Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Proposed manual of style for election articles

Being one of the few editors who edits election articles across numerous countries, I'm growing increasingly frustrated with editors only interested in elections in their own countries trying to impose their particular style on said articles, ignoring common practice elsewhere. Currently we have no standard layout for election articles to refer them to, so as a result, I have created a proposed manual of style for election articles, specifically what headings such articles should have, these being:

• Background
• Electoral system
• Candidates (single-post elections only)
• Campaign
• Opinion polls
• Conduct
• Results
• Aftermath
• References
• External links

I have also proposed a common layout of results tables, as at the moment there are numerous tables and templates floating around out there, most of which are designed by individual editors who use them only on the articles they edit. As elections formats are too varied to produce a realistically workable template, I have proposed that we use simple wikitables as they can be manipulated in many different ways, and the coding is much simpler. In many cases editors have created off-article templates for a single transclusion, which I don't believe is good practice (and then actually transcluding the template onto the article leaves the now-redundant v-d-e coding present).

Thoughts on both sets of proposals are welcome. Cheers, Number 57 13:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this for "Elections in" articles, specific elections, or both? I ask because I think we should start standardizing formats for both. Editors like me simply don't have the time nor the patience to canvas current best practices. Int21h (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

This one is for elections, but if we can agree to have a Project manual of style, I think it would be useful to also have them for the "Elections in" and referendum articles (the latter would be heavily based on the election format I'd imagine). Number 57 17:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

How are we going to handle multiple round elections? Or elections with primaries? Would those be subsections of the "Candidates" section? (See e.g. New York City mayoral election, 2013.) Int21h (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I did have two-round elections in mind - I already had primaries in the "Candidates" section. The results tables page also has options for dealing with two round elections. Number 57 17:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that was a wikilink to an actual MOS proposal. Yes, I support this. Int21h (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Theres no need to 'standardise'. Timeshift (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not about standardising content, but about setting articles out in a consistent format - there can, in theory, be unlimited sub-sections beneath the ones suggested above. We have manuals of style all over Wikipedia (e.g. this one for national football teams or this one for novels), yet we have nothing for election articles. Because there are so few active editors in this field, it would be very useful to have something to refer back to when cleaning up articles, as it's almost impossible to get sufficient knowledgeable input to individual disputes every time they happen. Number 57 22:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It is about a proposed manual of style, which like all WP:MOS, are guidelines. So, in terms of "standardization", it would be like a standard where everything is prefaced with "should" or "may", but would lack any "must" terms. This comes up often, so to repeat: following a MOS is not a must. Int21h (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't we sorta follow this already? Seeing that we sorta do, there should be no problem in a MOS. I don't remember seeing a "conduct" section in many articles, though.... –HTD 19:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

We do, but I wanted to formalise it for reference. Number 57 20:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

At first glance I notice that missing from the proposed templates are election title & date, party colour/color and ± % (percentage change) - and plenty more that may be relevant to a particular political system. As a creator of election templates that are now found on several projects I must say I don't think this proposal is workable. If you think you can decide this issue globally then I'd invite you to post this proposal on every single Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_[Country]/politics page and see what sort of response you get. My guess is all you'll achieve is dispute, and if one particular standardisation was enforced, retirement of editors who've previously been passionate about editing in their own sphere of interest. Finally, I consider we already have standard layouts, you'll find them at Category:Election and referendum infobox templates - I notice it the proposed results tables there are no templates referenced - do you propose creating new templates and/or deprecating those that don't fit a new 'world-view'? FanN | talk | 21:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head about disputes, and why I started this discussion. I'm interested in elections around the world, and have been adding a standard results table to articles in pretty much every country for years with no problem (not a table of my own devising, but one I picked up when I started working on election articles). However, I recently had difficulties with an editor focussed on a single country and their particular style, which escalated into them following me to other articles on other countries where they had no previous interest and changing formats to their preferred style. Because there is no official standard, there's nothing to refer back to when this kind of problem comes up, and due to the relatively number of small people editing in this field, especially those not focussed on their own country (I would say there are fewer than 10 editors I know who edit articles on elections in more than one country), I'm beginning to pick up on some WP:OWNership issues for articles on certain countries. If editors with that problem retire because they can no longer get their way, then I have to confess that I don't see it being a problem. In other WikiProjects I'm a member of, there are agreed table formats, which are applied to articles across the globe regardless of the country.

With regards to the results tables, there is a long discussion on the talk page of that specific proposal, with the current result being this template, which does include party colours, but could have other optional features added to it. I am aware of the category of templates you link to, but as far as I am aware, they are used only to display single candidate election (i.e. constituencies or wards) rather than full national results, which is what this discussion is about. Number 57 22:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

No two countries have the same electoral system, let alone political one. Why should Wikipedia have a "one size fits all" election template? doktorb _words^deeds 22:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue is not about the shape of the election template, which can be easily manipulated to fit whatever system is in place, but about the style - i.e. colourings, number format etc. Number 57 22:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed jurisdictions have different systems, but this proposal is not one size. It is akin to a conversion to metric measurements, not a single metric number, but a metric measurement system. Its saying that everyone's clothes should not use different measurement systems. My analogy is not really solid, but it makes sense with respect to a one-size-fits-all analogy. Int21h (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I indeed think this proposal is workable globally. I also think your suggestion to post the proposal on every single national WikiProject politics subpage is good: it should be done. These are the editors that need to be aware of this. Of course certain types of progress (uniformity, standardization) is going to run into issues, and I think bringing problems up here should be enough to overcome minor WP:OWNERSHIP issues/disputes. I should also note, as I feel that I need to always reiterate this, a MoS is not be-all-end-all reflection of community standards; it is a moment-in-time reflection of views of those who were involved in the MoS's creation, not the community's. Int21h (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Help needed

See United States presidential election in Vermont, 1964 (and others in navigational template). See United States presidential election in Maine, 1984 (and others in navigational template). Student7 (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

See what? The obvious thing is that they are incorrectly named (they should be United States presidential election, 1984 (Maine) etc. Number 57 23:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed naming convention (UK Parliament constituencies)

Advertising the proposed Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies) here, as specified in Wikipedia:Article_titles#Proposed_naming_conventions_and_guidelines. PamD 13:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Names of candidates on election pages

Is there a policy or guideline that covers the names of candidates on election pages? Please see Talk:Oxfordshire County Council election, 2013#Full names. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Opinion poll overkill

A few election articles are getting rather large in size, pretty much entirely due to the opinion poll sections in them. Next Italian general election is an extreme version (>100k) and has 365(!) separate polls on it. There seems to be a small group of editors who constantly add opinion polls to articles. In moderation, I don't think this is a bad thing, but some of them are really looking like overkill (Next Greek legislative election has almost 130 separate polls and Next Portuguese legislative election has over 100). What do others think about this? Do we need to limit the number of polls to make it manageable? Number 57 22:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Next Canadian federal election has been splitting the article, when the polls overwhelm the article. 117Avenue (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I think these articles are becoming too large. Polls are not elections. The media wants us to think so in order to "sell time." There is no reason for an encyclopedia to "buy into" this commercial frame of mind. A couple of polls, at most, should do it.

You think you've got it bad, the US has 50 states, 50 sets of polls, and at least three levels of government. None of the polls agree, yet go on and on and on.

This is also a great opportunity for paid editors to "pad" articles with polls favoring their candidate or party.

The article is supposedly about Elections which consist of citizens casting votes, not a group of paid people "polling" other people over the phone to create "excitement" for the politician/party who benefits, or the media, who benefits. Student7 (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of discussion here is not to give our views over the desirability of opinion polls. Opinion polls have an obvious relevancy to elections articles. Where space becomes an issue the common practice seems to be to split the poll data off to "Opinion polling for the next X general election" articles like Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. The practice of placing opinion poll in scrolling boxes will break lots of browsers and hides content. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 11:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Strange election result in Mali

I've recently uncovered more detailed results from Mali's elections in the 1990s. One oddity is how the National Rally for Democracy won a seat in the July 1997 elections. The party did not receive any votes in the first round (it wasn't formed until 5 days afterwards), yet somehow appears to have won a seat. In this source it states that the seat they won was one of six "MV" seats. I have no idea what this is, so any help would be welcome - thanks! Number 57 20:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Minorité visible (Visible minority)? Int21h (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC) This source says "The National Assembly had 15 members from historically marginalized pastoralist and nomadic ethnic minorities..." so maybe it was 6 but now its 15? Int21h (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the context of that statement, I think that's referring to the actual makeup of the people elected to Parliament, not seats reserved for them. Number 57 07:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I may be misinterpreting you, but isn't the actual makeup of the people elected to Parliament based upon seats reserved for such people? Such that by referring to categories of the latter (reserved membership composition), you may also refer to categories of the former (actual membership composition)? In other words, if one referred to MV in the context of reservations, and another referred to MV in the context of actual members, would it not be plain that they were referring to the same concept because of the intrinsic relationship between reservations and actual membership? Its an intrinsic relationship because reservations determine (not entirely, but partially) actual membership. Int21h (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. What I meant was that 15 people who were ethnic minorities were elected to Parliament via the normal process, as would happen in the UK. I think the paper was just highlighting the success or otherwise of minorities (and women) in gaining political representation through the Malian electoral system, which does not have appear to have specific seats reserved for minorities (see current electoral system here and compare to Iran's or Jordan's which note the existence of reserved seats). Number 57 09:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you're saying now. Int21h (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Single-member constituencies without primaries?

How is a partisan candidate chosen to be on a general election ballot without the use of primaries? I am particularly interested in English-speaking/common law countries, e.g., the UK, Canada, and Australia. Do the leaders of the political parties choose who runs for their party in each constituency? Int21h (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It depends on the party involved. In the UK the most common way (for the larger parties) is for the local party group in a constituency to select their own candidate, usually from a shortlist approved by the central party. Occasionally candidates are imposed when there are considered to be problems with the local constituency party. Number 57 08:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Bolding of winners in election infoboxes

Please join the discussion here. Thanks, Number 57 08:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Elections and Referendums At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Tagging articles for inclusion in this WikiProject

I've tagged several articles that fall within the scope of this project with our WikiProject talk page banner. This (rather thankless) task has appeared to have been neglected for quite some time; for example, even though many articles relating to voting systems have been tagged, the article on voting itself was not. I'll continue to do this for other election-related articles I come across. I haven't assessed all of the articles I've tagged. Help from anyone in tagging or assessing election-related articles would be greatly appreciated! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Assessing importance/class for articles

Hello, I would like to know who assesses articles related to this WikiProject – is this something we can do ourselves, or does it have to be submitted to a WikiProject member for reassessment? The article Colombian presidential election, 2014 has been upgraded as the election has gone along, and now the result is known it certainly needs upgrading from its current stub-class rating. I would hope it meets the criteria for B-class. Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

All volunteer. People who have signed up as Project members. Once you have become a member, there are "techniques" and standards to help you to assess articles. Suggest joining and reassessing the article yourself. Student7 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I shall do that. Richard3120 (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

United_States_Senate_special_election_in_New_Jersey,_2013#Polling_3

(Cross-listed at the article's talk page.) There are some problems with the numbers, colors, and formatting of this table. Can somebody please fix the problems? Bearian (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed the problems. It appears to be the work of a couple of IP vandals. Thanks for the heads-up. Tiller54 (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Local election notability

A discussion relevant to this WikiProject has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Local Election Results (Particularly in Wales). Cheers, Number 57 22:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Referendums: allowing a description in navboxes

See: [1]

I made the above diff to easily differentiate between the two devolution referendums and the independence referendum. It was reverted citing a standard; can someone highlight this to me? And regardless, should we have a discussion on allowing them? In my opinion, navboxes should be clear and concise; clarity is lost, however, by just saying that there were three referendums without mentioning they were on two different issues. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The standard (not having referendums below the national level on these templates) is what all other navboxes like this look like. We really don't need a description next to each referendum - what are templates like {{Slovenian elections}} or {{Danish elections}} going to end up looking like, not to mention {{Swiss elections}} or {{Liechtenstein elections}}. Number 57 09:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Polling and what makes a candidate a candidate, part ?

I noticed the RFC occurring at Talk:United States Senate election in Virginia, 2014. Since my comments have far more to do with our United States election coverage in general than anything related to that election, I'm posting this here instead. There is an ongoing, years-long issue which has implications far beyond this one article.

The major part of the problem is twofold. First, it's plainly obvious that there are editors who devote themselves to marginalizing coverage of that portion of American politics which falls outside the two-party system. The second one is more specific to elections: a number of editors actively push the POV that filing for an office does not make you a candidate for that office, but making offhand remarks to a friendly reporter or issuing a press release does make you a candidate so long as a corporate media outlet deems it to be a news story, even when no other evidence of candidacy or potential candidacy exists. See Sarah Palin#Possible 2014 Senate campaign for a very good example; since the filing deadline in Alaska was on June 2, this has been shown to be little more than a news story which was apparently trending one day last year amongst the D.C. fanboy crowd, rather than a legitimate happening. The response on that article's talk page was agreeable to that point, but lukewarm to the idea that it's inappropriate coverage due to there being no factual basis for such a candidacy, as opposed to just being an offhand remark made to Sean Hannity.

The end result is that Wikipedia articles on United States elections are being aggressively maintained as POV forks for how the corporate media and pollsters view these elections, IN PLACE OF being a factually accurate representation. In 2014, a large part of maintaining this POV has been due to the activity of one editor, User:Tiller54. I also see various IPs making a similarly large number of edits to the same articles in the same vein, but it's not that important to me whether it's all the same person doing this or not. I previously attempted some resolution at Talk:Alaska gubernatorial election, 2014, which I had to abandon as it proves that "Wikipedia is ruled by people who have time for this shit" is no longer just a random snide remark. Afterwards, I had to wonder whether "original research" was the correct term to use. However, recent developments led me to believe that I was correct in that assumption. Namely, Tiller54 has insisted on repeatedly inserting Bill Walker's name into the infobox, based strictly upon polling data. Take a look at this webpage, if you would. Pay particular attention to "pending signature verification" following Walker's name. That means that as of this writing, Walker isn't even on the ballot, and won't be unless and until his nominating petition is certified. Ten days ago, Walker spent the entire day campaigning in downtown Fairbanks during our annual summer solstice street fair. A large part of this effort was in collecting signatures. Incidentally, even though Walker was here and his running mate, Craig Fleener, was not, far more people were signing Fleener's petition. So much for "Fairbanks Born" being anything other than advertising hype.

The infobox field says "Nominee". In Alaska, there are no nominees until after the primary election, which takes place seven weeks from today, which is why I originally cleared the names from the infobox of Alaska gubernatorial election, 2014 as a massive WP:CRYSTAL violation. Due to Tiller54's subsequent edits, that article's infobox is currently attempting to portray Walker as the "nominee of the Independent Party", whatever that is. Based upon his supporters, "nominee of the RINO Party" would be more accurate. Anyway, to repeat, Walker has filed for the office, but isn't on the ballot as of today. Moreover, there is another non-party candidate who is also out collecting signatures, but his name has been removed from the article due to the fact that he's not running a money campaign and is therefore being ignored by the corporate media and the pollsters. He is not the only candidate who has fallen victim to this practice.

In conclusion, "you get what you pay for" may be the best way to put it. The weight we're giving to candidates is not due to notability or viability, as Tiller54 has repeatedly asserted. Rather, it's due to the money they're raising and spending and the exposure it's buying them, evidently including right here on this ostensibly free, non-commercial website. This is merely parroting the corporate media and pollster agendas, backed by "consensus" shaped only by a few very active editors. In the end, any editors not agreeable to this agenda will simply fail to make positive contributions. I continue to be busy taking photos of candidates, including Bill Walker. I would be foolish to donate those photos simply to bolster this blatant POV, which is why you've seen very few (if any) of them on Commons, even though I continue to upload other photos I've taken. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, there are two issues here. The first is infoboxes, and they cause massive NPOV problems prior to elections as some editors try to limit who can go in them before they know the election results (the debate about UKIP being in the next UK general election article has been rumbling on forever). Either all candidates/parties should go in them, or they should not be used until the results are in (and even then it can be problematic determining the cut-off point).

The second is polls and lists of candidates/parties. For these I think it's pretty clear that all candidates/parties should be included - I can't see any justification for leaving out anyone running in the election from simple tables. Number 57 21:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"Talk" and campaign speeches shouldn't go into these articles. Nor "signatures," nor any non-election activity. I suppose we are forced to publish election results no matter how small on official candidates (but not write-ins with less than 1%? of the vote). If the party doesn't hold a primary, there is no reporting at that time. This leaves polls on which I would say under 1% shouldn't be reported. Probably a higher threshold should be used.

And yes, this is a place for recording data on candidates that don't need the publicity. This is not a place for "minor/unknown" candidates, per se. We may be ultimately forced to report the results, but we are not, nor should be, forced to publicize unknowns. It is up to them to get publicity. This is not WP:SPAM for minor parties.

We aren't talking articles with the Sarah Palin blurb above. She is already notable and has an article. Assuming she spent time "floating" her candidacy for the Senate, it probably should go into her article with failure noted. But this is a decision for the editors on her biography, not here. We would only be concerned if it fell under "Alaskan Senate Election 2014", where we might not want it, since nothing was actually done. Student7 (talk) 11:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't going to respond to this rubbish, but as he personally tagged me in it, I should probably do so. First of all, no-one has ever said that "filing for an office does not make you a candidate for that office". What it doesn't do is automatically guarantee notability as a candidate, which is why we only include candidates in the infobox if they're polling over 5%. Furthermore, self-declared candidacies by random people on their websites/wordpress blogs are not sufficient. You go on and on about "POV" and "OR" but you constantly ignore WP:RS. If there's no reliable source supporting something, it'll be removed.

As if that's not enough, you then argue against including Walker in the infobox even though he was polling in the high teens! So which is it? Either everyone's pushing a POV to ignore non-major party candidates, or everyone's pushing to include non-major party candidates. You can't have it both ways. As to your specific point about collecting signatures: so the petition filing deadline hadn't passed yet. And so what? Does that mean we should ignore a serious Independent candidate who was at the time polling in the high teens just because they hadn't submitted their signatures yet?

As for your claim that "that article's infobox is currently attempting to portray Walker as the "nominee of the Independent Party", whatever that is", that's just wrong. If you'd even bothered to look, you'd have seen that the link was to Independent (politician), which is what Walker is. The infobox can't be changed to list an Independent candidate as a "candidate" rather than a nominee of a non-existent "Independent Party", as illustrated [United States Senate election in Maine, 2012 here] and here, for example.

Finally, your comments that "The weight we're giving to candidates is not due to notability or viability, as Tiller54 has repeatedly asserted. Rather, it's due to the money they're raising and spending and the exposure it's buying them, evidently including right here on this ostensibly free, non-commercial website." How about you assume good faith for a change? The only criteria relied upon to determine appropriate weight given to candidates are their coverage in reliable sources and their performance in opinion polls. Tiller54 (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

New Zealand general election, 2014: Unsuccessful list candidates

At Talk:New Zealand general election, 2014, we have had a debate on whether it is appropriate to list every unsuccessful list candidate on the main article page, when the information is available on the sub-page Candidates in the New Zealand general election 2014 by party. User:Schwede66 and User:Mattlore think it is appropriate to do so, but I can't see the justification in spending a good proportion (7% to be exact) of the article on a list of 300+ non-notable unsuccessful list candidates. It is also reasoned that there is a list on unsuccessful candidates on every main election article dating back to the first MMP election in 1996. I need a second opinion on this. Any thoughts? Lcmortensen (mailbox) 08:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

My first thought is that it would look hideous, but I think it's been done quite nicely, so don't really have a problem with it. Number 57 09:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm with you on this Lcmortensen, I don't think it is necessary when we have a page with all the unsuccessful list candidates already. That every other MMP election has such a list does not make it appropriate, some of the earlier elections are missing the relevant party list in NZ election (year) page. FanN | talk | 06:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Chilean elections

The term " General Choices " is not a name that is own of the political Chilean system. The reason is that the fact that the presidential and parliamentary choices do to themselves in the same date is a recent phenomenon in the Chilean history. The separation of these elections in the electoral campaigns. The problem that this generates to write the previous articles under one only convention of style it is a sufficient reason to warn that the Election of the President of Chile and the Election of the houses of the National Congress must be in different articles. The users of spanish wikipedia have used this convention to have a better chronology of the articles throughout the time.

The articles that should be eliminated are:

• Chilean general election, 1989
• Chilean general election, 1993
• Chilean general election, 2013
• Chilean general election, 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HughOttoBaesler (talk • contribs) 17:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I assume you mean "general election" not "general choices", and I have also fixed the links you provided above. I don't really understand your logic, but I am of the opinion that the articles should be kept as one, rather than divided into individual articles for the presidential and parliamentary elections. If they happen on the same day, it's a general election (see that article: "In presidential systems, the term refers to a regularly scheduled election where both the president, and either "a class" of or all members of the national legislature are elected at the same time."). Number 57 17:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hugh, lo que quieres decir es que debemos separar la elección presidencial y la elección parlamentaria en dos articulos, y no tener las dos juntos en el mismo articulo?

For the English speakers, I think Hugh is trying to say that only recently has it become common in Chile to hold presidential and parliamentary elections on the same day, and hence the two elections are split into two separate articles on the Spanish Wikipedia, because historically they could not be grouped together. Richard3120 (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for explaining. I don't see why a past method of holding elections should affect current articles. We have a mix of split/general election articles for several countries, depending on whether the elections were held together or not. Number 57 19:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Confusingly the template {{Chilean elections}} still lists presidential and parliamentary elections from 1989 to present, with links to the same general election year from each section. From 1989 onwards these should be in a new section of General elections (or perhaps Combined Presidential and Parliamentary elections). FanN | talk | 06:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the template layout is confusing - I'd say it would be more confusing if presidential and parliamentary elections appeared to stop in 1989, as I don't see a problem with having separate rows for the two elections, even if some link to the same article. In almost all cases we have separate rows for presidential and parliamentary elections, even for countries in which the two have always been held together (e.g. {{Tanzanian elections}}). Number 57 08:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That es:Elección presidencial de Chile de 2013, es:Elecciones parlamentarias de Chile de 2013 and es:Elecciones de consejeros regionales de Chile de 2013 are separate articles should not mean much to us. We do not combine United States Presidential elections with congressional elections when they happen to be held on the same day every four years, but then they're arguably of more interest to the English wiki, nor do we combine United Kingdom general elections with with local or devolved elections when they happen to be held on the same day. They're separate on the Spanish wiki because they are full articles, with different layouts and infoboxes etc., the Presidential contests are subject to runoff elections, and have separate polling etc. But as the English wiki articles are much smaller it makes sense to keep them as single pages per election year. FanN | talk | 06:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Broken infobox on Next United Kingdom general election

The infobox of Next United Kingdom general election is broken, but appears so for at least 500 previous versions so I'm inclined to think it's a problem with {{Infobox election}} rather than this specific article. Can anyone fix it? Have also raised this on the article talk page and at Template talk:Infobox election. PamD 10:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed - see Template_talk:Infobox_election#What.27s_wrong_at_Next_United_Kingdom_general_election.3F. PamD 21:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Bot to tag articles for the WikiProject

Does anyone have any objection to me requesting for a bot to add the {{WikiProject Elections and Referendums}} tag to the talk pages of all election and referendum articles? This will ensure that the articles appear on the article alerts feed, which highlights relevant AfDs, RMs, GA nominations etc. There is a long thread at WP:BTR if anyone wants to see some more background. Cheers, Number 57 13:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

No objection, sounds sensible. —Nightstallion 13:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I set up the article alerts page some time back but it does need a boost to get more articles tagged so discussions can be spotted. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems sensible to me too. Bondegezou (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

All the other WikiProjects do it; why not this one? Harej (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't see any reason why not. Davewild (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Bot requests, Number 57 described this WikiProject as "very inactive". That's a reason. (It's important to keep in mind that bot tasks along these lines can cause collateral damage, so if no active editor collaboration benefits from the mass tagging, it simply isn't justified.)

Additionally, it's been noted that the article alerts could be triggered via other, less problematic methods. —David Levy 17:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Your second statement is rather misleading. You suggested that it might be possible to amend the bot to recognise stuff in other ways. We don't know whether this is possible, or indeed whether the bot owner will actually do it. Number 57 17:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't criticise you for simply linking to the discussion (referring to "some more background", with no acknowledgement that concerns/objections had arisen), so I'm stunned to see you complain that I failed to provide a detailed summary.

Secondly (in response to your statement that "we don't know whether this is possible"), while I'm not a bot owner, I'm familiar enough with their operation to assure you that it is (as I did on the request page). But I don't expect you to take my word for it. As I noted in the discussion, you dismissed the suggestion without even allowing any bot owners to comment first. Obviously, if they were to indicate that I'm wrong (and such a setup isn't possible) or decline to perform the programming, that would change matters.

You rejected the idea not because of infeasibility, but because you found the bot request process stressful and felt that it would be easier to "just get the talk pages tagged" than to pursue a different approach. I'm sorry, but a bot run involving 7,424 categories isn't something to be taken lightly. —David Levy 18:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

What? I didn't complain about anything to do with you not providing a detailed summary.

I rejected the idea because it's standard procedure just to have the articles tagged (as alluded to above by another editor). The incredible sense of frustration was a side issue. Number 57 19:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

What? I didn't complain about anything to do with you not providing a detailed summary.

You deemed my statement "rather misleading" because I mentioned that alternative methods were discussed at Wikipedia:Bot requests without explicitly noting that some of them have not yet been implemented.

I rejected the idea because it's standard procedure just to have the articles tagged (as alluded to above by another editor).

Yes, you mentioned that too. And as I noted, it isn't standard procedure for WikiProjects that are "very inactive" (as you described this one).

The incredible sense of frustration was a side issue.

From the same message: "After all the faffing around here, I'd really rather not get involved in a request to change the way the bot operates, as this has done more than enough to sap my morale. Can we just get on with it please?"

I realize that you perceive my response as "obstruction", but I genuinely seek to assist you in achieving your underlying goal in the most efficient (and least disruptive) manner possible. I don't seek to take your preferred method off the table. I ask only that the alternatives receive their due consideration (including consultation with the available bot owners) before we rush into a massive and potentially problematic bot task. —David Levy 19:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No objections. Good idea. -Karan Kamath (talk · contribs) 05:33, August 21, 2014 (UTC)

No objections here. Seems like a good idea SantiLak (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Having created, edited, and updated many articles in and around this project and referring to it regularly for informational purposes (my minor edits can attest), and supporting any attempt to prove the WikiBureaucrat-Dictators wrong about something, I fully endorse this effort. Also, we should get this project more active while we are at it. I havent edited much in awhile and it might be good to go plow thru some things and see what needs changes, updates, etc.--Metallurgist (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You may be interested in a couple of subpages I've crearted; this one details where we are with the election/referendum years -(i.e. whether they're complete or not), and this is a start on assessing sets of articles by country. Number 57 23:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

To quote your talk page's welcome message, "please be civil and not rude or insulting."

I realize that you were notified of the situation via a message alluding to the bureaucratic obstruction of "progress", but we all share the goal of acting in Wikipedia's best interests. You're entitled to disagree with others' concerns, but there's no need for name-calling. —David Levy 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@David Levy, Karan Kamath, Number 57, Nightstallion, Timrollpickering, Bondegezou, and Davewild: et al. (in case I forgot to ping someone). The number of pages requested to be tagged is 50,867. After comparison with pages that already have the tag the total number is 45,594 new tags. I still hesitate to start this task because it will increase the number of pages watched by this project by 1000%. Any comments are welcome. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the pages do need to be watched - the current figures show that 90% aren't being, so Project members may be missing out on important notifications (the whole reason I started this request was because of an AfD that Project members missed due to a lack of notification). Number 57 09:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the pages do need to be watched

And as I've attempted to explain, the solution is to set up a more sensible means of instructing a bot to provide the desired notifications – one that doesn't entail a massive automated tagging spree that needlessly creates inactive talk pages and encourages reliance upon a similarly inactive WikiProject.

The current setup is based on the presumption that the talk page tagging in question already exists. Manufacturing such tagging specifically to enable notifications turns the logic on its head. ("Use A for B" becomes "facilitate B by creating A".) It's analogous to constructing vacant houses purely for the purpose of receiving mail at the resultant addresses. —David Levy 14:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You believe it is a solution, but no-one else has agreed with you. As stated by several people above, there is not deemed to be a problem with tagging the talk pages, as is standard. Number 57 14:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You believe it is a solution, but no-one else has agreed with you.

Where was the option even discussed?

How, in your view, would implementing an alternative method of flagging articles for alerts not solve the problem cited above?

As stated by several people above,

The ones whose support you rallied via a non-neutral message (in which you implied that "the attitude of the people at WP:BTR" has obstructed "progress"), despite being "aware of WP:CANVASS"?

there is not deemed to be a problem with tagging the talk pages,

Problems (and discussions thereof) were brought to your attention.

as is standard.

Again, the automated tagging of more than 50,000 talk pages (including those that don't exist yet) is not standard procedure, let alone one routinely carried out on behalf of a "very inactive" WikiProject. You seem to regard it as an automatic entitlement, which has led you to demand its immediate and unconditional implementation (with zero willingness to even consider alternatives). —David Levy 15:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

David, as I said elsewhere, your opposition to this is well documented. I will not continue wasting my time responding to you, especially as you only seem to be logging into Wikipedia to comment in an attempt to block this proposal, so this will be my final reply to your comments. Number 57 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

David, as I said elsewhere, your opposition to this is well documented.

If I were replying simply to reiterate my opposition to your request, I would understand your frustration. I've been attempting to initiate discussion of alternative implementations, which you've steadfastly refused to consider.

I will not continue wasting my time responding to you,

Indeed, you regard discussion of this matter as a waste of time (and because I've pursued it, you've deemed my participation negative and obstructive). In your view, anything other than commencing the tagging is unacceptable, so you won't even entertain other ideas.

especially as you only seem to be logging into Wikipedia to comment in an attempt to block this proposal,

I responded to a ping by once again seeking to engage in discussion of a solution to your WikiProject's problem.

As I noted at User talk:Magioladitis, I'm busy outside Wikipedia, so the time that I'm currently able to set aside for editing is quite limited. Nonetheless, I've dedicated a significant portion to this topic. I remain baffled as to why you view this as something sinister or untoward.

so this will be my final reply to your comments.

And it brings the number of instances in which you addressed my proposal's substance to a grand total of zero. —David Levy 16:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@David Levy, Karan Kamath, Number 57, Nightstallion, Timrollpickering, Bondegezou, and Davewild: I hope this time I pinged correctly. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Plus @Harej, SantiLak, and Metallurgist:. Number 57 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

For anyone who has concerns about the number of new pages this may create, I have listed the talk pages of the 36,142 articles, 1,786 templates, 7,057 categories and 179 other pages this will tag.

As you can see, the vast majority of article talk pages already exist. For the article list, I took a random sample from the list starting at 0, 1,000, 10,000 and 25,000 and looked at all the links on screen (28-29). From that sample, 129 talk pages already existed (91.5%) and 12 (8.5%) did not. Using this figure, tagging the planned number of articles should only result in around 3,000 new talk pages being created.

For templates the ratio was 59:25 (70% already existing), and for categories it was 42:42 (only 50%). As you can see by scrolling down the latter list, it has large sets of categories that are tagged and large sets that aren't. If people have reservations about this lot being tagged, I can live with it, but I think the articles are a must. Cheers, Number 57 21:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: As no-one has objected to increasing the project's watchlist, can we get the talk pages that already exist tagged (thus avoiding creating new talk pages)? Cheers, Number 57 15:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Number 57: OK then. I can start most probably during this weekend. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Number 57: where is the list of pages (or categories) for this one? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: I thought you had a list - can the bot not differentiate between pages that exist and those that don't? If not, I'll try and sort out a new list. Cheers, Number 57 21:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Number 57: I can do that. I can't find the list I created though. Do you remember where I posted it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: I'll e-mail it to you, as it's massive. Number 57 22:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Tagging started yesterday. At about 35,000 pages to be tagged. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Number 57: et al. Tagging complete. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Voting age population

What do people think about the inclusion of voting age population in results tables? An example is here.

I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this. Although it's additional information, the voting age population figure is not an accurate one - unless there has just been a census, it's always going to be an estimate, whereas the number of registered voters is an absolute figure based on the actual number of people on the electoral register. The figures are generally available, but are often not entirely in sync with the election date (this example for Fiji was an estimate for two months prior to the elections).

Personally I'm leaning against based on my concerns about accuracy, but would be interested to hear other opinions. Number 57 04:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

IMO, there's a WP:SYNTH problem when the figures aren't directly related to the elections. Rami R 07:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Good point - that had crossed my mind. Number 57 07:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This should be in the body of the article, not in the tables, along the lines of, "at the last Foo census 12,345,678 persons were of voting age although at the Foo election, 2014 only 1,123,456 voters were registered." The only time this should be in a table is if comparing censuses and voter registration over several elections/decades. FanN | talk | 10:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Infoboxes, candidates

There have been many discussions over the years about infoboxes in election articles, particularly how (or if) to list candidates in the infobox. I was involved in a lengthy discussion about the issue and did much research on previous discussions and on applicable WP policy/guidelines. There is no single, clear guideline that I could find that exactly covers the issue and there is no consensus at this point as to how to handle the issue.

Here's a digest of what I found:

Some previous discussions:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Senate_election_in_Virginia,_2014&oldid=618114867
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rhode_Island_gubernatorial_election,_2014
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_Senate_election_in_Louisiana,_2014
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-06-29_United_States_presidential_election,_2008&oldid=229107255
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2012/Archive_9&oldid=572491486#Number_of_candidates_in_the_infobox
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums&oldid=629927722#Polling_and_what_makes_a_candidate_a_candidate.2C_part_.3F

(Note: Some of the earlier discussions were based on older, less-developed versions of WP policy/guidelines, so please keep that in mind when referring to them.)

Some suggested solutions with possibly applicable WP guidelines/policies:

1. Don't include an infobox - MOS:INFOBOX - "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article."
2. Include key facts (e.g., number of candidates), but not a list of candidates - MOS:INFOBOX - "...the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose"
3. List candidate names, but not images - MOS:INFOBOX Ibid.
4. List all candidates within a collapsible element (hide/show) - MOS:INFOBOX Ibid.
5. List only the major political parties - WP:WEIGHT
6. List only "serious" candidates - WP:Notability, WP:NPOV
7. List only candidates polling X% - ?
8. List candidates that are on the ballot - WP:LIST - "Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list."
9. List all declared candidates that have a reliable source - WP:RS, WP:LIST Ibid.
10. List all candidates and speculative candidates (that have a source) - WP:RS

Other comments:

• The solution to the issue of candidates in the infobox should be based on WP policy/guidelines or if not, then there should be a good reason with a clear consensus for not doing so.
• Lack of a clear, objective selection criteria for inclusion of candidates in the infobox causes harsh, continual debate.
• The election articles themselves contain complete lists of candidates, so the purpose of a list of candidates in the infobox is unclear.
• MOS:INFOBOX is only a style guide for template design, but is probably the most specific guideline as to the issue.
• WP:WEIGHT deals with the relative weight of views or viewpoints, not the weight or popularity of people, so its applicability is limited.
• WP:N generally applies when deciding whether to have an article on a given topic, not on the inclusion of items within an article or list.
• In terms of selection criteria, WP:List and its derivitives simply say (for short lists like these), that items in a list need only belong to the set of things described by the list, and they need to follow core WP policy (WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV).
• WP:BLP doesn't appear to apply to this specific issue as long as there are verifiable sources that say the person is actually a candidate in the election.

Hopefully this information is useful in guiding a discussion to some kind of consensus on how to deal with the infobox in election articles. Sparkie82 (t•c) 20:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

My preference is that prior to an election we should take an all-or-nothing approach - either have an infobox with all the candidates/parties or don't have one at all. I see the inclusion of a limited number of candidates as an NPOV violation, regardless of polling.

After elections, it really depends on the outcome:

1. If it's a presidential election that's gone to a second round, only have those two candidates
2. If it's a presidential election using plurality voting, include every candidate in the top "group". This should usually be obvious, but if there is no clear cut-off, include as many as possible.
3. If it's a legislative election with fewer than 9 parties winning seats, use the normal infobox and show them all
4. If more than 9 win seats, and it's a common occurrence, use a different infobox (we have Template:Infobox Israeli Election, which can cope with 15 - this could be converted into an infobox that can be used on any country with a silly number of parties).
5. If more than 9 win seats, and it's a one-off, limit the infobox to the top "group" (hopefully this is usually obvious).

However, as you pointed out, infoboxes generate endless streams of heated debates when editors could be much better off doing more productive work, and are arguably more hassle than they're worth. I personally do not use them on articles I create, although I don't mind if people add them at a later date (though I do have qualms about editors who add the infoboxes to one-party elections). Number 57 20:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the current infobox is if someone wants to be inclusive is that the headshots get in the way. Plus the manner of presentation only works if there are only 2, 3 or, less so, 6 parties. It sucks for 4 or 5, and more so for 7 or more, parties. For multiple-winner elections, and you'd really want to include all parties that won seats, and either there's more than nine of them or there's no discernible groups, I'd recommend a modification of the Israeli election infobox into something like this:

Party		Chairman	% votes	Seats won
	Red Party	Mr. Red	50.3%	45
	Blue Party	Mrs. Blue	34.8%	34
	Green Party	Mr. Green	14.9%	12
Seats needed to win				46

The current Israeli infobox has total votes and seats percent columns, something that could be omitted in a summary. We can live with using the percentage instead of the total number of votes, and once we know how many seats are needed to win, we can omit the seats percentage. –HTD 00:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Formatting for an office-holder elect's infobox

This might seem like a silly little thing, but I've wondered: is there a precedent/rule for formatting the infobox title for an officeholder-elect. See this and this to see what I mean. It might help to have some consistency as we proceed with U.S. midterm election wrap-up. Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I would say the Tom Wolf one is better, as it's clearer that he is Governor-elect and not the actual Governor. Number 57 16:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Has there ever been a discussion about this? From what I've seen, a number of articles have switched between the two formats several times today. Such a trivial thing, but wouldn't it make sense to have some sort of norm? Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

No idea, but on a second consideration of the issue, I think the Wolf one is the only rational choice - the Baker one has him listed as Governor (with elect in small text underneath), which is misleading. Wolf's one clearly states that he is Governor-Elect, which is correct. Number 57 08:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for two-round elections in {{Infobox election}}

WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 8

21–22 April and 5–6 May 2012

Nominee François Hollande Nicolas Sarkozy Party PS UMP First round 10,272,705 (28.63%) 9,753,629 (27.18%) Runoff 18,000,668 (51.64%) 16,860,685 (48.36%)

President before election Nicolas Sarkozy UMP President-elect François Hollande PS

Around two thirds of presidential elections use the runoff system (see Table of voting systems by country), yet {{Infobox election}} has no systematic way to properly show their results. I suggest we add the parameters firstround_voteX, firstround_percentageX, runoff_voteX and runoff_percentageX. While the election is ongoing, only the first round results could be shown, and once the election has finished, the runoff results would replace popular_voteX and percentageX. To make the table less cluttered, I suggest the percentage for each round be in parentheses next to the popular vote.

See the infobox on the right as an example of what I have in mind.

This has the advantage of showing the popular support each candidate really enjoyed. I welcome any comment and suggestion. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 17:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said previously when this discussion was taking place at Template talk:Infobox election#Two-round elections, I don't think any changes to what is already a fairly cluttered coding is required – you've produced the infobox to the left without any modifications to the existing infobox. A secondary concern is that adding this to the code would encourage editors to use it for legislative elections (where the nationwide second round results are meaningless/unrepresenative as not all constituencies will be voting). Also, I think it would be best if this discussion was kept at the template talk page rather than here (what I meant by my comment there was to invite participants to the template talk page, not start another discussion elsewhere). Cheers, Number 57 17:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you're reasons. What do you mean by "you've produced the infobox to the left without any modifications to the existing infobox"? My example is simply to show the look of the changes I'd like to have implemented. I do not agree at all that it makes it more cluttered. As far I see, it is not as cluttered as the infobox for United States presidential elections. Why is it legitimate that a system used by only a handful of countries be fully integrated into the code, while one that is clearly used by the majority merits only partial information or the use of workarounds such as blank data fields? The change I am suggesting is surely not that complicated to implement.

Would you argue that, in presidential elections, only the runoff results is meaningful? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 17:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, you have produced the infobox to the left with the existing code (and it is the coding/parameters which I am concerned about becoming cluttered with too many optional lines). I'm undecided whether it's a good idea to show the first round results in the infobox; it's not something that we've done to date (to my knowledge), and whilst I can see the benefits of doing so, I am concerned it could be co-opted for use in inappropriate situations (as per my comments re legislative elections above). Number 57 17:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand why you're mentioning legislative election as this was the original reason I brought this topic up. However, I'd like to assure you of my good faith when I say that I decided to again push for this change only when I saw that it was much more meaningful for presidential elections. I certainly wouldn't hijack a favorable opinion for my proposal to legitimize a change to legislative elections. I'll seek consensus for that too. As far as cluttered code goes, isn't the cutoff a bit arbitrary? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 18:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

And again, I must insist that the change is not to accommodate an obscure electoral system, but the majority of presidential elections. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 18:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is the change I am suggesting: [2]. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 19:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Notability of constituencies

I'm looking for some advice here. Is there some specific criterion for notability of constituencies? The reason that I ask is that I've come across the category Constituencies of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (can't get a wikilink to work for some reason; see Constituency MR-1 and the category template at the bottom of that article), all members of which are stubs sourced from primary sources (Pakistani election commission etc). As far as I can tell, these don't meet the general notability criteria and almost certainly never will. However, at the AfD, someone has raised the issue that we already have eg. a complete set of articles on the Scottish parliament's constituencies, which would seem to similarly fail to meet the GNG. Can someone offer some guidance, please, on how notability works in this area? GoldenRing (talk) 05:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Update: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constituency MR-1 was closed as keep. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Next UK general election

Hello. There's been long-running debate about infoboxes for forthcoming UK elections where we face the challenge of appropriately representing new parties with growing support and where the FPTP electoral system means there is a disconnect between national vote share and seats won. The big challenge at present is the infobox for United Kingdom general election, 2015: there has been lots of discussion on this, but you could start at Talk:United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015#Can_we_agree_on_any_general_principles.3F. Input from more people may help us move beyond our current impasse. I'm curious to hear from those outside the UK, who may be able to bring some new perspectives. Bondegezou (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Need to include standard content

The Project needs to somewhere include standard content as follows:

For "Elections in n", content should include certified elections results if available. Other content may include:

• Polls leading up to the election, where germane
• Campaign summary, where appropriate
• A political analysis of the electorate, germane to elections
• Binding referendums and constitutional changes enacted by the public at large

Unique legislation should be included in article entitled "Politics of n." Only legislation which has actually been enacted into law should be included.

The intent of the above is to prevent articles from being so open-ended that no limit is possible. By recognizing that most countries (and constituent states, provinces, and prefectures) are run as a republic (representative government), only the representative participates directly in the "political process." The public votes for the representative. Their ability starts and stops there. No amount of talk show discussion can alter that fact! Everything else is "campaigning" = Elections. Student7 (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

As stated elsewhere, I'm not sure this is an accurate reflection of what should be included, if you are talking about the Elections in X articles. Opinion polls and campaign details are appropriate in individual election articles, but not in the summary one.

Instead, what I envisage is something along the lines of Elections in Botswana, which I was beginning to roll out to other similar articles. This includes:

1. Electoral history - a brief summary of elections (and results) throughout the country's history
2. Electoral system - details of the electoral systems used to elect national posts and bodies (president/parliament etc). This can include details of the electorate (e.g. eligibility)
3. Referendums - details about any referendums held, and any relevant legislation (e.g. constitutional requirements that a referendum is held if more than X% of the population sign a petition). In countries where numerous referendums are held, this can be split off into a separate article (e.g. Referendums in Switzerland)

Number 57 22:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

No, to the extent that your suggestions are exhaustive. I have just started on the elections in New York article, and as it becomes more mature I predict there will be significant deviations from current elections articles for other sovereign states. Therefore I think any decision about what all such articles should or should not include is premature. Int21h (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Featured list Removal?

I have been looking at the series of general elections by province of Canada, for example see: List of post-confederation New Brunswick general elections and found that most of them have no citations whatsoever. No citations have been added since it was noticed and tagged 5 years ago in 2010! Articles do list some external link at the bottom but most of the links are dead. I'm thinking of nominating this article for delisting to keep the quality of wikipedia's featured lists up unless somebody has the time to add citations and bring consistency among the other provinces' general election lists. Mattximus (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Given the extreme lack of referencing, if someone doesn't reply in a reasonable amount of time (I assume you pinged the author(s)?), they should probably be put up for delisting. If it was just that the list needed updating, that'd be one thing - but this looks like it never had references in the first place. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)`

It's sad since it would mean removing almost all of the featured lists. They never had inline citations, and the links at the bottom are mostly, if not all, dead. The author User:Tompw appears to have left wikipedia 2 years ago sadly. Mattximus (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Very sad. @Mattximus: Do you know if the provinces have books similar to he Iowa Official Register or the Wisconsin Blue Book? If they do, those might be good, quick sources of much of the information in the lists. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not unfortunately. Also the pages require a general clean up and I would think some standardization between them so it's easy to compare and go back and forth. I waited a month for some change, but I think I will nominate. Maybe somebody will notice then? Mattximus (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Local election(s)

What's the preferred name? Fooian local elections, 2015 or Fooian local election, 2015? –HTD 16:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

"Fooian local elections, 2015", as it's elections to multiple councils. If the article is about election to a single local council, it would be singular (although in those cases, the actual name of the council tends to be used – e.g. Suffolk County Council election, 2013 was part of the United Kingdom local elections, 2013. Number 57 17:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, that's for the clarification. –HTD 17:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

A more objective title is "Election in Foo, 2015." The main topic is election, not Foo IMO. Student7 (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That's contrary to the naming guideline WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums. Number 57 20:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd imagine "Elections in Foo, 2015" would be for all elections in a place in a year. "Fooian <whatever> election(s), 2015" is for an election to a single body in a single day (or number of days). –HTD 22:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

We would still use the normal format in these cases too - e.g. United Kingdom local elections, 2014 for elections to over 170 different councils. Number 57 23:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It's quite different if all elections are included. Theoretically, "Elections in the United Kingdom, 2015" would include the House of Commons election, any local elections, and any by-elections. I don't think there's a similar article like that, though...

The nearest example would be United States elections, 2015, as it includes all elections from all levels (at least above the city level). –HTD 23:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I get it. But as you see, the naming format is still the same. Number 57 00:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes. I guess people liked the current naming convention over the clunkier proposal. (If I'd do things my way, it should be at "2015 United Kingdom general election", but that's just me...) –HTD 01:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Eritrean independence referendum

Eritrean independence referendum, 1993 and UNOVER have to be merged. --178.252.126.70 (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated South Australian state election, 2006 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Jarodalien (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)