Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Length of House election articles: Probably a sensible approach.
Line 266: Line 266:
:Consistency is desirable but not mandatory. The reduced results on the 2016 article is certainly needed, as otherwise it would be far too large of an article. It is quite unusual for a legislative election article to contain every result of the election in the article. It would be much better if the other articles in this series conformed to the 2016 format. [[User:Onetwothreeip|Onetwothreeip]] ([[User talk:Onetwothreeip|talk]]) 22:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
:Consistency is desirable but not mandatory. The reduced results on the 2016 article is certainly needed, as otherwise it would be far too large of an article. It is quite unusual for a legislative election article to contain every result of the election in the article. It would be much better if the other articles in this series conformed to the 2016 format. [[User:Onetwothreeip|Onetwothreeip]] ([[User talk:Onetwothreeip|talk]]) 22:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
:: Probably a sensible approach. For results, it would probably make sense for an article like that to link to an article on all of the results in a state (e.g. [[2016 United States House of Representatives elections in California]], or something), rather than reproducing all 435 House elections on a single page. The latter approach seems like overkill – something like [[2016 United States House of Representatives elections]] should be more of an overview. --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/IJBall|contribs]] • [[User talk:IJBall|talk]])</small> 22:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
:: Probably a sensible approach. For results, it would probably make sense for an article like that to link to an article on all of the results in a state (e.g. [[2016 United States House of Representatives elections in California]], or something), rather than reproducing all 435 House elections on a single page. The latter approach seems like overkill – something like [[2016 United States House of Representatives elections]] should be more of an overview. --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/IJBall|contribs]] • [[User talk:IJBall|talk]])</small> 22:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
::: Should this be applied to other articles?[[Special:Contributions/2601:241:300:B610:98FA:33BE:AECE:BBA|2601:241:300:B610:98FA:33BE:AECE:BBA]] ([[User talk:2601:241:300:B610:98FA:33BE:AECE:BBA|talk]]) 23:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:32, 6 February 2021

WikiProject iconElections and Referendums Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Proposed merger of articles about elections in the Caribbean Netherlands and Netherlands Antilles

There is a consensus to merge all of these articles as proposed, which may be carried out by any editor (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 23:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


I'd like to propose a thorough re-organization of articles about elections in the Caribbean Netherlands and Netherlands Antilles, with the aim of making them more consistent with other articles about elections within the Kingdom of the Netherlands:

Rationale: Island council elections (and since 2019, electoral college elections) in the Caribbean Netherlands and, formerly, the Netherlands Antilles are the equivalent of provincial/municipal elections in the European Netherlands. Citizens of Bonaire, Saba and Sint Eustatius are citizens of the Netherlands and are therefore eligible to vote in the Dutch general election. Similarly, citizens of the Netherlands Antilles were eligible to vote in the Netherlands Antilles general election.

This means that referring to the above-mentioned subnational elections as 'general elections' is incorrect. Furthermore, subnational elections in the European Netherlands don't have separate articles for e.g. the "2018 Amsterdam municipal election" or the "2019 North Holland provincial election". Hence my proposal to merge these articles into a single article per election year and type, similar to 2019 Dutch provincial elections and 2018 Dutch municipal elections.

As an example of what this could look like, I created this draft for the 2019 island council elections. Would be great to have a discussion about this and (hopefully) reach a consensus. ― Ætoms [talk] 17:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Addition. I would also like to propose to rename the following articles, should the consensus be to merge the aforementioned articles:

― Ætoms [talk] 20:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC) [withdrawn 14:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)][reply]


Discussion
  • I don't support the merger of the articles as I think they are noteworthy topics in their own right, particularly for Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten, which are now classed as countries. However, I would not be opposed to them being renamed (e.g.) "XXXX Aruban Island Council election" etc. Number 57 17:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: The country status that Aruba (1986), Curaçao and Sint Maarten (2010) obtained does not change the fact that they were once part of the Netherlands Antilles and that they were subject to the Netherlands Antilles' election system. Having separate articles implies that the island council elections were held independently from one another, while in reality they were part of a single nation-wide election. Note that there is a difference between "Aruban election" and "election held in Aruba".
Also, the elections in Sint Eustatius and Saba are fairly small. With the number of votes cast usually below 2,000 and 1,000 votes respectively, I'd argue that these elections are not noteworthier than the municipal elections held in any of the 355 municipalities in the European Netherlands. Of course, stand-alone elections, such as the early/postponed elections held in 1985, 2010 and 2020, can (and should) remain separate articles. ― Ætoms [talk] 20:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; the island councils were elected separately from each other, much like 2019 Babergh District Council election and 2019 Ipswich Borough Council election were held separately as part of a wider election process. Also, by adding the move requests in, this is a bit of a mess now. This page isn't an appropriate venue for an RM - that should be done on the article talk pages using the WP:RM process. Can I suggest you remove them? Number 57 20:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well... whether or not these articles should be renamed depends entirely on what the outcome of this discussion will be. Just putting it out here to see what others think of it. I already tried to be bold and rename the Sint Eustatius article, but funnily enough it was reverted by you arguing that I should start a "discussion about a bulk move" first. Which I just did... ― Ætoms [talk] 20:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the move of a single article because it left it out of step with the others in the series. When I suggested starting a bulk discussion, I assumed you would be familiar with the WP:RM process (which allows you to do bulk move requests); apologies if not. Number 57 20:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've withdrawn the addition for now. I will submit a bulk move request once this discussion has ended. ― Ætoms [talk] 14:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly support all of these merges. There's no need for separate articles for constituent islands, especially when they are just a results box. At that time they were not their own countries. Reywas92Talk 19:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List vs normal article

I've noticed articles like 1960 United States presidential election in Hawaii and 1988 United States presidential election in California are considered "List-class" by this project, while other similar articles like 1988 United States presidential election in Hawaii and 1960 United States presidential election in California are normal articles rated along the conventional Stub- to FA-class scale. Articles like the Featured 2009 New York's 20th congressional district special election are not lists but regular articles. They are not just statistical records of election results, but are perfectly suited to be legitimate articles that outline the circumstances of the election in detail. My proposal is to change the classification of many election articles currently in "List-class" to whatever article ranking is suited like "C-class" or "Start-class." This would include all election articles that would, in an ideal form, contain a sizable amount (at least a paragraph?) of information that is not statistics or an explanatory supplement to statistics. Ultimately, there is no rational purpose for this inconsistency, and a WP:CONSENSUS is needed to resolve it. Wikinights (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with changing all these to normal articles with normal ratings - list-class makes no sense here. Maybe stub class for the ones with only a sentence and statistics - start and C for the rest. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 US referendums

Hey all - I've made a page for coordinating work on all the state-wide referendums that have happened in 2020 in the US. Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/2020 US referendums. This currently just lists all the articles that should exist. I'm going to be adding resources there in the following days, as well as adding info on all the referendums that happened earlier in the year (this only contains the ones that happened on November 3, currently). If anyone would like to help with creating articles, please do - some examples of ones I've made that I think are decent are 2020 Oklahoma Question 802 and 2020 Michigan Proposal 2 (the first one is a pretty well-fleshed-out one, while the second one is pretty much a stub, but still better than nothing. Having separate articles for these, even stubs, really helps. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elliot321: Can I suggest combining all the ballot measures from each state into a single article, rather than having (for example) seven separate articles on the ones in Louisiana. 2020 Liberian constitutional referendum covers eight separate questions on constitutional amendments, while articles like 2020 Swiss referendums cover multiple votes throughout the year. Number 57 15:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: I suppose this could be done, but I prefer having these split - most of them can be expanded into decent articles (with sections on support, opposition, contents, results, fundraising, aftermath (if passed), etc). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Elliot321: If the article is expanded sufficiently, it can be split off, as has been the case for a very small number of Swiss referendums. However, while there is only the basics, there is no point in forcing readers to read multiple stub articles on ballot measures in a state when they could be presented with all the currently written information in one. Number 57 17:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: fair enough. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really confused how you can say the page you made "lists all the articles that should exist" when you've put the Washington advisory votes on it: they are non-binding questions with no campaigning or consequence whatsoever. They should not exist as articles. I would also highly, highly suggest consolidating content in a general "2020 State ballot measures" article, but better yet put them in the "2020 State elections" article, e.g. 2020 Michigan elections#Ballot Measures or 2020 Alabama elections#Ballot Measures, and as Number57 said, only split off when necessary beyond basic facts rather than bulk-creating stubs. There's a reason why most of these don't have articles or if they do are very short – they're usually not that notable, and having content in a main article is certainly better than nothing but separate pages make readers just click around more and often fail WP:N. Ballotpedia is great at covering ballot measures, and we don't need to copy them. Reywas92Talk 18:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92: I'm not strongly positioned on the Washington advisory measures - or most of the measures, really - but most of the measures do pass notability. I've previously tried to research ballot measures on Wikipedia and found the lack of coverage somewhat shocking, which is why I've tried to work on this - whether as sections of the state elections pages (which is where some of them have gone, and the pages in the list I've made as redirects - like 2020 Virginia Question 2). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I clarified this on the page, listing different examples of redirects to sections. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Germany colors

Working in the German elections I've notice two problems:

  • The colors for Alternative for Germany and Christian Social Union in Bavaria are almost exactly the same which make quite difficult to differenciate them on graphics.
  • Often when trying to represent the colors of CDU/CSU as a whole gray is used, this is actually a missconception. Black is the color of the CDU/CSU alliance, the color of the CDU though normally black is use the official color for the individual party is orange. Although understandingly because black has become too colloquially associated with CDU and a lot of fringe non-Bundestag political parties also use orange (Pirates, Family, Ecological, etc) is still something that might need correction on some graphics.

As for the first, I would like to suggest to search for consensus on different tones for AfD and CSU so that they can be mor easily taken apart. I would like to tag for the opinion of @JackWilfred:, @Impru20: and @Alektor89: who seem to be the more active on German politics topics. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the first point and would suggest, to follow german television network ARD (or the BR, it's regional dependence in Bavaria), which shows both the sister parties CDU and CSU in black (for example: https://www.br.de/nachrichten/bayern/br-bayerntrend-sonntagsfrage-kanzlerfrage-corona-krisenmanagement,S5TbVyu). This would not cause confusion, as CDU and CSU never run against each other in any election. Alternatevely, I would give one of the parties a really dark blue and the other one a really light blue, which is easy to distinguish from one another. I disagree with the second point because of the reasons, you have mentioned yourself. Alektor89 (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The second point is not that important, I just think it worths mentioning. However regarding CSU which indeed never run againts each other I might be wrong but that applies for federal elections isn't it Alektor89? Because in that case we still would have the problem in graphics of the Bavarian elections, and probably the European elections in which Bavaria has its own electoral districts to be represented in the European Parliament and technically the CSU and CDU are two different parties in the European Parliament as in it it doesnt apply the CDU/CSU coalition as far as I understand (they do are both members of the EPP but that's another matter).
Therefore I think using different tones is logical. Maybe in a similar way how when two or more left-wing parties use red the center-left parties are represented by lighter tones and the far left by darker tones the same logic can be applied; darker tone for the far right, lighter for the center right? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's ok, I guess. But I would once again emphasize that this is only relevant with respect to Bavarian state elections and elections to the European Parliament. In german federal elections we should treat both parties as CDU/CSU (black) which is the way, the matter is treated in german media etc. ... Alektor89 (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the CSU/AfD confusion, I had already presented a solution of darkening the CSU colour for diagrams only shortly after the 2017 election (it's best we just darken the CSU's colour as it's darker and less important, rather than the AfD's, to remain neutral on the party's relative positioning). While the Union act as one parliamentary caucus, I think it important to make the distinction between the two parties because of how independently they act of each other. However, the all-black solution is easier to read and completely eliminates the chance of confusion. I therefore hesitantly agree with the status quo.
On the CDU's colour, I disagree with the idea of using orange. Black is a long-standing customary colour used for the CDU, and is so well-associated with the party that for many people it is for all intents and purposes official. I don't like using customary colours (the pink we use for the Portuguese Socialist Party is hideous), but if there's ever a place to use them, this is one. JackWilfred (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so does anyone opposes darkening the CSU color? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess no. Do you have a tone in mind JackWilfred?--Dereck Camacho (talk) 09:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up List of 2020 United States presidential electors

This article List of 2020 United States presidential electors seems to have major factual/referencing errors. Can some of you take a look at it? Thanks DemonDays64 (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]

Category:Rhode Island state senators very very incomplete

Hi. I noticed that Category:Rhode Island state senators only has 122 people in it. There have certainly been many many more senators than that. Clicking on some incumbent ones listed at Rhode Island Senate I have found multiple who are not in the category; only under 38 of the probably 500+ would be caught by that though. It would be great if some of you could try to find some of the rest. Thanks! DemonDays64 (talk) 09:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gubernatorial election articles

Based on discussions at 1948 Illinois elections, how long should a gubernatorial election article be in order to be a separate article?73.110.217.186 (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions were held on my user talk page, actually. SecretName101 (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I linked it to article because I didn't mow if it was appropriate to link to a user's talk page. 73.110.217.186 (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And the question is more, does it make sense to have an independent stub-article for an election when it can be equally described in a section of an existing article on main election it was a component of? SecretName101 (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that elections should be covered in the minimum number of articles possible, as this makes life easier for readers. I absolutely cringe when I see articles like 2022 Florida Chief Financial Officer election appearing. Number 57 15:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of state legislative special elections

I've recently stumbled upon a number of state legislative special election articles in Minnesota such as 2013 Minnesota House of Representatives District 14A special election and 2016 Minnesota Senate District 35 special election and I have questions about the notability of such elections. Unlike the special elections like 2017 Delaware's 10th state senate district special election or 2017 Washington's 45th state senate district special election these elections were not competitive, did not gain national or significant media coverage besides local coverage which is typical for any special election, changed which party controlled the chamber, or even flipped which party represented the district. A couple of elections flipped parties such as 2016 Minnesota House of Representatives District 50B special election and 2016 Minnesota House of Representatives District 50B special election but even those elections did not change which party controlled each chamber, or gain significant national media coverage. The only race that had the opportunity to change which party controlled the chamber was 2018 Minnesota Senate District 13 special election but that race wasn't competitive at all.

Looking through other states I cannot find any other examples of where state legislative special elections have their own articles besides the Delaware and Washington special elections. Only a number of states even have lists of special elections in their respective chambers. California has List of special elections to the California State Assembly and List of special elections to the California State Senate but only covers results of races from 2013/14 onwards which is random to me and Iowa has List of special elections to the Iowa State Senate but not for the Iowa House of Representatives which to me doesn't make much sense but it does list all the results from the special elections. I believe merging special election articles in Minnesota into their respective lists and listing their results would be the most logical and useful but what would be the best way to determine if such elections are notable and deserve their own articles vs merging into one list. I would nominate such articles for AfD but would like to get some feedback first and the best way to go forward with merging the articles. Thanks! JayJayWhat did I do? 21:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding of candidates pre-runoff

In races where no candidate gets over 50% of the vote and the race heads to a runoff, for the pre-runoff results, should the candidate with the highest percentage, both candidates, or neither have their total votes and % bolded? Since there are good arguments for both sides in my opinion, this is a style argument.

Offering my perspective: neither should be bolded, because it should only be used for the second round winner. Even if you come first place, if you advance to a runoff, it shouldn’t be bolded.

I could also understand the argument where the top 2 candidates who advance to the runoff should be bolded.

However, I disagree completely with the idea that the top scorer should be bolded before runoff.

For reference, use the Georgia Senate articles.

What do you think? For the first round:

  • top 2 bolded
  • neither bolded
  • top finisher bolded

Election Tron (talk) 13:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on infoboxes for two-round elections

The consensus on Wikipedia for two-round election has traditionally been to only include the two candidates who made it to the second round. However, recent articles, such as 2017 French presidential election and 2020-21 United States Senate special election in Georgia, display both the first and second round results in their infoboxes, and sometimes include candidates who did not make it to the second round. I believe this means a new consensus (not necessarily a change in policy) should be reached on the topic (especially given the high profile of the Georgia special senate election, which so far has not been altered to fit the old consensus).

My question is:

Should election infoboxes for two-round elections:
  1. show only the two candidates who advanced to the second round, and only the number of votes recieved in the second round?
  2. show only the two candidates who advanced to the second round, and the numbers of votes recieved in both rounds?
  3. or show the two candidates who advanced to the second round and any other canddiates who received 5% or more in the first round, and the numbers of votes recieved in both rounds?

Glide08 (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the London mayoral election is done via instant runoff voting, so isn't a two round election in the normal sense. I think that kind of election needs a separate discussion – can it be removed from this RfC to avoid muddying the waters? Number 57 00:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Glide08 (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 or failing that top three candidates (assuming all are over 5%) - I think it is helpful to include the two ballot numbers, and at least a third candidate who was eliminated on the first ballot (which the infobox can then show). That way people know it was a two round election at first blush, and that more than two candidates ran. Doing so avoids confusion about the process. This is kind of a similar situation to instant run off elections (see for example 2020 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election or 2020 Green Party of Canada leadership election. That said, we may have been too generous in the Green party example where we have included Andrew West who ultimately only received 1.47% on the first ballot.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The infoboxes typically have the dates for both rounds, labelled as first and second round, so I don't think the additional candidates are needed to convey that info. Personally I'm concerned about infobox bloat. Infoboxes should contain the minimum amount of info necessary to convey the key facts. I am not sure first round losing candidates are key.
    • Also I notice all your examples are party leadership elections, not presidential elections. Do we want both covered by the same rules, or should there be different approaches to different types? Number 57 00:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I hear you about bloat. I started this discussion concerning the 8th candidate in the 2020 GPC leadership infobox, after my comment above. That said, I don't see any reason to treat leadership campaigns differently than Senate or Presidential elections. You may be right that we don't need 8 people in an infobox but three would make clear that it was "a run-off election" (or instant-run off election). I don't think that complicates the infobox too much, and has the added benefit of not misleading people about the process (ie that there were two elections (or multiple rounds) which decided the election. I do think it is important that the infoboxes don't gloss over this fact, it can be particularly important to the story in elections like 2017 French presidential election. That election in its entirety was an election about a far-right candidate (Marine Le Pen), sneaking up the middle in the first round, and then being stomped in the second when all of the "moderate"/left vote coalesced around Macron. Leaving only two in the infobox fails to tell the story of the entire election (even in a simplified form). I wasn't involved in the editing of that article. If I had been I would have argued for the inclusion of François Fillon, Jean-Luc Mélenchon or both in the infobox. They both received roughly 20% of the vote which is pretty significant (and only a percent or two less than Le Pen) but you wouldn't know it from the infobox. In the recent Georgia election, it would be misleading not to include that Ossoff received less of the vote in the first round (but won in the run off). As there were only three candidates in that election, I would advocate for including the Libertarian in the infobox (even though they received less than 5%) so that it is clear at first glance that it was a run off election, the Libertarian was eliminated and then in the runoff Ossoff won. In the special election, it is helpful to include Doug Collins for the same reasons. The goal of the infobox is to provide a quick summary of the election (the entire election). I just don't think you can do that by only including information about the second round only.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Collins and Deborah Jackson are already included in the Special election. Glide08 (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

naming for state senate elections?

It seems like in general, there's a mix of articles named like 2020 Ohio Senate election and like 2020 Georgia State Senate election. My opinion is that they should all be like the latter (YEAR STATE State Senate election), to avoid confusion with elections to the United States senate (I made a disambiguation page at 2020 Georgia Senate election, though in some cases, that page should redirect to whichever election occurred, if there was only a US Senate or State Senate election). Thoughts on this? This would be a somewhat-large change to page naming (since there are many pages named either way), but I think standardization is important. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These types of election article titles are supposed to match the name of the legislature being elected, so 2020 Ohio Senate election matches Ohio Senate while 2020 Georgia State Senate election matches Georgia State Senate. Number 57 13:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ah, I see. sadly, getting Ohio to rename their State Senate isn't really something I can do so... I still think this is somewhat of an issue. Most media refers to US senate elections as "STATE Senate election", not "United States Senate election in STATE", so per WP:COMMONNAME I think we should at least have disambiguation hatnotes, but ideally something more consistent. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 14:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think DAB hatnotes are the way to go if you want to keep the articles as they are. Alternatively, there could be a single article that covers the elections to both houses of state legislatures (e.g. 2020 Ohio General Assembly election that also covers the 2020 Ohio House of Representatives election, another title which may also cause some confusion); The long listings of individual districts could be put into a Results of the 2020 Ohio General Assembly election article or have individual results breakdown articles for the House and Senate (this is how it's done for Australian states, for example – see 2019 New South Wales state election). Cheers, Number 57 14:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some mix of those would probably be good. These articles pretty much are the long listings - usually not containing much other information, so splitting it would just lead to a stub (except for some exceptionally good articles, but sadly, these elections don't really get much substantive coverage). I'll think on it, I'm really not sure what would be a good idea (but I'm glad we're starting to get more coverage on these topics from myself and others!) Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 15:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency in US state legislature election articles

Hi. I've not written any for a while but I was looking at the state legislature election pages we have and I noticed there are pretty different formats they are in. It would be a very large task to get them all to the same one but I think it would be good if we decide on how the best ones should look then work to make new ones fit whatever that is, and gradually work through existing ones. This would be much better for readers and make it a easier to make these.

For a few types to compare see 2020 Indiana House of Representatives election, 2020 Idaho House of Representatives election, and 2020 Connecticut State Senate election.

Thoughts on how the ideal state legislature election article should be? DemonDays64 (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I really like any of these – they seem more "table than prose" – but of these three, 2020 Connecticut State Senate election is the "best" (i.e. the most informative, with good use of maps and summary data tables), and is the "format" I've seen most often in U.S. state legislature articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like the look of that too. We shouldn't just be a data dump. Having the map (and I prefer the format currently in use in that article to other formats, as it shows flips) is certainly an important part, too. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Improving List of electoral systems by country

I have started a discussion at Talk:List of electoral systems by country about improving the format and quality of this list, which may interest some watchers of this page. Thanks, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 22:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unnotable 2006 and 2010 U.S. House races

So recently, I have been looking at the 2006 United States House of Representatives category and have discovered a lot of single race articles that are unimportant and should be merged and deleted. Most, if not all, of the articles were made during a terrible WikiProject back in 2006 started by John Broughton. All of the races have one thing in common: they were "close" (the winner got 55-60% or less of the vote). Not only is this standard arbitrary, it just doesn't make sense. Most of these articles are clearly dated (even by 2007 standards) and fail WP:GNG. By that viewpoint, there should be over 76 single race regular election articles for the 2020 season. Currently, there is only one where the winner won by less than 55%: North Carolina's 11th, but that was only due to an obviously high amount of news coverage. There are also a few 2010 House election races which exist for no reason either. The creator of the Pennsylvania's 2nd district election article created the page in June 2010 (months before the race even ended) and hasn't edited since 2014. The creator of the North Carolina's 7th district election article has only ever edited that article and Mike McIntyre's. And the creator of the 2010 Florida congressional district election race articles hasn't edited since 2015. None of these articles are being kept up to date and it is very clear most of them fail WP:RECENT. For this reason I believe most, if not all, of the articles and redirects in "User talk:John Broughton/Wikiproject Notable races for the House 2006/Scope of this project", "List of elections in 2006#United States", and the single race non-special elections in the 2010 United States House of Representatives category. Pages where the incumbent representative/party won re-election (even by a narrow margin, but especially by a large margin) should be put into more consideration for deletion. Having looked at the discussions (1st and 2nd), most of the arguments which claim that most are WP:GNG (and other false claims) feel in bad faith, since they actually fail WP:RECENT. The only elections in both the 2006 and 2010 categories which I believe pass WP:GNG are: 2006 Georgia's 4th and 2010 Illinois's 17th and possibly 2006 Arizona's 8th. Other than that, everything I stated earlier is what I think. I started this discussion on this WikiProject talk page since these pages concerns all of us the most and I am interested on hearing your opinions on the deletion discussions and these election articles. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 04:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the shorter ones can be merged/redirected to the respective state article per WP:MERGEINIT. Individual house races are typically not notable on their own, even when competitive by some standard. Sadly we don't have the manpower to maintain articles for every separate race. Reywas92Talk 04:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion on US house races is that individual races should nearly always be merged to a single article per state, barring exceptional circumstances (I can't think of any in 2020 that really warrant their own articles). Special elections are generally independently notable, though. So yeah, merge all of these. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 14:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the premise that all (or perhaps even most) individual US House races are not individually notable. I think circumstances where more prose is (or could be) valuable when a) the incumbent faces a serious intra-party challenge b) when there is a significant third-party candidate c) when the race is rated as a toss-up or leaning toward the opponents party d) when the seat flips (especially if unexpectedly) e) is featured as part of a documentary, academic study, or other post-election coverage (even if fictionalized) f) is the first race of a president or g) contains a candidate who is widely known as a "first." --Enos733 (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason you can't have prose in a larger article.
I do agree that in some exceptional circumstances where the race itself gains significant attention, it could be worthwhile to have an article (such as 2020's NY-22 race). But as a general rule, no, we shouldn't. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 16:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Results of legislative elections infobox, calculations

A recent & continuing dispute at 2020 United States House of Representatives elections, has highlighted a discrepancy. When we +/− for seats won in an election infobox, do we use the base # of seats from the previous election or from the current seats count. Example: at 2020 US House elections - Do we subtract from Democrats totals 235 (2018 elections) or 232 seats, right before 2020 elections? GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell: Should the seats before section be deleted & its totals disregarded. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's compared to the previous election, as stated in the infobox documentation: seat_change1: The change in the number of seats won at the election compared to the previous election. It would also be inconsistent to compare it to the situation before the elections, as the swing parameter also compares to the previous election. Personally I think we should get rid of the seats_before parameter, as this creates confusion on a regular basis. Number 57 20:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this mean the Seats before section in the infobox, should be deleted? GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. But I can see why some people might think it useful in the buildup to an election if there has been significant changes. Another option might be to automatically hide it after the election has taken place (this could be done by making its appearance dependent on the ongoing = yes/no parameter, similar to how the votes and percentage rows won't appear when ongoing is set to 'yes'). Number 57 20:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Many have argued fro keeping Seats before, due to special or by-elections being held in between general elections, due to vacancies. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Under the current name I think it makes sense to be the number of seats immediately before the election; if we want it to be based on the previous election, it must be renamed "seats last election" or similar for clarity, but I don't have a strong opinion between one or the other. Vehement oppose deleting the section at all: it's very important to see if a party did better or worse than previously and it is also helpful to see where the parties stand going into an upcoming election. Confusion can be fixed with better wording. Reywas92Talk 21:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But there's still the trouble of math. What numbers do we use, when adding/subtracting. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not really sure what Reywas is saying here. The seats_before parameter is already for seats before the election. The seats at the last election are listed under the last_election parameter. Number 57 22:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed – the "swing" numbers should be compared to the previous election. The seats before parameter can be left in the infobox – no harm in that – but it should not be used to calculate the "swing". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For relevant examples to the specific question here, this is how the swing was calculated at articles like 1789–1822 List of United States House of Representatives elections, 1824–1854 List of United States House of Representatives elections, and List of United States House of Representatives elections, 1856–present – they all are swing versus the previous election (result). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely should be swing from previous election. We are comparing election to election here, and it should be uniform throughout Wikipedia. A legislator resigning weeks before the election, for example, would cause their party to appear as though they had one more net gain or one less net loss if the results were compared to the seats right before the election, which is completely arbitrary and useless. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Length of House election articles

There was a discussion at Talk:2016 United States House of Representatives elections that decided on removing the detailed results on that page. However, Talk:2020 United States House of Representatives elections/Archive 1 has a RFC that decided on keeping such results on that page. Personally, I think all the pages should be in a consistent format, so which should be used?67.173.23.66 (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency is desirable but not mandatory. The reduced results on the 2016 article is certainly needed, as otherwise it would be far too large of an article. It is quite unusual for a legislative election article to contain every result of the election in the article. It would be much better if the other articles in this series conformed to the 2016 format. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a sensible approach. For results, it would probably make sense for an article like that to link to an article on all of the results in a state (e.g. 2016 United States House of Representatives elections in California, or something), rather than reproducing all 435 House elections on a single page. The latter approach seems like overkill – something like 2016 United States House of Representatives elections should be more of an overview. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should this be applied to other articles?2601:241:300:B610:98FA:33BE:AECE:BBA (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums&oldid=1005289500"