Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Percentages and invalids

Something's come up on a normally quiet election page, so I've been referred here to get a second opinion.

In the Russian presidential election, 1996#Results table, we've an odd situation where percentages are being misused, IMO. I've added a cut-down version below to illustrate.

Candidate	Second round
	Votes	%
Boris Yeltsin	40,203,948	54.4
Gennady Zyuganov	30,102,288	40.7
Against all	3,604,462	4.9
Invalid/blank votes	780,592	–
Total	74,691,290	100
Registered voters/turnout	108,589,050	68.8

Number 57 maintains that it's acceptable (indeed WP policy) to present the total votes cast, including invalids, as 100%. I've no problem with that, but only if a sub total line that shows the total valid votes cast is included. Otherwise we have the situation where we appear to be saying that 54.4% of 74,691,290 is 40,203,948, when what we're really trying to say is that 54.4% is a proportion of 73,910,698 (i.e. 74,691,698-780,592). To clarify, Yeltsin either got 54.4% of the valid vote or 53.8% of the total vote, but we're displaying it as if he got 54.4% of the total vote, so the calc doesn't work.

I've reviewed a bunch of the articles in this project with GA or higher ratings, and none of them misstate in this manner. I'm suggesting that we add a total valid vote line that we can put the 100% against, similar to how it's handled in this recent South African GA article. Opinions? Bromley86 (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I did not say it was WP policy (there is no policy on this), but it is the normal format for presenting results. My main problem is that if you start adding extra lines to the most commonly used results table, you'll have to go through and change thousands of articles that it's used on. Are you willing to do this? Personally I think the table that we've been using for years is perfectly acceptable and clear. Number 57 12:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Ha! No, you're right, I'm not willing to, but it doesn't mean we can't fix misuses of statistics where we do find them. Same with dating formats, etc. Bromley86 (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Percentages are pointless if they're not correct. The project I'm most employed on (New Zealand politics) has separate templates (or table rows) for "Invalid votes", "Total valid vote" and "Turnout" (although not all are used consistently). Turnout includes invalid votes and candidate percentages don't (unless an election's rules state that a candidate must gain at least 50% of all votes cast - in which case this should be made clear). New articles are thoroughly checked, historical articles are checked if their tables are reformatted or updated. As the project calculates percentages to two decimal places accuracy is essential - even vote share change from previous election is calculated rather than just being an (a-b) sum, making an occasional difference of 0.01% due to rounding errors. FanN | talk | 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree that percentages are pointless if incorrect, and you are spot on that "Turnout includes invalid votes and candidate percentages don't". The above table is correct in that regard. Number 57 20:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

While it may be correct it is not clear. Not clear in that it suggests that the candidate percentages are a proportion of the total vote instead of the (unshown) total valid vote. While we may intuitively know to subtract the informals from the total when "doing the math" not everyone realises this, and creating ambiguity in the results is not in anyone's best interests. For comparison, my most recent election results table edit shows informals, valid votes, turnout, and registered voters. FanN | talk | 20:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it is clear enough, as the invalid votes column is marked out with a dash. As I said earlier, my bigger problem with changing this is that thousands of articles will need changing, and it seems that the person wanting to make the change is not willing to do this. Number 57 21:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting an all-out attack on non-conforming articles. The existing articles could be updated by anyone who had the time or the inclination, but future articles and those undergoing revisions would benefit from an injection of clarity. To reject this proposal based on nothing but precedent would be a mistake. FanN | talk | 21:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

That the current implementation of the template has been incorrect in thousands of cases does not mean we shouldn't start fixing it, bit by bit. This is not a display issue, it's a right-wrong issue on the presentation of data that has arisen out of a misunderstanding of how percentages work. One can't mark out the Invalid row with a dash, as you seem to think you can; it's literally the same as saying 1+2=4. I'd be amazed if the reliable source (that I can't easily check, but will if I have to) that is used to support this particular data has presented it in the way this table does. Bromley86 (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

But it's not incorrect, so it's not a right-wrong issue (and your example of mathematics is a straw man); every single number in that table is correct – the percentages and the sums. If it was wrong, I'm sure someone else would have noticed in the past 10 years. I'm not really sure why the way in which the Nohlen book presents the data is relevant, but it is effectively backwards compared to the tables we use, starting at the top with Registered voters, then total votes etc, and splits the table in two. Number 57 22:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The way the reliable source presents data is important because WP reflects what reliable sources say, in tables or elsewhere. If Nolan presents it this way then perhaps I need to rethink my position; after all, it's been a while since I was formally trained in stats.

Assuming that's not the case, again, every number is not correct; not sure how to make you aware of this. I tried the, to you straw man, of 1+2=4. You accept 40,203,948 is not 54.4% of 74,691,290, but that's what the table currently says. Your argument would make sense if there were two % columns, but it fails when there's only one. Bromley86 (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much every source I've seen has their own different way of presenting the results, so it's not possible to reflect this. What is important is that we reflect the figures (i.e. calculating the percentages in the correct manner).

I disagree with your claim that the table says that 40,203,948 is 54.4% of 74,691,290 – it does not say that. It states that Yeltsin got 40,203,948 votes, which is 54.4% (which is correct). The layout of the table should make it reasonably clear to readers that the invalid ballots do not count towards the percentage (otherwise why would that cell be marked out?). Number 57 23:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh well, agree to disagree on this and see what others say. However, I did not find the table clear, which is why I edited it to add the total-less-invalids row. In this particular situation, the confusion was made worse by the fact WP doesn't use the official stats, i.e. the Russian official stats present % of total vote, giving Yeltsin 53.8% not 54.4%. Fair enough; % of valids seems to be the correct academic way of presenting and is consistently applied. I also added a clarifier to the table on that point, which you reverted, which doesn't make sense to me.

I'll draw your attention to the treatment of that issue in the source I added[1], as well as the Exeter source[2] - they make it clear that it's the percentage of valid votes. As things stand, anyone looking at this article as I did will be confused, as 53.8% (or associated % of total figures, reflecting what media (as opposed to academic) sources say) is used in all of the other associated articles (Boris Yeltsin, Gennady Zyuganov, Alexander Lebed, List of presidents of Russia, as well as in those media outlets (e.g. [3]). This issue exists in a similar manner with other Russian elections. Bromley86 (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I've always calculated it this way:

• Percentage of party/candidate's vote based on the total number of valid votes.
• Percentage of valid and invalid votes based on the total turnout.
• Percentage of total turnout based on the total registered voters.

I dunno, but since Number 57 has edited the vast majority election results tables, it appears as "the" standard. For the tables that aren't based on his standard, it could be quite different. For example, in French legislative election, 2012, German federal election, 2013 and Israeli legislative election, 2015, the percentage for the party is based on the number of valid votes. This is more important in elections where there is a threshold: more often than not, it is compared to the valid votes. If this were compared to total votes including invalids, it would marginally harder for parties to cross the threshold. Official German and Israeli sources both compare it with valid votes. The official German source has valid's percentage not in 100%. Official Israeli source didn't express the percentages of valids and invalids as compared to turnout.

I realize we've had this discussion before, but I kinda liked how the German table dealt with the presentation. The French one is too detailed, and repeats the same data twice. It could be deduced anyway that the percentage of valids is equal to 100%-percentage of invalids. We could still have the valid vote highlighted and with 100% (or compared with registered voters), but I'd rather put the invalids after, not before, the valids. I really liked how Template:German federal election, 2013 dealt with it, but it could be interpreted as the sum of all of percentages from the parties is less then 100%. I'd suggest

Party	Votes	%
Birthday Party	565	47.60%
Surprise Party	324	27.30%
Masquerade Party	298	25.11%
Valid votes	1187	100%
Invalid votes	85	6.68%
Turnout (90.79%)	1272	100%

In this case we won't show how many registered voters there are (in this example, 1,401). There are also some more issues: do percentages always comes with the percent symbol or not? Are we denoting percentages to the nearest tenths or hundredths? Are we using 100% or 100.0% (or 100.00%)? –HTD 15:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by my standard? The calculations are almost always made in the way you state (i.e. candidate/party share based on valid vote total, turnout based on registered voters total) in sources such as Nohlen, Adam Carr, IPU, IFES etc.

I think the German results table is pretty poor, mostly as the "total valid" row is incorrect/misleading - the sum of the percentages for each party total to 100%, but the total given for the column is 98.4. My first instinct on seeing that would be that the party vote shares total to 98.4%, and so include invalid votes (but they don't). The increase in the number of total votes (+0.2%) is also confusing - what is it comparing against?

IMO, a far better example of clearly laying out the correct percentages (including valid and invalid votes) is at Luxembourg general election, 2013#Results. There is no ambiguity as to what the totals are composed of

I would also say to exclude the % symbol in the columns – it's in the header row at the top, and unnecessary clutter to have it in each cell. Also, I don't see the point in adding a decimal place to the 100% - it's never going to be more or less. Number 57 18:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

That's what I said above: the valids should be equal to 100%. I'd agree there shouldn't be any decimals for 100%. As for "+0.2", I think is compared from the previous election, just as the "swing" from the parties.

As for the Luxembourg example, it only works if a voter has more than one vote, and that invalids are recorded. If a voter only has one vote, then "Total" and "Valid votes" would be equal and having both would be redundant. That's why I'd prefer "Valid votes" (or "Total") followed by "Invalid votes", then "Turnout", then finally "Registered voters". We can still use the Luxembourg example for elections where the voter has more than one vote, and that the valids and totals are never equal.

As for percent, I prefer having them on cells that are percentages. That means figures that are in whole numbers are either vote or seat totals. What do you prefer: tenths or hundredths? –HTD 18:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't really have a massive preference for decimal places; both seem to be quite commonly used, but it would be good to get a consistent format.

The main problem with titling a row "valid votes" is that it doesn't capture the entire purpose of that row, which also includes being the totals for the number of seats. It also doesn't allow a percentage to be given for valid votes as a share of total votes cast, unless you do what is done in the German table, which is misleading. The table you created above looks awkward, as there is a sum to 100%, then another 6.68% added, and the sum is still 100%.

I think this all boils down to whether people really want to display the percentage of invalid votes. Even though it involves duplication in cases where there is only one vote per person, I think the Luxembourg example is the only way in which the data can be presented in a way that it all adds up correctly and there aren't any misleading figures (the French example has this duplication, but is infinitely preferable to the German example (highly misleading and/or just plain wrong) or the table above (6.68% + 100% doesn't equal 100%). The alternative is to just not show the total of valid votes or the percentage of invalid ballots (the Israeli table being one such example of this). Number 57 19:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd really prefer the inclusion of invalids, if they're available in some way, TBH. For countries with compulsory voting, invalid votes could be an issue, and they're still "votes" of some sort. The Russian example above is actually worse, as you don't know if the invalids count or what. If we're ever going to show invalids, it should be after "Valid votes" or "Total", not before them just below the candidates/parties.

How about putting "Total (xx.yy% valid votes)" just as what's being done in some tables for Turnouts? The row for invalid votes can be ditched (I don't think it's hard to surmise that 100%-valid%=invalid%), and we'd have a sole 100% with total; you just leave the percentage for the turnout as blank as what the French did. We won't have an exact number though but you could again compute as Turnout-valid=invalid. Like this:

Party	Votes	%
Birthday Party	565	47.60%
Surprise Party	324	27.30%
Masquerade Party	298	25.11%
Total (93.32% valid)	1187	100%
Turnout (90.79%)	1272

As for decimal places I prefer neither. Nohlen's book uses tenths, though, so when I used that, they're in tenths. For recent elections though I used hundredths, so comparing some elections can be quite hard due to inconsistencies. –HTD 19:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I always include the invalids if they're available – the question is whether we need to state a percentage. I can't work out what you mean by your proposal – can you put it in tabular format? Number 57 19:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I added them above. In this case, the table ditched the absolute values of the invalids and registered voters. You can still make out the values of the invalids easily, and the voters with some difficulty. If people still want to display both values and percentages maybe using different shades of gray would give the impression that those two things are taken together and not with the others sets of figures. Like this:

Party	Votes	%
Birthday Party	565	47.60%
Surprise Party	324	27.30%
Masquerade Party	298	25.11%
Valid	1187	93.32%
Invalid	85	6.68%
Turnout	1272	90.79%
Abstentions	I forgot lol	9.21%
Voters	I forgot lol	100%

This is quite harder to parse but if you figure out the shades it would be easy, plus there'd be only one row that has 100%. –HTD 19:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I don't think the table two above is a good way of displaying the data - I don't see why the invalids or registered voters should be omitted, and definitely don't think that having figures in parentheses like that is a good idea (I don't think it's entirely clear either). Either of the below would be preferable. The one directly above is an improvement, but doesn't seem to take into account the need for seat totals. Not sure abstentions are necessary either? Number 57 19:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Party	Votes	%
Birthday Party	565	47.60
Surprise Party	324	27.30
Masquerade Party	298	25.11
Total	1,187	100
Valid votes	1,187	93.32
Invalid votes	85	6.68
Total votes cast	1,272	100
Registered voters/turnout	1,401	90.79

Party	Votes	%
Birthday Party	565	47.60
Surprise Party	324	27.30
Masquerade Party	298	25.11
Invalid votes	85	–
Total	1,272	100
Registered voters/turnout	1,401	90.79

I prefer the 1st one. placing the invalids between the candidates and totals is confusing. The blank percentage gives the impression that the sum isn't 100, or it is included in the 100 and someone forgot about it. And yes we could leave out abstentions. Seat totals should be at the "Totals" row. –HTD 20:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Default sections and section names

Almost all elections should have the following sections: something about the candidates, polling and results. Probably one could also add sections on background, electoral system, preparation, campaign, issues, reactions and aftermath. I don't think anyone can think of other section names such as "Candidates" and "Results". But how about polling? There are names such as "Opinion polls", "Polling", "Opinion polling" and perhaps a few others. What's the recommended title? Also we should have some sort of MOS at least on this one. –HTD 12:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

A while ago I started developing one at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Elections Manual of Style, based on what seemed to be most common. "Opinion polls" would get my vote for how that particular one should be styled. Number 57 13:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no dog at this "race" on opinion poll section titles, but there's some variation throughout Wikipedia. To think we should have a standard on cases as simple as this. For example:

• United Kingdom general election, 2015#Opinion polling
• French presidential election, 2012#Opinion polls
• Australian federal election, 2013#Opinion polls

In addition, United States presidential election, 2012 doesn't have a separate section for polling. It's tucked away at the See also section. Finally, there's also some variance on daughter Opinion polling articles. Some are at "Opinion polling for" and "Opinion polling in". I initiated this discussion sometime ago but it got stale and the explanations weren't exactly convincing. –HTD 13:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox for a two-round election

Additional comments on would be welcome at Talk:Northern Cyprus presidential election, 2015. This discussion concerns whether the infobox for a two-round presidential election should be limited to the two runoff candidates or not. Cheers, Number 57 11:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we could use a more compact infobox that can better convey the results for two-round elections. Template:Infobox election isn't really designed for it.Øln (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

We could do a presidential runoff version of the Israeli election infobox... –HTD 09

40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the answer is more infoboxes. If anything, I think that a two-round presidential elections is probably the one that {{Infobox election}} is best suited to, as it's easy to identify which candidates need to be in it (i.e. those in the second round). Number 57 11:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The infobox doesn't give the impression that there was a runoff, unless you'd read the dates (an election held on separate dates doesn't always mean there were 2 rounds). –HTD 00:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Czechoslovakian parliamentary election, 1920 listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Czechoslovakian parliamentary election, 1920 to be moved to Czechoslovak parliamentary election, 1920. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Peer review for Cheshire West and Chester Council election, 2015

Hello everyone. I've nominated the article Cheshire West and Chester Council election, 2015 for peer review here. I would very much appreciate if a couple of experts from this group could have a look at the article. It's not the most exciting election, but the unusual result (only council which went from Conservative to Labour control at the last UK local elections) and active local press means that there's a lot of information available. Thanks in advance for any advice you can give. Smurrayinchester 21:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Useful sources

I've revamped our list of useful sources, aiming to include links to all national electoral commissions (have made a start) plus any other useful sites at global, continental and national levels. Have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Useful sources, and maybe add some more yourself if you know of any! Cheers, Number 57 13:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I've now gone through the whole list, and added links to all the national election commissions I could find. There are around 50 with no link at the moment, so please add links if you know them (or to any unofficial but good sources). Cheers, Number 57 22:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

‎Discussion about colour for independents

If you've been working on election articles recently, you may have noticed a lot of fluctuations in the colour used for independents. There's a discussion going on at Template talk:Independent (politician)/meta/color about whether a pale or a dark shade is better. Since it's not a well-watched template, I thought I'd put a note here. Smurrayinchester 09:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC at Political positions of Jeb Bush

FYI, there's an RFC here about whether to summarize each present political position before giving a chronological discussion of how it may have evolved or changed over the years.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).--Lucas559 (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

EU Council member lists

I am thinking of creating lists of members for the various configurations of the Council of the EU articles. The Council acts in it's various configurations, e.g., the Foreign Affairs Council, and their party composition could vary widely from the European Council (i.e., differ from the parties of the states' leadership). I think such lists should at least have the name, country, party and term start. Are there other standard columns for such lists? Should national party or EU party colors be used as well, and if so, what is the standard color palette? What about a color-coded map, like in the Council of the European Union article? Int21h (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this project "active"?

When I've looked in the past, Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/History and society#Politics and government has led me to believe that this project is "inactive". But, looking around right now, it looks pretty active to me. So is this project officially "inactive"? Or "active"? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure it's active. Number 57 12:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much the impression I got. I'll go ahead and fix Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/History and society#Politics and government... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Categories for US State Elections other than Governor?

I've found that there are quite a few US states where there are articles for Specific Lieutenant Gubernatorial, Specific Atty General or Specific Controller elections. If there are enough of them (not sure what enough is) would having categories for those be good? As far as I can tell, every state's Gubernatorial elections have a category. (Note for Specific LG elections, I'm refering to states where they do *not* run on a ticket).Naraht (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why not. There can then be national Category:Lieutenant Gubernatorial elections in the United States-type categories to house them. Number 57 14:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Listing candidates several months before the election

Is it appropriate to set up {{Election box begin}} / {{Election box end}} several months before an election?

See the recent edits of Liverpool445 (talk · contribs) who has done this for several (but not all) of the constituencies that will have members elected in the National Assembly for Wales election, 2016. The main problem that I see is that Liverpool445 has put up the names of some people as candidates, but by no means all - in some cases, such as Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Assembly constituency), they have listed only one candidate. This might be explained by the fact that the election is not until May 2016, and so some parties have not yet chosen their candidates. Of course, the parties don't need to declare their candidates for months yet - nominations don't close until April 2016, and indeed, I don't think that nominations formally open until March 2016. Until valid nomination papers have been received by the Returning Officer, the person is not a candidate - merely a prospective candidate; so by giving up to six months extra publicity for these people, we might be running into WP:UNDUE.

Another problem is that Liverpool445 has apparently used a source from 2011 - the candidates are unlikely to be the same in 2016.

What should be done here? --Redrose64 (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I dunno, but my standard is if a person explicitly said he is running is a good enough reason to list him. It gets blurry if third parties are saying that s/he'd run, and s/he's silent about it... –HTD 14:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merger of 1864 Republican National Convention and 1864 National Union National Convention

At one time, I had thought these were two different events, but the articles at present both seem to be about the same event. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. older ≠ wiser 18:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Partisan polls in election articles

Is there any policy or guideline about the inclusion of partisan poll results, i.e. those coming from pollsters clearly associated with a particular political party? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I would imagine @Impru20: has a view on this? Number 57 12:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

If it is an opinion poll showing technical data (sample size, fieldwork date, margin of errors, etc) then those should pose no issue. Even if they show results blatantly benefitting a given party (I can think of a few of those in Spain), that's something inherent to the making of opinion polls: sometimes they just show weird results for no given reason. Anyway, at most, if it is really needed because there are many of those polls and those result in a substantial distortion trends, my advise would be to add a note or something if the pollster is too pro-partisan, but even so it should show sources pointing to a connection and/or interest between the pollster and the given party.

On the other hand, if the poll shown to be too pro-partisan does not show any technical data, my thought is to analyze it on a case-by-case basis, depending on when, where, how and in what circumstances was the alleged poll published. There are those that are allegedly made by a party and are "innocently" filtered to the media without any more data than just vote projections (those are the ones you should be the most careful about). Sometimes they may be genuine, but other times they are just party propaganda. My advise is to try to avoid adding these if possible. Impru20 (talk) 12:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Lebanon

Can someone clarify what the situation is regarding Women's suffrage in Lebanon? There is a discussion here: Talk:Women's_suffrage#Lebanon. 2A02:2F01:501F:FFFF:0:0:5679:C2F4 (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

We've got a problem

Hello.

The current naming convention for election articles – <place> <type> election, <time> – does not work well when <place> is a comma-disambiguated item, such as in the case of most American cities. "City, State" makes an awkward compound modifier that is recommended against in several style guides. An example with such comma disambiguation – other than election article titles – I've seen mentioned somewhere in the WP guidelines (though I don't remember where) is:

• a May 10, 2010 Toledo, Ohio court case

Per WP:Copyedit#Punctuation, a comma is needed to "close" the disambiguation, except at the end of an expression or a statement, or followed by other punctuation. But a grammatically correct result is not much of an improvement:

• a May 10, 2010, Toledo, Ohio, court case

Way too many commas. So, this is what's preferred:

• a court case in Toledo, Ohio, on May 10, 2010

Thus, I'm proposing a change in the current naming convention for election articles that cover elections in places with a two-part comma-disambiguated name. This is mostly (I guess) articles on mayoral elections, so the impact should be limited.

In order to avoid the clunky compound modifier, one has to place <place> where it feels less awkward, either where there's already a comma per the current naming convention (example 1 below), or at the end of the expression/sentence (example 2 below).

Example 1:

• Mayoral election in Portland, Maine, 2011

Example 2:

• 2011 mayoral election in Portland, Maine

I created an RM at Talk:Portland, Maine mayoral election, 2011, and a CfD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 November 4, but user User:Udonknome advised me that I should start a discussion over here instead.

HandsomeFella (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The relevant naming convention is WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums. Any discussion should probably talk place on that talk page, with members notified here.

I'm not a fan of the proposed style. If a double comma is really a problem (I'm not sure it is), then perhaps removing or moving the disambiguation would be better. For example; Portland mayoral election, 2015 rather than Portland, Maine mayoral election, 2015. If there were two Portlands having an election that year, it could be disambiguated as "Portland mayoral election, 2015 (Maine)", which would fit better into the naming convention.

Alternatively, I wouldn't mind Udonknome's suggestion of 2015 Portland, Maine mayoral election. I have often wondered why elections are not named with the year first. I would go as far as saying I would support amending the guideline in this way, providing we could get a bot to do the move of (tens of) thousands of articles. Number 57 21:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with having the year first (as in example 2 above), but the thing is that the problem is not solved with Udonknome's proposal. It is still lacking the closing comma per WP:Copyedit (after "Maine"), and it is still an awkward compound modifier.

There is actually a Portland, Oregon, which is both the state capital, and a bigger city than Portland, Maine, so I guess there's a considerable chance/risk of there being articles on mayoral elections in both cities in the same year sooner or later.

And are there really tens of thousands of articles on mayoral elections? A quick sum from the category trees gives me less than 300.

HandsomeFella (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

If the guideline was changed to the year-fronted solution, it would apply to all election articles, of which there are indeed tens of thousands. Number 57 21:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

We don't have to have one-solution-for-all, regardless of grammatical consequences. Two-part comma-disambiguated names require a different approach. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion moved to WT:NC-GAL. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Help on Burkinabé general election, 2015, Too many candidates for the info box

The election in Burkina Faso this week will have 13 presidential candidates. Does anyone know how to fit them into the info box? The page is Burkinabé general election, 2015Monopoly31121993 (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

It would be best to avoid using an infobox until the election takes place. They can't all be fitted in. Number 57 18:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Or use a table style format like the one currently used at Next United Kingdom general election. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 11:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

National electoral calendar articles

These articles start with "This national electoral calendar for the year lists the national/federal direct elections to be held in this year in all sovereign states and their dependent territories."

So, the question is, does the article include separate entries for elections in dependent territories of these sovereign states, or is it just sovereign states, which are listed at List of sovereign states? Or "all sovereign states and their dependent territories" just means that dependent territories' elections are assumed to be included in their respective sovereign states' entries already? –HTD 17:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Dependent territories do not have a vote in their "Sovereign State parent" elections.

Each dependent territory has its own form of government, that operates with none or with a very light "supervisory" touch by the "Sovereign State parent". Dependent territory elections are not elections within the "Sovereign State parent". Therefore the dependent territory election will not be included within their "Sovereign State parent" entries.

You cannot include the dependent territory elections within the "local electoral calendar" as they are not part of a National Sovereign State.

If you exclude them from the "National electoral calendar" page you will either have to set up a new page just for dependent territories or exclude them.

Dependent Territories do not have a higher level of Sovereign State elections.

If this page was designed to be just sovereign states, it would have been called "Sovereign state calendar".

Martin a Donkey (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Non-Candidates

This edit suggests that for someone to be listed on Wikipedia as an election candidate, they don't need to be a candidate. Can someone confirm, that nominations are not required to be an election candidate from Wikipedia's point of view, and point to an appropriate guideline. 82.18.177.13 (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I have zero understanding of the context you're presenting, as I'm mostly familiar with United States elections. In the case of those elections, the articles have been formatted to provide separate sections for declared, potential and declined candidates. This is something I've long had a problem with; speculation as reported by a reliable source is still speculation. That isn't the worst of it, however. Certain editors have aggressively edited these articles to maintain the bizarro POV that mere mention by a media outlet is sufficient evidence for inclusion, but actually filing the appropriate candidacy paperwork isn't. So, if I con a reliable source into publishing a statement saying that I'm the Archbishop of Canterbury, does that mean that Wikipedia is obligated to accept that as gospel truth and mindlessly repeat it here? That's precisely the message I've been getting for all these years. Last I checked, our purpose is to factually reflect occurrences of events, not to rehash press releases. Hope this helps. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

To provide some context... Elections for the Northern Ireland Assembly will be held on 5 May 2016. As is usual with elections in the UK, formal nominations for those elections will only open a few weeks earlier, and close even closer to the election. For example, the recent UK general election was on 7 May 2015, and nominations were only possible from 2 April 2015 (in Northern Ireland, see here). Most serious candidates are, therefore, campaigning way before nominations even open, let alone close. Standard practice across multiple UK election articles has been to list candidates with RS support before nominations open. (E.g. here's a general election constituency article on 2 March 2015, before nominations opened: [4] Note 4 candidates listed for the then-forthcoming election. Or look at London mayoral election, 2016, a lengthy article discussing a large number of candidates for an election due next May.)

82.18.177.13's suggestion appears to be that we don't list any candidates until nominations have closed and they have been formally announced by the Returning Officer. This would be a very significant change of practice. I do agree that we should note that any discussion now is before nominations have been received and I'm happy to see material not supported by reliable sources excised.

User:RadioKAOS, I can but recommend you review WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS. Bondegezou (talk) 11:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I think I have, though probably not recently. In another current discussion, someone else ended their post by throwing random WP:WHATEVER links in my face. I clicked one of the links out of curiosity, only to discover that it had zero to do with my point. If you're referring to media coverage verifiying our coverage, I'd prefer to take a common-sense approach. American big corporate media has bombarded us this week with the "news" of George Pataki abandoning his presidential bid. First off, it's disturbing that so many people live and die by big corporate media outlets which aggressively push the POV that only the presidential election matters. As a result, turnout in the 15–20 percent range is now commonplace in municipal elections. That's a slight tangent, so on to Pataki. I pay enough attention to these outlets to know that his campaign was a nothing happening deal from the get go. Having to hear the "news" about his departure from the race X number of times per hour, every hour, recalls one thing and one thing only: "This breaking news just in – "Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead!"

As for the scenario you lay out, I've already dealt with just that before. In Alaska, municipal elections have a 2 or 3-week window for filing candidacy papers with the municipality, normally two months or so before election day. Candidates can file paperwork with the state prior to that window to be deemed candidates under state law for fundraising purposes. The media refers to this colloquially as a "letter of intent", though I doubt any of the paperwork actually carries that title. A few years back, Levi Johnston hired a publicist to take advantage of the "rub" he received from Sarah Palin's sudden celebrity. They concocted the idea that Johnston was going to challenge Verne Rupright for mayor of Wasilla. The problem here is that in reality, all Johnston did was file the bare minimum of paperwork with the state and issued a few press releases, the latter of which received a small flurry of attention from a few celebrity tabloid sources. Many months later, the candidacy filing window approached and Johnston blew off journalists inquiring whether or not he was actually going to file candidacy paperwork with the Wasilla city clerk. The best available information is that Johnston neither filed that paperwork nor made any effort to, but the tabloid outlets had long since moved on by then and subsequent events were covered strictly by local media. You know what they say about "quacks like a duck", right? If it looks and sounds like a publicity stunt, then that's what it is, media coverage or not. There's no verifiability whatsoever in our coverage of those events apart from editors making it appear so by cherry-picking a few sources which may happen to fit the definition of RS. But wait, there's more! Palin's article was nominated for GA a while back. The nomination was quickly failed and swept under the rug. The main concern was that as a BLP, many of those exact same celebrity tabloid media outlets fail RS. I shouldn't have to explain further, because it should be obvious. Nonetheless, the likes of Radar Online is not an appropriate source for one BLP, while in the case of another BLP, not only is it perfectly appropriate, but somehow a site like that has anything credible to say about an election in Alaska, for fuck's sake. Ex post facto, some editor criticizes my having pointed all this out, saying something like "Yeah, we all know that Johnston didn't really run for mayor. Why don't you let these editors have their fun?". In other words, FACTUAL ACCURACY is something we cherry-pick at will to suit our purposes? I've seen nothing but that in election articles for years now. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Seat order or vote order in an infobox

Another election, another infobox disagreement. We could do with some additional thoughts and ideas at Talk:Spanish_general_election,_2015#Infobox:_Seats_vs._Votes. The basic question is whether the parties in the infobox should be ordered by vote share (as they currently are and as other recent Spanish election articles are) or by seat order (as on most other election articles). Your input there would be appreciated. Bondegezou (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi again. We're still very deadlocked and could do with some additional voices.

I thought I'd also present here an analysis I did for that discussion. The central question is whether to order parties in election infoboxes by number of seats won or the number of votes. The Spanish election articles currently use vote order, but I and another editor are arguing for seat order. I sought to look at this question more systematically. I decided to look at every country in the EU and see what their election articles' infoboxes do (just looking at their main legislative elections).

With many elections, there is no difference between the seat order and the vote order. (Indeed, a difference is impossible under some countries' electoral systems, e.g. Greece.) Thus, I started with the most recent election and went backwards until I found an election where there is a difference to see what was done, but didn't go back any further than 1971 (merely as that's when I was born!).

Results:

Countries with no difference between seat order and vote order (since 1971, when country created or when articles started having infoboxes): Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Greece, Czech Rep., Portugal, Sweden, Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Cyprus, Luxembourg

Countries using vote order:

• Spain -- as under discussion
• Latvia -- Latvian parliamentary election, 2014 lists For Latvia from the Heart (7 seats, 6.9%) fifth above Latvian Association of Regions (8 seats, 6.7%)

Countries using seat order:

• France -- French legislative election, 2012 lists FdG (10 seats, 6.91% first round, 1.08% second round) fourth above FN (2 seats, 13.6% first round, 3.66% second round)
• UK -- United Kingdom general election, 2015 lists SNP (56 seats, 4.7%) third above the LibDems (8 seats, 7.9%), while UKIP (1 seat, 12.6%) are not shown at all
• Poland -- Polish parliamentary election, 2015 excludes United Left (0 seats, 7.55%) from the infobox, while including PSL (16 seats, 5.13%) and MN (1 seat, 0.18%); plus 3 other parties that won no seats but got more votes than MN are excluded
• Romania -- Romanian legislative election, 2008 puts Democratic Liberal first (51 S / 115 D seats, 32.36%) above Social Democratic (49 S / 114 D, 33.09%)
• Belgium -- Belgian federal election, 2007 puts Open VLD (18 seats, 11.83%) fourth above VB (17 seats, 11.99%). Note these are all regional parties
• Hungary -- Hungarian parliamentary election, 1998 puts Fidesz (148 seats, 28.2%) first above MSZP (134 seats, 29.8%)
• Finland -- Finnish parliamentary election, 2015 puts Finns (38 seats, 17.7%) second above the National Coalition (37 seats, 18.2%)
• Ireland -- Irish general election, 2011 puts Socialist Party (2 seats, 1.2%) fifth, then People Before Profit (2 seats, 1.0%), then Workers and Unemployed Action (1 seat, 0.4%) above the Green Party (0 seats, 1.8%)
• Croatia -- Croatian parliamentary election, 2007 puts HSS (8 seats, 6.5%) third above HNS-LD (7 seats, 6.8%)
• Lithuania -- Lithuanian parliamentary election, 2012 puts Homeland Union (33 seats, 15.08%) second above Labour (29 seats, 19.82%)
• Malta -- Maltese general election, 1981 puts Labour (34 seats, 49.1%) first above Nationalist (31 seats, 50.9%)

From this we can conclude that the issue of seat and vote order not matching does come up quite often and, nearly always, seat order is used. Bondegezou (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I've already answered you to this comment more in depth in Talk:Spanish_general_election,_2015#Arbitrary break. But commenting on this, just saying that nearly always means not always. And that this leaves room for change.

My suggestion to solve the deadlock is a mix between both visions: order by votes but only for those parties winning seats, not considering parties that won 0 seats. We could also make like it is done in France (though I don't recommend it), to order by seats but to arbitrarily decide which parties are left in and which ones are left out on the basis of votes (but this would seem more arbitrary, indeed). Impru20 (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

As I've commented elsewhere, the French example, while complicated, I don't think is arbitrary and relates to the larger electoral alliances.

There is indeed room for change. But I feel there has to be good reasons for change! I don't see why Spanish political parties that underperform in seats should get preferential treatment while similar parties in the UK, Poland, Romania, Finland, Ireland, Malta, India, Canada &c. don't. Bondegezou (talk) 09:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

As you may know, the one pressing for a change is you. As per WP:CONS, not contested edits are assumed to reach consensus on their own. And the vote-criteria has not been contested in Spain for... how many years now? Several, surely. You're the one trying to make a change on the way Spanish articles have been working until now, not me. And, as there's not a Wikipedia requirement that says that a seat-criteria is prefered, you're just referring back to other countries and that in those things are done some way, even when you yourself have said in the Talk:Spanish general_election, 2015 that "We've always done it this way' isn't the strongest argument available." Your words. And even you yourself acknowledge that not for all countries it works that way when you say "nearly always". "Nearly" always is not always. And the one pressing for a change, again, is not me.

You may not see it, but Spanish sources do. We have the Spanish wikipedia, where countries are mostly ordered by seats too, ordering Spanish parties by votes. We have the Congress of Deputies' page sorting parties by votes. So does the Government's page, with its methodology even highlighting that, when choosing between seats and votes, it has decided for votes as preferece. We've also this Spanish elections-dedicated analysis page, which also opts for a vote-criteria rather than a seat-criteria. And even some media also showing that, while, in media analysis, putting IU as the "fifth" political force in the country, clearly opting for a vote-criteria preference when determining each party's position. Impru20 (talk) 13:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I support using seat order and I, and others, are pressing for change at Spanish_general_election,_2015. Change happens on Wikipedia; nothing is set in stone. Given this issue of seat and vote order not necessarily matching comes up quite often in different elections, I think it is something worth discussing on this project page beyond and separate to any resolution on the Spanish_general_election,_2015 article.

I have laid out at Talk:Spanish_general_election,_2015 my reasoning specific to that article. My reasoning for that article is not simply based on what other election articles do. It is also based on the logic that the point of an election is to elect seats, and on the analysis I presented there showing that a large majority of the Spanish media use seat order when they summarise the election results, and we should follow what reliable secondary sources do. However, you are right that some Spanish sources (a minority) do use vote order.

Last I checked, the Spanish-language Wikipedia equivalent article had fewer parties in its infobox and thus the problem did not arise (as it concerns who should be listed fifth). I did note this a while back and suggested we cut down the number of parties in the infobox too; you opposed this suggestion. The question of how many parties to include in an infobox is often vexed and I'd be happy to see that discussed here too to see if we can come up with some guiding principles. Bondegezou (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

But you are pressing for change on the grounds that it is done so for other countries, something which I refute (and even you yourself acknowledging to not being an enough argument). So it doesn't seem coherent. Of course, the issue as a whole can be discussed here, but, as always, each country has its own dynamic and, in the end, each one would have to end up using the criteria that best fits its needs. You can't set a specific criteria for all of them because you won't know in which cases it'll be good and in which ones it won't.

And I have also laid at Talk:Spanish_general_election,_2015 my reasoning, both specific to that article and to Spanish elections (since it is equally valid for all of those). Not only relying on some media too (the fact is: not all media agrees on that criteria when showing results), but also on media analysis of results (which are based on vote-criteria), on the Congress' page, on the Spanish Government's page, and on a Spanish election results' analysis page (historiaelectoral.com), which is cited as a frequent source of information for users here in Wikipedia, and which also shows a vote-criteria. You say those are a minority, as if they were unimportant; however, when it comes to get info on Spanish elections, hardly anyone uses media sources, but rather, those sources you say are a minority. As for the logic of an election, it doesn't seem to be that logic. Even for the UK elections in recent years, a country, btw, entirely accostumed to a seat-criteria, there was a hard time discussing UKIP exclusion from their articles infoboxes because of the enormous disparity between the votes and seats obtained by it. And not all countries use a seat-criteria, or use it in the intended way, so it obviously isn't that logic.

Spanish wikipedia uses vote count for all previous election articles. Difference is that they use only 4-slots instead of 6 (or up to 9, as we have the possibility here) but the criteria they follow is a vote-criteria specifically for Spanish elections (others use a seat-criteria even in the very Spanish wikipedia). See it here, here, here, here or here. In Talk:Spanish_general_election,_2015 you have disregarded IU for obtaining 2 seats and 3.7% of the vote. But note how in 2008, in the Spanish wikipedia, IU is placed third with 2 seats and 3.8% of the vote (a similar situation to what happens in 2015). There's an obvious specificity for the case of Spain, that is shown in many sources. You can try to disregard those sources, but the conflict is clearly there. And, in many secondary or tertiary sources obtaining info from election results, customary practice has been to use a vote-ordering criteria. Impru20 (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Impru20, you always forget the argument that the goal of a legislative election is to elect seats to vote laws. In order to calculate the number of seats, it is necessary to take votes into account. Votes are not taken into account to measure the quantity of votes in the Congress so votes cannot be used to rank parties at the Congress. Wykx 18:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't forget that argument. I have repeteadly taken it into account, acknowledging that I understand that reason. Yet, still, the "in other countries this is done like this"-argument arises nearly every time. Neither both of them would be enough, as even with those arguments, evidence has been pointed to secondary and tertiary sources that, using results obtained for Spanish elections, opt to use a vote-criteria. Again, the Spanish Government site, the Congress of Deputies site, the historiaelectoral.com site, the Spanish Wikipedia for Spanish elections (and it is worth noting that the Spanish wikipedia also uses the seat-criteria for many elections, but not for Spanish elections), and some Spanish media. This is enough to, at least, arise strong doubts for using the seat-criteria, at least for the case of Spain, since Spanish sources and analysis sites do mostly use the vote-criteria. Sadly, you are not even willing to consider this, sticking to the both previous already discussed arguments. I've considered your arguments, and I already have exposed why those are not enough. Main issue is that you don't seem to understand alternative arguments and don't seem willing to consider otherwise, as this seems like you want to just impose the seat-criteria despite acknowledging that it's not used for all countries, not by all sources (where there's much disagreement), that the seat-criteria is not an established rule and that other options are, indeed, possible. Impru20 (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to remind WP:NPOV. The article should written for a general audience and without bias and not from a spanish point of view. I recommend reading Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus. Wykx 21:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Vote-ordering is as a neutral criteria as seat-ordering is. It's just a different point of view.

Also, the link you posted is interesting, since it refers to a possible abuse of an Anglo-American focus in an Anglo-American dominated wiki like this one, and that it should allow for other views to be present. Thus, of course, in an Anglo-American wikipedia, regional-based views would maybe be more appropiate than Anglo-American views, so as to avoid the natural Anglophone domination here distorting WP:NPOV. From an Anglo-American focus, ordering by seats would be something normal for everyone to all countries. Haven't you considered that all of you, as Anglophone users, may be keeping a view too-centered on a seat-ordering criteria, as it's something common for Anglophone countries?

We should keep NPOV in consideration, and having an Anglo-American focus in an Anglo-American wikipedia is, indeed, contrary to NPOV. This relates to what I said on you seeming to not even consider the vote-criteria as an option and just using the discussion as a procedure to get the seat-criteria imposed. This may be the reason for it, and it's worth considering, so thank you for pointing this out.

As an example, the Spanish wikipedia, even when written from a Spanish point of view, doesn't prevent it from using a seat-criteria for many countries despite using vote-criteria for others. For the same reason, we shouldn't be deterred from using a vote-criteria in this Wikipedia for some countries, shouldn't we? Impru20 (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Impru20 that decisions about individual articles ultimately have to be taken on their own merits and, thus, may wish to consider various local or specific factors. (In the case of the 2015 Spanish election article, I think, considering everything, seat order is still best, but I don't want to re-hash that argument here.) That said, I think discussion of what is a general issue that affects many election articles can also be usefully had here in the abstract and that it is acceptable, within Wikipedia policy and practice, for this project page to make general suggestions. So, I'm not saying one size fits all, but I am saying discussions about specific cases can usefully draw on general cases. I realise this is a somewhat nuanced view; I hope that explanation makes sense.

More generally, I thought it useful to raise these questions here in order to hear other people's views. So I'll stop talking now! Bondegezou (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

When you write that vote ordering is more important, what is the link with the results of the election in term of seats? Actually it is that votes are only one element of the election. Electoral entities and their respective weights are the other elements that contribute to the calculation of the final outcome, which is the number of seats.

From Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus the advise given is 'they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them'. So should we find a way to remove cultural bias (I mean the current spanish one) or make readers aware of it? For example we could add a sentence mentioning that parties have been ranked by popular votes but that other parties have obtained more seats, give their name and advise to refer to the detailed table. Wykx 23:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, if the issue is just that you want to note that other parties obtained more seats, then that has a very easy solution. If that was the problem, then that can be solved (and, for example, that's one out of many possible alternative suggestions that could be made). Intention is not to discard parties winning more seats, but to reflect that regional parties, even if winning more seats, don't have more influence in national politics than national parties do. And this is reflected in many worthwhile secondary and tertiary sources, so, obviously, this can't be fend off just because for other countries a seat-criteria is used. You must maybe consider that your preference on seat-ordering may come as a result that you're accostumed to it because, as the argument as frequently come out, "in most other countries it is done so". You're maybe not accostumed to a vote-criteria, and just want to impose the seat-criteria because you may see it as the "right thing", and because it may be a frequent thing in Anglophone countries to do this (this is where the issue regarding Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus arises). But I've never discussed the usefulness of a seat-criteria for other articles, just defended that, for the specific case of Spain, it was not the most appropiate. I'm not saying that the Spanish case should then be extrapolated to other countries (if that's your fear). If the issue arises on any other country, a specific, separate discussion should be done for that country. But right now, all of you seem to outrightly reject (and at times seem to not even be able to accept) that a vote-criteria may also be used. And now, also answering User:Bondegezou, the problem is for Spain, but in the future the issue may arise for other countries. We're not talking from equally-balanced viewpoints. I've said several times that I do understand and accept the use of a seat-criteria for other countries, just that it would not be appropiate for Spain. You, however, do resist yourselves to accept that another criteria may be used. For example, when you say "elections are for electing seats" you are directly discarding any other option for any case in any country, even if you then want to say that you don't. But then I could also say that elections are also to "measure each party's electoral strength" (for example, for parties knowing that they have no chance at winning seats but can get a large vote share), and for that, votes do reflect better the political situation.

For example, we've the issue of the latest UK general election, where I see as an abomination the fact that a party with nearly 4 million votes was left out from the infobox. Ok, it was decided for keeping with the already-established seat-criteria used for UK elections, but still, that's an abomination. UKIP's performance was one of the most expected election night events, and surely, leaving UKIP out does not make justice with the coverage and, not only countrywide, but worldwide expectations on UKIP's result. That's an example showing the severe limitations of seat-criteria, and you should be more open-minded on this. You can't just outrighly reject something because it doesn't fit your views. There may be other views, and they may have some reason. So you can't just discard them with arguments of the like "that's not done for most other countries" or "the purpose of an election is to..." (btw, who says what the purpose of an election is? It's a pretty subjective concept. It could be limited to just "the purpose is to reach the national government" or, as I said before, to "show each party's electoral strength"). Impru20 (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I support the Australian layout status quo. Timeshift (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

'Intention is (...) to reflect that regional parties, even if winning more seats, don't have more influence in national politics than national parties do' : so you want to discard the results of several parties for that intention? Intention is to put the results of an election. If you want to describe the evolution of the influence of national parties vs regional parties in Spain, I propose you create a section in the article. And I contest that regional parties in Spain have less influence than national parties because many debates this year in Spain were about regionalists issues and that is growing (still regional referendum is an issue to government's formation).

I fully understand and agree we're discussing the spanish case.

"Elections are also to "measure each party's electoral strength": that's true but incomplete: the electoral system has an overlayer which is fully part of the process which results in the seats obtained. You can contest and discuss spanish or UK electoral systems but that's the way they are. "the purpose of an election is? It's a pretty subjective concept" : well, I think when you count seats it is not subjective at all. Reaching national government is only one step that requires votes, but many votes for laws, etc. happen after that. Wykx 08:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

"Elections are to elect seats" would also be true but incomplete. The true purpose of an election is to elect a government. And we have countless cases where a government has been headed by a minoritary party winning many less seats than larger ones. And there are other countries (such as France) where results from parties winning little seats get a lot of attention. You can't just limit to "elect seats" the purpose of an election, because really it isn't. It is one of the purposes, not the only one, and limiting that to just seats just means that you acknowledge that you're not willing to accept other criteria different than seats. Impru20 (talk) 12:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

From a same single election result you can have several succeeding governements, all based on the seats combination results indeed. Wykx 15:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and party relevance based on seats-only may vary depending on who's in government each time. Party relevance based on votes, however, will remain the same for the entire legislature with a single election result. So, votes are not subject to pacts or agreements to determine the relevance of the party. Depending on the election result, a party with 1 seat may be decisive, while on another election result a party with 20 seats may be irrelevant. That doesn't happen with votes. That's why I said is pretty subjective to base the criteria only on seats, and limiting yourself to just that and being unable to accept other visions. Again, to gain seats is one of the purposes of an election. Not the only one. And seats are not even always determinant to measure a party's relevance just as to keep it as the Holy Grail of measurements. Impru20 (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand how seats may vary depending on the governement. The seats are the ones resulting from the election. The government is approved by MPs votes. Popular votes are not relevant for any law votes or governement approvals. Media level of attention is neither a valid criteria to measure the outcome of an election. Wykx 15:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Influence may vary depending on government. You have the Norwegian parliamentary election, 2001, where a member of the fifth party got elected PM. You have the Asturian parliamentary election, 2012, where UPyD's 1 single seat did prove determinant. And you have the Spanish general election, 2011, where CiU's 16 seats were entirely irrelevant.

Btw, popular votes are important (at least in Spain) for the constitution of parliamentary groups and public funding to parties. Don't know if that's so in other countries, but legally, in Spain, popular votes also do matter.

Again, MPs are one of the objectives of an election, but not the only one. Impru20 (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The PM election is another -indirect- election. As you wrote, 1 seat can be determinant for indirect votes (which are the roles of MPs indeed). If CiU didn't prove determinant for a particular indirect vote because a majority has already been reached, what does it change to the result of the parliamentary election?

The constitution of parliamentary groups is possible based on seats obtained.

As you can see on this page [[5]] (figure 2), most of the public fundings in Spain don't come from national institutions. Moreover the rule was (from [[6]] "National campaign aid and annual organization subsidies are allocated in accordance with three criteria: a fixed amount of ESP 2.564.000 is paid for each seat a party has won in one of the two chambers of the national parliament; another ESP 38 is paid for each vote in the election of representatives; and ESP 96 is paid for each vote received in the election of senators." so that both seats and votes are impacting the amounts paid with seats impacting more. Wykx 18:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

But if not reaching at least 15 seats (which has hardly never happened aside from CiU, and even for them not always) popular vote reveals itself as determinant.

But all this discussion comes you're not even willing to consider votes are also important. You just limit yourself to a seat-criteria despite strong evidence on the contrary. And even here, when you actually do put evidence that popular vote is also important, seem not willing to consider vote-criteria as an option (and, btw, the source you put is from... 1999?). That's the issue here. I'm not saying a seat-criteria is not valid, I'm saying it's not the only option and that for Spain is not the prefered one, but also in the sense that, for elections, the Anglophone view of considering only seats it's not the only valid option.

Do you acknowledge that elections are not only for winning seats, and that seats are not the only thing that matters? Do you acknowledge that there may be another options aside from a seat-criteria, that are commonly used by other sources and are indeed common in Spain? Give a clear and concise answer, please. Yes or no. It's very simple. Impru20 (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't explain why popular votes were determinant.

Votes are of course important (for example because one could consider that proportional system is more fair, but we have to deal with the Spanish constitution that recognize regional representation) but are not the final outcome of the electoral process. This view is shared in many regions of the globe and is not Anglophone-specific.

No, I have not understood which other purpose than electing seats of MPs is a discriminating criteria between votes and seats for this election. I have seen complete tables enabling to read and understand complete results with votes and then seat calculation, exactly as we have in the inside article table. That table I do not contest. We are discussing the summarized infobox content as you wrote several times.Wykx 19:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it is you who don't explain why popular votes are not. You explain that seats are important, and I don't refute that. But you seem to use that to also remove importance from votes, when they are also important. Again, you fail to understand that I do accept that seats may have an importance (you don't have to repeat it over and over again). It's just the fact that I don't share that view, and that you fail to accept any scenario in which a vote-criteria could be used. You cling on on that definition of an election and just disregard everything else.

Votes are not the final outcome of the electoral process. Yes, they are. People vote. And from votes you can calculate seats if you wish. But without votes you do nothing. So votes are the final outcome of the electoral process. Seats also are, but that does not remove importance to votes. As I said, seats are one of the objectives of an election, not the only. You, again, fail to understand this.

Well, I already put you examples from Spanish websites, and even from the Spanish wikipedia, having a different criteria regarding Spanish elections despite using a seat-criteria for other elections (and I mean the infobox all the time). So, obviously, it's not as you say. Impru20 (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

'From votes you can calculate seats if you wish' : it is not 'can...if I you wish' : the seats are calculated to know who is elected else we don't know who is elected. Wykx 07:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Without votes, you can't calculate seats, and thus wouldn't know who is elected. So, yes, from votes you can calculate seats. Without votes, you can't. As simple as that. So you saying that votes are not the final outcome of an election is misleading. One of the purposes of an election is for the people to vote, and then, with that vote, you can do things. But without votes, you can't. So you can't say they aren't the final outcome of an election; they definitely are. Impru20 (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

'Final' means that this is the last step of the election process. Votes are counted before seats calculation so that votes can't be final outcome. When you write then it means that a step happens after. Wykx 22:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

'Last step'? Votes and seats are obtained at the same time. At least in Spain, seat calculations begin even before votes get counted in its entirety, so no, what you say does not make sense. It's posible you are mistakenly thinking on the Spanish system just as how the FPTP system work, where seats are not attributed until all votes have been counted. That doesn't happen in Spain, where seat calculation begins automatically during the vote count and keep moving for the entire election night. It's not a step after, it's done at the same time. Impru20 (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Votes and seats are not obtained at the same time: you have to apply the regional d'Hondt method as explained in D'Hondt_method#Allocation. Official calculation cannot be done before final count is over. Obviously you can make estimations of votes and seats based on exit-polls or extracts of polling results but they are not the final result, especially when you're in a situation too-close to call for one specific seat. Wykx 23:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

They're obtained at the same time. Obviously, you're not from Spain and seemingly do not know how vote count works, but seat results shown are always final. They can move depending of the % of votes counted, but both are calculated at the same time. It's different from other systems where you have to wait until 100% of votes are counted for a seat to be proclaimed, and it may take days to know exactly what the election result is; in Spain it doesn't. When 10% of votes are counted, you can know final seat results for those 10% of votes. When 14.56% of votes are counted, you can know final seat results at 14.56%, and so on. This is a result of d'Hondt being applied instantly at the same time than votes, differently than other countries, where seat allocation is not made either until 100% of votes are counted or until a large amount of votes have been counted. So, for Spain, no, you don't get votes and then calculate seats. You get votes and calculate seats at the same time.

Btw, it's notorious how you keep avoiding to answer the question as to why you keep disregarding any vote-criteria as valid under any circumstances. You're not even able to consider it as valid, and so it's logic you keep clinging on the seat-criteria. Impru20 (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm very sorry but that's mathematical. You cannot obtain the final seats counts until you have got the final votes counts. 14,56% of votes don't enable to calculate the seats corresponding to 100% of votes. If you calculate the seats for 14,56% of the votes you have counted a part of the elected seats but you cannot calculate the final seat counts. WP is not an electoral evening ;) Wykx 00:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You also seem very sorry to not being able to answer the fact that you're not even considering the vote-criteria as nowhere near valid and that you're trying very intrincate justifications to try to avoid the issue.

I just checked that you, quietly, just went to the 2014 Latvian election article (which was put here by Bondegezou as an example of an article using a vote-criteria) and just changed it to a seat-criteria without consultation. Yeah, you can do that on the grounds of WP:BOLD, but it seems a little 'dirty' to just do that when there's an ongoing discussion on the issue, just to make a point. You did the same in the 2012 French legislative election article (without any reason, since you kept the rest of French elections the same despite them using the same system).

Must I understand that you are intentionally seeking to impose your seat-criteria vision everywhere just because of it, disregarding others' opinions and thus potentially breaking WP:CONS in that you are not receptive of an alternative opinion? Bondegezou also seems to want to impose that view, but at least him did respect fair play and didn't went on a frenetic editing-spree just to make a point. Maybe you could have told me earlier and I'd have saved the attempt of trying to explain yoy something that you seemingly weren't even willing to accept.

Again, I must ask you (fifth or sixth time, I believe): Have you ever been willing, in light of obvious evidence to the contrary, to even accept the vote-criteria as a valid option? Impru20 (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

As I wrote previously, I fully recognize that votes are important because it is the best picture of the 1 person = 1 vote, but in the meantime we have to take into account the electoral voting system which is integral part of an election - and is different from one election to another, from one country to another -.

I already wrote in the Spanish discussion some days ago that I would propose a change in the French election page, that's not a surprise. Now that you contest it also, I'll wait for the outcome of this discussion. Wykx 09:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not the question. I do recognize both seats and votes as valid criteria, but have preference for the later in the case of Spain. Here you do recognize that you only consider the seat-criteria as valid, and are unwilling to accept anything else. Maybe you should have started from here the whole time instead of making me to lose my time explaining you the reasoning behind using a vote-criteria, as you, in reality, were never willing to accept it.

You said that you'd propose a change in the French election page. That's one thing, and another one is to do what you did to unilaterally change it (without proposing anything as you had suggested), despite (or, in fact, due to) it being used an example here of an article using a criteria different than seats-only. You did the same with the Latvian page and you had not even proposed to discuss a change of it. You just went and changed those; no wonder that most countries use a seat-criteria then! There's no discussion or agreement to do it, users such as you just go and do it because they feel like it, not because there's any consensus in that it's the best criteria. And these two cases were exceptionally notorious, as you did the changes after those had been put as examples in a discussion in which you were participating, as articles using a different criteria than the one you were defending. And you changed those in favour of your criteria. You just made the change without discussion or notice, just to refute other's points, something which is neither fair play nor very commendable, I should say. Impru20 (talk) 12:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Impru above says: "you're not from Spain and seemingly do not know how vote count works, but seat results shown are always final. They can move depending of the % of votes counted." That's contradictory. If seat results can move depending on vote count, then they are obviously not final. In Madrid, for example, if they count places like Leganes, Rivasvacias, Vallecas etc first, that will produce more projected seats for left wing parties than the final result. IIRC, that's exactly what happened in last year's regional election in Madrid: projections after up to 65% of the votes counted showed the PSOE and Podemos with a 1 to 3-seat majority, but the final result was a 1 seat majority for PP and Cs. Ultimately, that's what those counts after 15% are: projected results. They give an idea of the final result, but they are not final. Spain doesn't do things any differently from the UK, which counts results throughout the night. In fact on the contrary, the UK can definitively allocate seats before all the results are counted, since each of the 650 constituencies will declare at different times. Sunderland will usually declare at 23:00, an hour after the polls close, while the Scottish Islands and some larger, more rural constituencies won't declare until the following afternoon. Valenciano (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Spain is not the UK. The 650 seats for UK will not be declared until all votes have been counted, since counting does not take time neither at the same pace or the same rythm in the different constituencies, which is not the case for Spain. Spain always has its vote count over by midnight, while most other countries take up to the next day (and in some cases, several days) for them to be counted.

But, talking specifically on the 2015 election, you would see the fact of how important votes are by the fact that the media and the PSOE were panicked when exit opinion polls showed that Podemos could end up ahead of PSOE in votes (but not in seats). Surely, such a result would have entirely changed the strategical situation, since a Podemos second in votes would have had, in Spain, more political relevance than a PSOE second in seats but third in votes. And I'm not hypothesizing anything, this was discussed on election night by all Spanish media until final results effectively confirmed the PSOE was slightly ahead in votes. You disregard votes, yet do it in consideration of some general principles that you think that are to be applied to all countries, when each country works differently. Impru20 (talk) 12:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not the case. Individual constituency results in the UK are declared before some of the other constituencies have even started counting. The people are, at that point, legally declared elected. In Spain, the media and government, for information purposes, produce running tallies and make seat projections on the basis of them. However, the projections made in the media before *all* votes have been counted have no legal value. If projections after 70% counted show the PSOE winning 10 seats in Madrid and PSOE then win 9, it's nine they get. Spain doesn't work any differently from the vast majority of countries on election night. In the end it's the seats that count. Valenciano (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Votes matter. No-one is denying that votes matter. All these examples of why votes matter don't prove anything because no-one is saying votes don't matter. What multiple people are saying is that, if you have to pick between the two, seats matter more. Podemos overtaking PSOE in votes would have been significant; Podemos overtaking PSOE in seats would have been been even more significant. Bondegezou (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Names for Elections for both Lieutenant Governor and the categorie thereof

I'd looking for advice on the names for elections for the Lieutenant Governor (where they are not elected on a ticket). Is the Proper model to use Virginia lieutenant gubernatorial election, 2013 and Category:Virginia lieutenant gubernatorial elections? If so, is this strong enough that pages that don't name that way for example Missouri Lieutenant gubernatorial election, 2008 (has capital L) should be renamed?Naraht (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NCCAPS and reliable sources formatting suggests to me that Missouri Lieutenant gubernatorial election, 2008 should be moved to Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election, 2008, yes. Bondegezou (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank You. I'll work on names and categories based on this.Naraht (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election, 2008 is a redirect to which categories have later been added, so looks like the more formal MFD...

@Naraht: As it's clearly uncontroversial, I've moved it for you. Number 57 15:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57:. Thanx. Any easy way to clean up the RFM that I created?Naraht (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Naraht: Done. You can request uncontroversial moves to be done speedily, or just ask a friendly admin. (also, it's generally referred to as just RM). Number 57 15:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: Thanx. I'm also in the process of making sure that all places where "lieutenant governor election" is used that it becomes "lieutenant gubernatorial election" at least in categories. Article names and in articles may take a little longer.Naraht (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57:, Some of the others for Missouri also have Capital L, and a used redirect. Missouri Lieutenant gubernatorial election, 2004 and Missouri Lieutenant gubernatorial election, 2012. Please move.Naraht (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Naraht: Both done. Number 57 16:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all those, User:Number 57. Bondegezou (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Opinion polling articles

Although there is no guideline for opinion poll articles, all of them that I am aware of are at "Opinion polling in the Fooish general election, XXXX" title. This has always struck me as not terribly natural – personally I would say "Opinion polling for the Fooish general election, XXXX" is a more accurate descriptor – it is opinion polling for the election, but it's difficult to see how it is "in" the election, as it's not an official part of it (as an example, I would say that someone is a candidate "in" the election).

Pinging a few contributors to opinion polling articles (@Impru20, Crazyseiko, and Nub Cake:) for your thoughts. Is it just me? Cheers, Number 57 21:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no real say in this matter. But I tend to just copy and post the previous years title and just change the date. --Crazyseiko (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I usually use the "Opinion polling for the Fooish general election, XXXX" format when creating opinion polling articles. So yeah, I'd say I support that. Impru20 (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, yes, good point – I hadn't noticed that there were also "for" articles. Well, it would certainly make sense to standardise them then. Number 57 21:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Would agree, 'for' is how it should be in my opinion. Nub Cake (talk) 12:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Graphing of opinion polls - Opinion polling for the Irish general election, 2016

Not sure if this is the right place to ask but does anyone know how/have the software to produce a graph like File:NZ opinion polls 2011-2014-majorparties.png or something similar using the info at Opinion polling for the Irish general election, 2016? A graph would be more useful in my opinion and could be used on the main Irish general election, 2016 article.--Boreas74 ^{You'll catch more flies with honey} 17:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The whole code is shown on the file's page. You can use RStudio for free to code in R. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 17:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. --Boreas74 ^{You'll catch more flies with honey} 18:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)