philippines, and that apparently consensus has in fact changed, this article could be deleted. I can't begin to state how categorically I disagree with this change in consensus, but it is what it is. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 in Canada. Bearian (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't read the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 in the Philippines as affecting elections articles. My sense is that the concern is that the article must have "sourceable content." Second, the "20XX in XXX" are distinct from the election articles because they are often a chronological list of events that occurred in the country. --Enos733 (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The article was entirely about the upcoming "trifecta" election in the Philippines. It was deleted, as was the 2023 article, as will the article on Canada in 2022. Bearian (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The only articles that are being kept are the next elections for the United States and upcoming Olympics articles. Everything else is being deleted wholesale. I'm just the Cassandra. Bearian (talk) 11:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

That's just not true. 2022 Philippine presidential election was specifically cited as being an appropriate article in the AfD. You seem to be massively over-reacting to or misinterpreting this. Number 57 11:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Fully agree with Number 57. As said, 2022 Philippine presidential election was cited as a specific example of an article where the information cited in 2022 in the Philippines should be kept. No consensus was formed on deleting future election articles (which, due to it being set in stone in both WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NCELECT, would require a very large cross-wiki consensus for overturning them both, not just a single AfD with a very limited scope), nor would current Wikipedia guidelines support deleting articles on future elections (they are relevant and notable as long as reliable sources do report these, which is typically the case). I see this over-reaction not only as unjustified, but also possibly as counter-productive and possibly harmful to the project as it implies a problem exists where there is none. Impru20^talk 15:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move

It would be good to have some input from project members at this RM with regards to the application of WP:NC-GAL. Cheers, Number 57 18:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

2020 DCCC poll for California's 25th congressional district

There's a Tulchin Research DCCC internal poll for CA-25 showing Smith at 30%, Knight at 26%, Garcia at 13%, Papadopoulos at 6%, Uygur at 5%, "Someone else" at 7%, and "Undecided" at 13%. The poll was conducted from December 12-19, 2019. Should this poll be added or not? Kart2401real (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC participation invitation

? : Please participate in the RfC about change proposal for infobox for caucus results. Xenagoras (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

This RfC was closed and since archived at Talk:2020_Iowa_Democratic_caucuses/Archive_2#RfC_about_change_proposal_for_infobox_for_caucus_results--Davemoth (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Deputies of the 8th Legislature of the French fifth republic

I am proposing to create a series of pages for each department of France along the lines of Draft:Ain deputies to the eighth legislature of the French fifth republic to show the deputies of the French National Assembly elected via proportional representation (which was just for the 8th leigslature). I'd like some feedback on the idea and the design of the table. - Newystats (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Notification of discussion on deleting all local government subdivision articles

There is currently a discussion going on at WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom regarding a proposal to delete all articles on individual local government subdivisions. Please feel free to participate in this discussion. Sparkle1 (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

New results tables for Iceland

Hello all, I have developed a new results table to replace the old templates for the Icelandic election pages and have posted here as it is a fairly significant change that you might want to talk about. Please find an example of the new table below. I have edited the following election pages with this new table: 1991, 1995, 1999, 2003, 2007, 2009 and 2013 so far and plan to input these new tables to all election pages for Iceland if there is general agreement. Most of the information that was on the templates have been transferred over to the new results tables. However there is some differences, these are;

• These tables have a nice, clear and cleaner format.
• The election symbol is used on ballot papers and by media to identify parties. It is relevant information and so I have added it to the table.
• Though this may be contentious, I have removed the Icelandic translation of the party names as they seemed to clutter the table slightly and the translation can generally be found in the party article.
• I have also added links at the top to previous and subsequent elections to make it easier for navigating when there is no infobox.

I have also kept the chairperson(s) column in the table as it clearly shows the politicians that led their parties through the election. I feel this keeping this column is clear for the reader, rather than create additional tables that would clutter the article or make it hard to find within the body of the text. I hope folks here think these are an improvement and look forward to peoples thoughts on them. Humongous125 (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

2007 ← Summary of the 25 April 2009 Icelandic parliamentary election results → 2013
Party		Chairperson	Votes	%	+/–	Seats	+/–
	Social Democratic Alliance (S)	Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir	55,758	29.79	3.03	20	2
	Independence Party (D)	Bjarni Benediktsson	44,371	23.70	12.94	16	9
	Left-Green Movement (V)	Steingrímur J. Sigfússon	40,581	21.68	7.33	14	5
	Progressive Party (B)	Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson	27,699	14.80	3.08	9	2
	Citizens' Movement (O)	no designated chairperson	13,519	7.22	new	4	new
	Liberal Party (F)	Guðjón Arnar Kristjánsson	4,148	2.22	5.04	0	4
	Democracy Movement (P)	Ástþór Magnússon	1,107	0.59	new	0	new
Valid votes			187,183	96.50	–
Invalid votes			566	0.29	–
Blank votes			6,226	3.21	–
Total			193,975	100	–	63	–
Registered voters/turnout			227,843	85.14	–
Source: Statistics Iceland

Looks good. Newystats (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Leader columns in results tables

What are other editors' thoughts on including a column listing party leaders in the results tables like at 1991 Icelandic parliamentary election#Results?

IMO it's an unnecessary addition to the table and a detail that should be covered elsewhere in the article (especially as in many cases the leaders are hard to source, potentially leaving a blank column) and adds unnecessary width to the tables. However, Humongous125 is adamant that it is appropriate.

Based on a quick look through election articles, these columns are used on articles of five of the ~ 200 latest election articles for various countries and territories. Other views would be appreciated. Cheers, Number 57 20:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• I can see how it can sometimes be useful, especially when it would be clunky to do in prose. However, for a theoretical FA-class election article one could in the "results" column say that "John Smith was the chairman of Minor Party since January 1, 1999[source] ... Minor Party 2 did not have a leader[source]..." while major parties and their leaders would presumably be covered under a "Background" section. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The leader of a party is relevant information as in a lot of cases it is the person that leads their party through the election to the eventual result. Some election pages don't have a background section to include this, so not to include in the results table is a lose of information to the reader. A column for the leader in the results table is an obvious place as it is clear for the reader to read, rather than create additional tables that can over-clutter an article or make it hard to find within the body of the text. Adding an extra column is a simple solution. Humongous125 (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to see if the leaders column in 2019 United Kingdom general election#Results be removed, then we'd discuss about this. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

There is a disagreement on the table format I am aiming to roll-out for the Icelandic election pages taking place here Talk:1987 Icelandic parliamentary election. The discussion there is an ongoing debate from other talk pages. I would like to invite other editors to give their opinions and thoughts on it there to help bring the discussion to a resolution. Humongous125 (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I have stumbled across the debate and discussion, including at Disruption Resolution's noticeboard, and now I'm here. I must stand with Number 57 here. I, too, have been editing for many years, focusing on election and electoral results, in addition to boundary change, electoral administration, and related articles. I know that in many cases (such as infoboxes), it feels that we just get into stability before something comes along to whip up confusion and conflict. I don't mean that maliciously, it's the way of things around Wiki sometimes. I remember when the use of "(UK Parliament constituency)" on each article caused something close to a civil war. Infoboxes, too, and often because editors want to include or exclude certain leaders in the run up to polling day. It causes problems and disagreements within the most niche and drab areas of Wiki, and it really shouldn't. Because party leaders often feature in many different parts of an article - infobox, prose, and often separate tables within the prose - it seems unnecessary to add their names to the results boxes. Results are results, while leaders change. Results are results, while extraneous information is potentially disruptive for the reader and confusing to the uninitiated. If the leaders' names are not included in the prose, or an infobox, why not? Deal with that, rather than adding an extra column for no constructive or valid reason. doktorb _words^deeds 15:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Endorsements

Is everyone aware of Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 164 § RfC on inclusion criteria for lists of political endorsements? This is likely to be relevant from about (checks watch) now. Guy (help!) 23:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice of move discussion: 2011 Canadian federal election voter suppression scandal → Robocall scandal

I have proposed this article be moved to its redirect Robocall scandal. The discussion is taking place here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Infoboxes for electoral districts

Ideally, these should use Template:Infobox constituency, but the US and UK don't use this. Shouldn't there be just one, or use that as a wrapper? Howard the Duck (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I think there should be one. I had a quick look at the UK template, and for House of Commons constituencies and when you fix the parameter names, you end up with pretty much the same thing, barring the colour of the "Current constituency" bar and the order of party and MP (I do think that may need reversing in {{Infobox constituency}} as I would expect to see the MP listed first, then the party). It also has some automatic linking to UK-specific things that would need fixing, but nothing too taxing. Number 57 19:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

At the very least the UK infobox should be a wrapper of the main one, isn't it? Not just I'm calling for its deletion, as I plan on creating a country-specific one using the main template. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes – if you took it to TfD I would happily support deletion/merging. Number 57 09:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd rather have it use the primary infobox than delete it. This should be something that could be done on another day. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Ourcampaigns.com

Hi. [Ourcampaigns.com] is used as a source on ~2700 articles. Your input on its use as a source would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#ourcampaigns.com. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Parliamentary boundary reviews (United Kingdom)

This is largely a copy and paste from the UK politics project talk page, I know there are some interested parties in the wider psephological corner of Wikipedia who might want to keep their editing fingers primed for action.

Following the two aborted attempts at the Sixth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies, the government is trying again, having today published the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill (see https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-01/0127/20127.pdf ). I have thrown together a very rough and ready 2021 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies to help us all get prepared for the process which will soon be starting. The title, incidentally, is not "Seventh..." or "Eighth..." because I believe there is some uncertainty over the official designation and I thought it better to have an article in place than play "catch up". In anycase, this article can always be moved if we get any official title in the future.

When the Fifth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies happened, and decisions made on new constituencies, I remember the existing constituency articles were sometimes flooded with editors wanting to add the new boundary details, and it sometimes got a bit rushed and confused. We need, I think, to be very careful about starting new constituency articles until we're absolutely certain about the name and boundaries.

(With regards to constituency names, I noticed during one of the "zombie" Reviews that the Scottish Commission named "North X" something Wikipedia already had an article for named "X North", with an existing redirect. I think we may, if this happens again, have a Project discussion about how we name articles where "Compass Point X" and "X Compass Point" converge. Again, however, this is a long way off).

Hopefully we can all get together and work on the relevant articles when the time comes. Good luck! doktorb _words^deeds 04:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

1997 UK General Election map wrong

Just been pointed out to me elsewhere that the current map shows Teignbridge as a Lib Dem seat in 1997 when the Conservatives narrowly held it. I've corrected it myself, but don't appear to have any ability to overwrite the current one. See below.ImperatordeElysium (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

File:UK General Election 1997.svg

@ImperatordeElysium: If you go to the File on Wikimedia Commons, you should be able to upload your version over the top of the old one using the "Upload new version" button. Or if that doesn't work, contact Mirrorme22, who uploaded the original file. Number 57 19:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@ImperatordeElysium: Hello. I have corrected this error. Mirrorme22 (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC on the chronological order of US Presidential election result tables

RfC question: Should United States presidential election results tables be displayed in standard chronological order or reverse chronological order? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

In time for this year's United States presidential election, I've been thinking about standardizing the US Presidential election results tables in counties and municipalities (see Cook County, Illinois#Politics for an example) and plan to deploy {{PresHead}}, {{PresRow}}, and {{PresFoot}} to that effect more this year now that issues with substituting PresRow and PresFoot have been fixed by Pppery. However, I have a question to ask before I do so.

WP:SALORDER says that lists should be in standard chronological order, but the de facto standard with these tables has always been to put them in reverse chronological order. To the best of my knowledge there has never been a discussion or explicit consensus for or against this order. SALORDER does make an exception for frequently-updated lists such as the deaths in the current year, but once every four years hardly qualifies as such a frequency, and those lists are put into normal chronological order once they are no longer as frequently updated. One could argue with merit that recent results are more important and useful to an average reader than old results, and therefore some IAR can happen to allow reverse chronological order, but I've never seen it expressly ratified or repudiated.

Perhaps this could be better at an RfC, but I think this is an appropriate and sufficient venue. There was some consensus in this discussion from June to change them to standard chronological order, but it was weak and secondary to the main topic, IMO, so I'm looking for a clearer and more explicit consensus.

– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I’m happy with the current reverse order but have definitely seen inconsistency in other sorts of election results elsewhere. I think because it’s a single table that’s by default hidden reverse is okay. Thanks for your work on this! Reywas92^Talk 00:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I do tend to agree that reverse order tends to be better for this, but it's nice to get a firm consensus on this. And thanks! :) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter strongly to me, but my preference for these lists is the standard chronological order (similar to lists of members of congress from a particular congressional district). --Enos733 (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• Making this an RfC in order to have more discussion and a more thorough consensus. Hopefully people and LegoBot don't mind! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• I'm in favour of reverse chronological, I'm guessing reader interest is highest in the most recent. - Newystats (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• I favor following WP:SALORDER which is forward chronological order. Make the tables sortable, and then follow SALORDER – anyone who wants to see reverse chronological order can simply reverse sort. Best of both worlds: follows the MOS, while still allowing for a format/sorting that will be of interest to many readers. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

This is also the solution I would favor: sortable chronological order. Wykx (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

United States presidential primary

Perhaps someone in this WikiProject can help out with WP:THQ#Authenticity. The question is related to United States presidential primary and attempts by the OP to add content to United States presidential primary#Reform proposals. The first things that come to me regarding the proposed content are WP:NOR and WP:V as well as possibly WP:SOAPBOX, but there might be a way to incorporate a trimmed down version of this content into the article in way acceptable to Wikipedia if reliable sources can be found in support. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

If there are sources, and looks like their would be for the proposals in the section, it sounds like a notable section (or new page if it is too large a proportion of the page) Newystats (talk) 03:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2017 Turkmen presidential election

A requested move at this talk page has been relisted due to a lack of consensus emerging. Additional input would be welcome. Cheers, Number 57 18:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a reminder about this – no further input has been received since I flagged this up. Cheers, Number 57 16:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I've commented there. Newystats (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Consistency in US federal legislative elections

Hello,

I was told to ask my question regarding elections on this WikiProject (I originally asked at the Teahouse).

I have noticed inconsistencies in US House of Representatives elections pages. For instance, Washington (state) only has dedicated HoR election pages until 2000, whereas New York has dedicated pages until ~1968. Is creating new articles to keep consistency justifiable? There are reliable sources available, but (subjectively) I'm not sure if it would normally meet WP:N. (For those that are wondering I am focusing on Washington)

Should I work on creating new election pages for these inconsistencies?

Thanks, Giraffer (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

P.S: I joined the WikiProject!

I think you are right on WP:N– personally I have always wondered why we have this article set and why they are considered noteworthy. I appreciate it's useful to have articles on the breakdown of results, but for the US it means having a breakdown article for single constituencies (i.e. states where a single representative is elected), which I do not believe is notable. Is there a higher level at which the results could be combined while still having a decent amount of information? It's also possible that the information could be split between a single national results article, and the articles on the constituencies themselves (which would detail the result at each election). Number 57 10:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Presumably the state level is the highest you can collect all per district totals. If it's notable in 2020, it's notable all the way to 1776. This is similar to the countless UK by-election articles that we have, and those are even more specific, relating to just one district, as opposed to state level summaries, which can range from 1 to 50+. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I think by-elections/special elections are different as they are standalone elections as opposed to being part of a nationwide election. Number 57 10:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

It's the same election to the presumably the same district, redistricting notwithstanding. Whether or not it's the only election for the day or isn't (there are days when multiple special/by-elections are held) shouldn't detract the fact that it's a legislative election. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not the same as it is not part of the regular election cycle and the reasons for it being held are different. I seriously doubt an article on a general election in a single constituency in the UK would survive an AfD, whereas a by-election almost certainly would. Number 57 10:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Giraffer isn't asking about an article a specific district on a specific election. This is about a legislative elections in a specific area.

If you think such articles shouldn't exist, you can AFD one, then we'll see it from there. Otherwise, this discussion is a waste of time. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I know what they were asking about, and I gave the view that those that are for a single district (e.g. 2012 United States House of Representatives election in South Dakota) are probably not notable. Number 57 11:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

You can send that to AFD, but a state-wide election, even for one "district", should surely be notable; otherwise, gubernatorial, U.S. Senate and presidential elections from states that has at-large representations wouldn't be "notable". Howard the Duck (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The answer to the first question is that the election pages have not yet been created. The community has largely accepted the election pages as notable (see WP:POLOUTCOMES)

Candidates who are running or unsuccessfully ran for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged into lists of campaign hopefuls, such as Ontario New Democratic Party candidates in the 1995 Ontario provincial election, or into articles detailing the specific race in question, such as 2010 United States Senate election in Nevada.

As the quote indicates, there is a recognition that the election contest is notable, even if the candidates are not. As a community, the last major AfD about a single congressional district ended as "no consensus". The community has also routinely kept specific pages for special elections. --Enos733 (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)  

Interesting. While I won't support an article about election in a specific district in a place that is divided into multiple districts held during a general election, I'll support it being included in an article with elections from other districts in the place where it's from. If it's an at-large election, and it's the only election of its kind in that place, I'll support for its inclusion. That article you cited though seems to be "weird" and has 73 references so what should I know about it meeting WP:GNG? Howard the Duck (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Enos733. Go ahead and make state based articles and/or lists for each election. Newystats (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I very strongly discourage making articles just for the sake of having articles. Please do not bulk create pages unless there is demonstrated to be more information in the article than basic results already in the main page such as sourced prose discussion. There is no inherent issue with having more articles for some states than others, and pages that are empty other than redundant results tables are not a useful thing to have. Instead, it's another page to monitor and maintain, another page that could inappropriately diverge in style or material. 2004 United States House of Representatives elections in New York is just a duplicate of 2004 United States House of Representatives elections#New York but with outdated formatting. Just because elections are generally considered notable does not mean there must be separate pages for all of them when they are also covered elsewhere. Reywas92^Talk 03:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps consider transcluding then, as in results of Australian elections. In the Australian case, there is a page for the election as a whole in a particular year, and transcluded results in pages for each seat. Both serve a purpose depending on what the reader is interested in. Newystats (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Transclusion is always a great idea! It helps consolidate edits on specific content that is applicable to multiple articles while avoiding inconsistencies. Redirects to page sections also work before there's additional sections to include. So many of these election results articles are just raw data and prose repetition of it, and I don't feel it really helps the reader. Reywas92^Talk 21:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I'll make & work on the articles, unless there is very little to be said about the topics. @Enos733 & @Newystats, I agree with you, but I also think that @Reywas92 brings up a valid point about making articles for the sake of doing so. My editing is and will be mostly on (US) House of Representative & Senate elections, but on a state wide basis, i.e. 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Iowa and not on a congressional-district-level, i.e. California's 39th congressional district election, 2018. State-wide election-related articles are notable the majority of the time so creating & working on new articles shouldn't be too controversial (?) but at the end of the day if someone strongly disagrees they can nominate the articles for AfD.

Thanks for your time.

Regards, Giraffer (talk) 08:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)