Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics

Archives (Index)

2 1 3 4 5

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

RfC on the affiliation of defectors

How should we list the affiliation of MPs and MLAs in Indian legislatures who were elected for a different party than the one they are now associated with? YttriumShrew (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Background for unfamiliar editors

Since 1985, India has had an anti-defection law, which was intended to curtail the frequent defections and changes of allegiance that had been ubiquitous in Indian politics in the previous decades. The law prohibited any elected representative from changing parties, and made doing so grounds for disqualification from the legislature; such legislators would be able to contest a by-election to return to the legislature. It did exempt group defections of over 2/3rds of a caucus.

Defections, however, are still relatively common. In some cases, such as Etela Rajender and Phanidhar Talukdar, the legislator in question chooses to resign and force a by-election, bypassing a potential disqualification. However, others choose to stay in the legislature, and such legislators often aren't disqualified. This leads to a rather strange situation, which is the subject for this RfC.

In all official capacity, such legislators are affiliated with the party they were elected for, and are listed as such on government websites and documents. In unofficial capacity, such as on news sites, they are listed as belonging to the party they defected to, despite said defections being in breach of the law. The question at hand is how to list them. It's a question that has come up repeatedly in recent months, in large part due to a string of defections to the All India Trinamool Congress. A number of options have been proposed

Option A is to go with the official party totals, which list the representatives as belonging to the party they are legally bound to.

Option B is to list them by the party they affiliate with in practice.

Option C is to list their seats as vacant, as they should be disqualified, despite not having been disqualified.

Which option should we use? If you would like to propose another, please do so.

Survey

• Option B (with proper reference). I have explained the reasons for my opinion below in the "Discussion" section. - Diptyajit (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Option B for the reasons outlined below. YttriumShrew (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Option D: list both I'm not sure why it has to be one or the other. Just list someone like Etela Rajender as TRS (unofficially BJP) or BJP (officially TRS). (No preference between the two versions.) Loki (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Option B basis the discussion below. Dhruv edits (talk) 11:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A The graphs, tables and infobox should all represent the official party status and figures and should not be be changed until the party switch is officially approved and applicable. The switch in party if any should be mentioned along with reliable source in the Political career section of the biography of the politician. Changes in infobox and Legislative assembly tables should wait for formal notification or update before showing the switch in the party. --Venkat TL (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

I will like to go with Option B. MLAs who are not disqualified, even if they are supposed to be disqualified under the anti-defection law, should be represented by the party they affiliate to. Recently 12 Congress MLAs of Meghalaya switched to AITC and AITC became the principal opposition party in Meghalaya Legislative Assembly. Since the anti-defection law permits merger of 2/3 members of a legislature group with another party, the 12 MLAs will not attract disqualification. But still the official website of Meghalaya Govt. shows them as INC MLAs which is incorrect. So a state government's official website cannot always be a reliable source in this case at least. - Diptyajit (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Diptyajit, @YttriumShrew The official sources may be outdated. The RfC is pointless. We should follow what reliable sources are saying. If reliable source exists that MLA X has switched allegiance, use that ref and tag the member as the new party with the source. The article body will clarify this switch in detail to avoid any confusion. I dont understand the dispute here. Option A is asking Wikipedia to stick to outdated primary sources. Not appropriate. Option C is asking Wikipedia to do WP:OR. Not appropriate. So clearly there is one option left to choose. Venkat TL (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: I've created this RfC for the purposes of creating a lasting consensus. Multiple editors have argued for option A, and I've seen option C advocated for as well. We would do well to have a lasting consensus on this, given it's an issue that has come up repeatedly. Just because this seems obvious to you doesn't mean it doesn't also seem obvious to someone who is on a different side. YttriumShrew (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Understood. I assume only the new editors and IPs not aware of WP:V would be arguing this for A and C. Venkat TL (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Venkat TL and YttriumShrew: So what should be done in the case of Tripura (or any other) Legislative Assembly in the page of All India Trinamool Congress? - Diptyajit (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

All three options would list the total in Meghalaya (not Manipur, by the way) as 12, as that defection was compliant with the law. Options A and C would list the Tripura count as 0, while Option B would list it as 1. YttriumShrew (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Option B is common sense. Option C is silly; we shouldn't show seats as vacant when they are filled. Option A seems somewhat reasonable, but given that reliable sources usually regard them as defections we should list them as such. Per Venkat TL, I do think it necessary to have a policy that we do not include defections without a reference. YttriumShrew (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@YttriumShrew: I wrote Manipur in place of Meghalaya by mistake. Should the page of AITC be edited according to Option B? If so, please mention it on the talkpage of AITC. - Diptyajit (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Venkat TL and YttriumShrew: In the case of Tripura Assembly it is Option A. Currently, there are no Elected representative nor any Sitting MLA of AITMC at the Tripura Legislative Assembly. Regarding Mr. Ashish Das of Constituency 46 elected under the banner of BJP, He is an Elected Representative from BJP & the provision is "a lone elected MLA cannot switch his party officially". Either he has to resign from his MLA post or His party the BJP disqualifying him showing legal reasons. But this didn't happened for which TMC claims Mr. Ashish Das as their MLA which is a false propaganda. There is a provision for official & legal matters. If any MLA has to switch his party, a single Elected Representative (MLA) cannot but a group of 2/3rd of the total no. of Elected Representatives can.

For example, Bjp has 36 MLAs from Tripura. Now, keep in mind without any by-election only a group of 2/3rd MLAs i.e (2/3rd of 36) is 24. Therefore, 24 MLAs can switch parties which is legal.

A single Elected representative cannot switch his party except resigning for a by-election thereby getting re-elected from the desired party of his choice. In this case, MLA Ashish Das who recently joined TMC though elected under the banner of BJP didn't resigned for a by-election nor he got disqualified from his party BJP. So, therefore, he remains a BJP MLA. Even the Official website of the Government of Tripura say so. Now, regarding the activities of MLA Ashish Das, He got Elected from one party now working under the banner of another party. This is called "Anti-Party Activities. Option A makes sense & I firmly stand with Option A. ChongPong (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Venkat TL and YttriumShrew: Few Wikipedia editors are misinterpreting the Anti-defection law though being aware of the flaws of the law has therefore, playing games of words. Now, for reference, If I add citation from Tripura Govt. Portal it will not get digested & it will labelled as biased as claimed by some editor. Since Wikipedia set its rules based on unbiasedness. But can anybody cite a single reliable source? Which source is reliable?

Someone may wrote an article citing "Lone Mla Ashish Das shaved head & joined TMC leaving BJP" which becomes headline and few wiki editors provided fallacious inadequacies whenever possible in the Wikipedia articles & when questioned will misinterprete the Anti-Defection law.

Now, In case of Ashish Das, he didn't faced charges of Anti-defection law & right here, few Wikipedia editors are copy-pasting web links citing it as reference to mislead the masses labelling it as a reliable source & readers will believe Ashish Das is a sitting MLA of Tripura Assembly. which is not the truth.

Except Govt. Portal. no sources can be treated as reliable. But Wikipedia's rules speaks of unbiasedness cannot rely on Govt. Information department, after all govt. is formed by political parties. So, therefore... Then what is the solution?

I believe Wikipedia pages should be based on "Truth" & should have Legal acceptance. This is my viewpoint & Wikipedia should not tolerate fallacies & biasedness. ChongPong (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Important point to remember, "By voting on a bill along with another party Y, a member of party X does not become a part of the other party Y." Around the world it is common for members to vote across the party lines for whatever reasons. If the member has changed his allegiance, there will be some sort of statement and confirmation in reliable media. Nothing should be assumed per WP:SYNTH. @YttriumShrew the policy you are looking for, to enforce option B is WP:V. I think it is sufficient. As for the example of Meghalaya and Tripura, I am not fully aware of what happened. Such examples should be discussed on the respective article talk page. Not here. If new editors are adding poorly referenced content, then the seek page protection. Add sufficient clarification on the article and the talk page. Venkat TL (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Venkat TLA I firmly supports Option A. I believe a single elected representative Ashish Das of Tripura Assembly elected under the banner of BJP, didn't faced any by-election, now claimed by TMC that he switched sides & now, he is a sitting MLA of TMC at the Tripura Legislative assembly which I believe to be a false propaganda.

Since, Ashish Das is an Elected Representative from BJP and not from TMC. I believe Ashish Das can hold the flag of AITMC or any another regional party, can join whereever he want, can do whatever he want but still he will be tagged as Bjp MLA until he resigns from his said MLA post. This is why I am in favour of Option A.

Ashish Das being a Bjp MLA & now functioning under the banner of AITMC. He can indulge into anti party activities but being a lone MLA can he switch his party officially except resigning for a by-election? The Tripura govt. portal says he is a BJP MLA. So, therefore he is a BJP MLA & this can be regarded as truth. Ashish Das can claim himself that he joined AITMC but he did not resigned officially from his MLA post elected under the banner of Bjp. In Legal terms he hold the flag of AITMC but not elected from this party "Officially". Also, 2/3rd MLAs from the BJP are not gonna switch sides. Though, Ashish Das is claiming he did joined AITMC, Ashish Das still remains Bjp MLA officially & I repeated this a 100 times at the AITC talk page.

Now, few users claims Government portal cannot be considered as a reference in this case. What is this? This is not how it works. I believe to Provide proof from the State government portal which can be regarded as the official declaration for reaching conclusion.

I provided the official link of the government of Tripura. For queries regarding Ashish Das look for Constituency no. 46 & the party from which that MLA got elected. This is the proof from my side on behalf of the Tripura Govt. & it cannot be neglected. Users can check here the current Status of Mr. Ashish Das & which party he is in right now.

Visit: https://www.tripura.gov.in/mla-profile

Now, Regarding his disqualification which is now a matter of discussion. Few Months ago, Tripura BJP Spokesperson Sri Suvendu Bhattacharjee urged if any MLA is indulged inAnti-party activities, they can resign if they wish thereby conducting a by-election so that they can represent themselves from the party of their choice LEGALLY. But, no Tripura Assembly MLA's came forward to resign. All have faith in the BJP. Except a lone MLA Ashish Das.

Neither Ashish Das resigned from his party (BJP), nor he faced any by-election therefore getting re-elected from his desired party (AITMC) & entering the Tripura assembly which is an issue from my side.

There are instances where I saw Lone MLA's of opposition parties after getting elected switched to the ruling party. Instances like a lone Bsp MLA after 2020 Bihar election switched to the JDU which is the Ruling NDA govt. Similarly, a lone LJP Mla of Manipur assembly switched to the Bjp which is in Govt. But can a lone MLA join Opposition parties. Are there are instances? I remember an instance of 2002 Uttar pradesh assembly election. The BSP who won 98 seats in the 2002 elections, Later 33 MLAs defected to the Samajwadi Party in 2003, in a move that may have been ILLEGAL but was permitted by the then speaker Kesri Nath Tripathi. But in case of Tripura assembly, Ashish Das didn't submitted his resignation to the Speaker so, therefore, he didn't get disqualified. He is labelled to be indulge in Anti-Party Activities. ChongPong (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Option B makes the most sense. If there are credible sources reporting defection, then the new party must be mentioned with the name of MLA or MP along with proper citation.

Once the politician defects, he/she factually is no longer the member of the previous party, wouldn't take part in that parties activities. So it makes no sense to keep the name of the old party. Putting the name of the new party alongside their name makes much more sense and gives correct and updated view of the assembly. Plus, Lok Sabha/state assembly websites are not a good source for list of MPs/MLA's since they are not updated for months.

For those who are talking about the legalities, I would like to say that Wikipedia's purpose is to provide factual information with credible sources, which is not the same as legally correct information.

I would also like to propose the similar option in case of resignations. Acceptance of resignations by speaker usually takes months. Once the member submits his/her resignation, their seat should be marked Vacant. Dhruv edits (talk) 11:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dhruv edits No, I am against using option B for resignation. Option A makes more sense in this resignation case. Many times, the leaders throw tantrum and threaten to resign, and submit resignation, to put political pressure. Most of these cases the resignation does not actually come into force. Unless it is not formally accepted the constituency should not be marked vacant. It is a legal process and Wikipedia should not overreach in updating things before they actually happen. This incident of resignation should be discussed in the prose section, but the numbers should be kept as it is till it becomes formal. Venkat TL (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@ChongPong @Dhruv edits @Diptyajit @YttriumShrew, I have seen quite a few examples recently in Goa and West Bengal. I am finally inclined to go with Option A. The graphs, tables and infobox should all represent the official party status and figures and should not be be changed until the party switch is officially approved and applicable. The switch in party should be mentioned along with reliable source in the Political career section of the biography of the politician. Venkat TL (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Indian Election article

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian politics/Election: Article structure

has been created just as a standard template like the one created after the discussion at #Indian Assembly Constituency article above. @MPGuy2824, @YttriumShrew, Diptyajit please take a look and help to improve. The idea is to make all the election articles streamline with standard section headings. If possible also take a look at the US and UK election articles to improve the standard template. Venkat TL (talk) 08:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I have tried to improve the page by observing the following articles:
2020 United States presidential election
2021 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election
2021 Assam Legislative Assembly election Diptyajit (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes do it Chandan Kanti Paul (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of www.elections.in

Is elections.in reliable for election schedules and past election dates? This question had come up at Talk:2024 elections in India. Venkat TL (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Is the website elections.in good enough to cite the election results, say in constituency articles (eg. Kamalapur (Assembly constituency)) to start with? If there's a good alternate source, it's preferred, of course. — DaxServer (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

This ECI page has most of the general and state elections covered. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you access the website? I can't :/ — DaxServer (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I can. I'm in India (and aren't using a VPN, if that matters) -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the connections are blocked from outside the country. The files in the archive are not downloadable either. Do you know other alternatives to the ECI official website? — DaxServer (talk) 07:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You should be able to get to this archived page but the ECI site generates the download url on-the-fly, so downloading of files won't work. Some state CEO sites have the election results of (at least) the latest few elections, but i can't find any on the AP-CEO site. I can't think of any other official site. Any one else have some ideas? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This list of pdfs seen by google on Telangana CEO site seems to roughly include all those listed under AP at that ECI link. hemantha (brief) 08:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

That's what I am looking for. Thanks hemantha!

What are your opinions on adding these pdfs as references, starting with constituency articles? If there's a secondary source, I'd use that, as usual. — DaxServer (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

As far as i can see, they are the same as the ECI pdfs. I don't see a problem with using them as a primary source. If you find a good website for secondary sources for elections, please inform the rest of us as well. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Sharing an example of discrepancy on this site: [1] is showing 1996 and 2002 for BJP but this source cannot be trusted because 2017 was won by BJP but this site is showing it for SP. Venkat TL (talk) 07:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Members of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature

Can we merge Category:Members of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature, 2014–2019 and the likes into Category:Members of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly by term in respective years? Or is there another purpose for these cats? — DaxServer (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@DaxServer Looking at the page history, the former was created when the latter did not exist. The latter is clearly standardized. Please proceed with the merge. There would be no objections from anyone. Venkat TL (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL I haven't looked at the category naming in other states yet, perhaps a petscan would do, to discover if others follow a convention? Do we simply recategorise the articles, removing the former and adding the latter, or do we go to CfD? — DaxServer (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@DaxServer, looking at the entries in the Category:State legislators of Indian States by term, It is clear that the most common categories follow the standard Category:StateName MLAs YearStart–YearEnd eg.Category:Gujarat MLAs 1960–1962. So states like Tamil Nadu need to be category renamed (Category:Members of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly by term). I suggest simply recatogorizing the articles. You can refer to this discussion in the edit summary. Nothing stops you from getting a CfD confirmation as well, but it seems unnecessary, in my opinion. I can't think of any reason someone would object. --Venkat TL (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: I think they need a manual processing, instead of, say, Cat-a-lot. Some of them might be a Legislative Council member instead of Assembly member. — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 17:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I need some help with these. Others, I've nominated for WP:CFDS, hopefully I've got the years correct.

• Category:Members of the 1st Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly
• Category:Members of the 2nd Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly
• Category:Members of the 3rd Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly
• Category:Members of the 4th Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly
• Category:Members of the 7th Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly
• Category:Members of the 8th Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly

What should be the name and/or years? — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 12:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@DaxServer See Template:Tamil Nadu elections. If you want refs to be certain about the years, you will find them at Chief Ministers of Madras State 1952 was the first. Venkat TL (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the links @Venkat TL. I should've phrased my questions with more specificity.

• Do we name the first three as "Tamil Nadu MLAs..." or "Madras State MLAs..."?
• The 4th has overlap with Madras State and Tamil Nadu. What do we do?
• The 7th Assembly was (from 1980) in place still 9 February 1985, but the election was in 1984 [December]. Do we say 1980-1984 or 1980-1985?
• The 8th one was dissolved with President's rule from 30 January 1988 to 26 January 1989, with elections in 1989. Do we say start: 1984 or 1985 (corresponding to 7th end) and end: 1988 or 1989.

— DaxServer (talk · contribs) 13:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@DaxServer, please follow the same nomenclature as Assembly election names. First four are named Madras and thereafter Tamil Nadu. I am assuming there is an existing consensus for that name. Lets follow the official duration, as that is what the readers will be looking for. The official tenures are 1980-84, 85-89. Venkat TL (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Seat predictions from Opinion Polls

@Chandan Kanti Paul is engaged in edit war on 2022 Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly election over a section header where he is using "Surveys and polls", "Polls", "Surveys". Not sure which one he prefers. While MOS:INDELECT uses "Predictions" in accordance with the standard section header that is also used in the US Presidential elections. We should use terms that are internationally recognizable and standard across articles. Venkat TL (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see Predictions in MOS:INDELECT, but only see Surveys and polls, Opinion polls, and Exit polls. While the US uses "Predictions", we use "Opinion polls" (among other variants), just like in 2019 Indian general election and Opinion polling for the 2019 Indian general election. I would say changing what we use (probably on all election articles) from Surveys/Opinion/Exit polls to Predictions would need a consensus. Either way, what is the MOS that recommends to use internationally recognised language. I have read it in the past but can't recall. I've also read to use the local language but can't recall either. — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 14:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@DaxServer Good catch. @Dhruv edits changed it from "Predictions" to "Surveys and Polls", without discussion. Let's have the discussion now and here. US pollster sites also use the word poll, yet the Wiki article uses Predictions. I am against using "Polls" because it means Elections. We do not want the reader to confuse the Predictions with actual results. In that sense the word predictions is most suitable. Probably that is why US site also uses it. MOS recommendation to use "internationally recognised language" would demand that even folks all over the world could decipher its meaning without getting confused. Predictions, tick all the boxes. @MPGuy2824 @YttriumShrew. What do you think? Venkat TL (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Predictions is something we categorically do not use. I am against it. Rather surveys, opinion polls and exit polls are the terms we use. — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 17:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd probably prefer that we have one section called "polls", split into two tables named "voting intention" and "seat predictions". However, I don't have a strong preference. YttriumShrew (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not fond of the name Predictions for this section. I can imagine an editor thinking that it is kosher to add an astrologer's predictions to this section, if it was named such. I don't have a strong preference among the other names. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824 come on, no serious reader or editor is going to confuse it with astrology etc. All these Pollsters take sample polling and then extrapolate their results to predict the seats each party will get. Everyone knows how this work. This section is supposed to contain, Opinion Poll and Exit Polls. Using Poll is risky due to the meaning of the word Poll. @YttriumShrew I have never seen "Voting intentions" in any wikipedia article. Lets focus on what we have in Indian articles. I have asked on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics#Seaction_header_"Predictions"_for_pre-election_surveys_in_election_articles, so that we do not reinvent the wheel. Pretty sure there should be some existing consensus over this. Venkat TL (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Election Results section of Constituency articles

While mentioning the votes received by the candidates in an election, how many names should be mentioned in the list of the the Candidates and their votes? Generally the ECI data can go upto 10- 20 - even more . If there is an existing standard, it should be mentioned at MOS:INDCONST. Based on the discussion in this thread, I intend to update the page. I saw Chandni Chowk (Vidhan_Sabha_constituency)#1993_results and I was wondering that it is probably too much and unnecessary. In my opinion no candidate getting less than NOTA should be added. Venkat TL (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I was about to say all the major parties in the context of the election, but NOTA limit would be unambiguous. What about those before NOTA? Let's say only above 1%? Here in the link you shared, the major/recognized parties have less than 1% — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 16:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@DaxServer If we are going to use the wording "Major party" than we would also need to define in concrete terms what that is. Any good definition you have in mind? ECI Status? . Taking the example I gave above, candidate getting less than 1% have almost no encyclopedic value. I have 3 criterias in mind, sharing to discuss and streamline it with other editors.

To be listed into Results section:

1. Candidates should get more votes than NOTA
2. Candidates should get more than 1% of the total votes polled.
3. Candidates should be in the top 6 candidates in terms of votes polled. (This will keep the list at 7 (6+1 NOTA)

The results section will be manageable and would be relevant to the reader. if these rules are followed. In case of star candidates, there will be some scope to go beyond these, but these should be the guiding rules. Thoughts? Venkat TL (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Another set of criteria could be: either 1. did not lose deposit (more than 1/6th cast votes per ECI) or 2. has an article already (i.e notable for WP). But it isn't as bright-line as yours and requires a bit of calculation to verify. hemantha (brief) 17:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hemantha Thanks, your suggestion will be included among the exceptions. ECI rule of 1/6 corresponds to 16% of the votes, a much stricter criteria than 1%. Notable parties routinely loose deposits. I guess 1% should be fine, the fact that a notable party is performing badly is encyclopedic but if it is getting less than 1% then it is inconsequential, and can be ignored. If no other concerns, then I will include all the 3 criteria with AND Operator (i.e. all 3 should be satisfied to be listed. ) Waiting to hear opinions from @MPGuy2824 @Dhruv edits and @Diptyajit. Venkat TL (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

My views:

• "Minimum of 1% of the total votes": Seems ok, as long as the runner-up and NOTA, are included at minimum.
• Candidates who already have an article (but who get less than 1%): This information can be mentioned, if the editor chooses, in a sentence just before the election box templates.
• More votes than NOTA: I don't think this should be relevant, if they are passing the 1% criteria.
• Top 6 candidates only (+ NOTA): I'm against this. In the rare case that this condition is reached, i think it should be ok to add more than 6 candidates. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

MPGuy2824 thanks for sharing your opinion. (1) Yes I agree runner up and NOTA will be included. Cant think of any situation where a runner up will get less than 1%. NOTA even if less than 1% will be included. (2) I am ok with mentioning candidates with articles, as an exception. (3) More votes than NOTA will come into picture if NOTA gets 2 or 3%. (4) see below section--Venkat TL (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I have drafted the criteria in a new subsection. Please add your name among the supporters. If you have comments please discuss in this subsection, (not in draft subsection). --Venkat TL (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I might remove the wording around "should". IMO, MOS can't enforce, only policies can. All else looks good to me. — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 19:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@DaxServer MOS:SO mentions "should". Please append your name among the supporters. Venkat TL (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hemantha thanks for the copy edit, they are acceptable to me. @MPGuy2824 if you join the supporter list, this will be a unanimous consensus. I think this is a good start. They can be revisited in future to further improve the criteria. Venkat TL (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Top Six candidate criteria

Candidates should be in the top 6 candidates in terms of votes polled. (This will keep the list at 7 (6+1 NOTA)

• Top 6 candidates only (+ NOTA): I'm against this. In the rare case that this condition is reached, i think it should be ok to add more than 6 candidates. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

MPGuy, I believe more discussion is needed to streamline this criteria. The number 6 is not completely arbitrary. It is based on the ECI rule of 1/6 for security deposit. In any case there cannot be more than 6 candidate who will save their deposit. Based on my experience in reviewing the results of alliance politics, normally 3-4 candidates are the only major ones. Candidates beyond the top 6 are very rarely notable and encyclopedic. I request you to consider WP:NOTDIRECTORY and Wikipedia:Ten year test The reader will not care about who came on 7th position in election 10 years back, who lost his deposit. In rare case if they care, they can follow the reference to the ECI page to see the full result sheet of the AC. I believe the 1% and NOTA rule will be used more frequently than this, as you also noted that this condition will be reached in rare case. Of course in rare circumstances, if for some reason it may become necessary to report 8 or 10 candidates, it can be reported, but as a general rule I think 6 is a good number. If you have any better number and reasoning feel free to share. Venkat TL (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I was wondering where the number 6 came in from and if it's arbitrary. Your reasoning is very logical. Surely, many times it might not reach to that number pertaining to alliances among others. — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 13:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Your choice of the number 6 does makes more sense now. My thought was that the less conditions that we have, the less edit warring.

"Of course in rare circumstances, if for some reason it may become necessary to report 8 or 10 candidates, it can be reported" Leaving that statement in our guidelines is problematic as its interpretation is subjective. Maybe we can add something along the lines of "6 (+NOTA) is the limit but if you feel that adding more is important, then discuss with the IndianPolitics WikiProject before adding." -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree, with this suggestion. Since we have broad consensus. I will draft the rules in a new subsection. Feel free to directly edit the draft, for minor aesthetic edits. --Venkat TL (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Constraint	Loksabha (till 2009)	States (till 2013)
Total Names	74,930	398,702
Top 6	39,547	253,324
1%	33,224	242,748
Top6 and 1%	31,639	220,593

I ran a quick check (so mistakes possible) on data till 2013 from here. It seems adding both rules doesn't reduce the number of names too much. Top 6 (or 1%) alone should be enough. NOTA data isn't in there (since SC judgement on it came only in 2013), but I suspect it too wouldn't reduce much. I've added support, but reducing the number of rules has clear benefits in terms of less overhead and lower conflict. --hemantha (brief) 03:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hemantha thanks for sharing the data about these. This is inline with what we had estimated, that 6 candidate rule might not kick in, most of the time. We should still keep this rule, as it will help in situations where the first two pass and the editor needs to seek consensus on the talk page. The consensus discussion then will always use this criteria, so to save time it makes sense to mention it. It also signals that Wikipedia is tolerant of keeping upto 6 names in the list. The goal of this rule and excercise is not to go around and start reducing the number of candidates from 5 to 3 but to avoid situations like Chandni Chowk (Vidhan Sabha constituency)#1993_results, where in the absence of any existing standards, editors ended up adding 37 candidates, when only top four candidates had encyclopedic relevance. The time saved could then be used to update other years, other constituencies. Another benefit of keeping these guidelines is to make sure that editors dont skip relevant information in the result. Instead of individuals making their own decisions on what to add and what to skip, this standardizes on what is useful and what will be excessive. It also helps to avoid bias in favour of established parties and bias against independents/smaller parties. As long as they get enough votes, they ought to be reported on results page. Venkat TL (talk) 06:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

A random example I came across today is Tanda_(Assembly_constituency)#2017, in this article the editor has used his discretion to cut off at 1000 vote (0.5%) mark. Even though there is no such rule written anywhere. On another page you may see the cutoff at 100 vote or 500 vote. By using these rules, we are standardizing this cutoff. The editors could refer to MOS:INDCONST in case there is minor dispute over cutoff. Venkat TL (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

In the "Election results", list only candidates

• who are in the top 6
• or already have wikipedia articles

To clarify, my point was that just two rules like in the box will get approximately the same results as the four rule draft. Top 6 rule can be replaced with 1% rule, it doesn't matter too much. In other words, there are relatively few constituency-election pairs where candidates below top 6 got more than 1% votes and similarly few cases where somebody in the top 6 got less than 1%. hemantha (brief) 11:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Constituency X and Y

• X: A: 40%, B:12%, C:6%, D:5%, E:4%, F:3%, G:2%
• Y: H: 40%, I:12%, J:0.4% K:0.3% L:0.3% M:0.2%

List with Rule 1% + top-6 =

• X: A: 40%, B:12%, C:6%, D:5%, E:4%, F:3%, G:2%
• Y: H: 40%, I:12% J:0.4%, K:0.3%, L:0.3%, M:0.2%

List with Rule "top-6 only"

• X: A: 40%, B:12%, C:6%, D:5%, E:4%, F:3%, G:2%
• Y: H: 40%, I:12%, J:0.4%, K:0.3%, L:0.3%, M:0.2%

hemantha I understand your point about skipping the 1% criteria, but I am inclined to keep it. The 1% rule and top6 rule are compliments to each other and not redundant. To understand this more clearly, consider the example on the right, The Candidate G is getting left out despite getting 2%, on the other hand Candidate M finds a mention despite getting only 0.2% which is both inconsequential and un-encyclopedic. In this illustration, it is hard to defend the position that Candidate M with 0.2% vote deserves to be mentioned on Wikipedia but Candidate G getting 2% does not find a mention. When both rules are applied, such a situation does not arise. Venkat TL (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. But with NOTA rule, this kind of 'unfairness' will happen anyway. For eg, for 2019, Bastar would see people with 4%+ excluded, while in Madhubani, two under 1.5% will be included. In 2019 LS, 164 names who had 1%+ and in top 6, would be excluded by NOTA rule hemantha (brief) 05:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hemantha, The Bastar example is a good one. The article as it stands is fine. It only mentions candidates with more than 1%. Nota got 4%, which is not normal. So in my opinion, we should consider Bastar an exception due to High NOTA and allow upto 1% candidates, even though below NOTA. Do you have a better suggestion? If we start tweaking due to outliers, the rules will become too complicated. Venkat TL (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

14 LS constituencies in 2019 had 2%+ NOTA (and 104 had 1.5%+). If that same proportion holds for assemblies, there's a lot of potential for conflicts about the 'unfairness'.

Other than that, perhaps "1% plus" and "already have a page" are enough (if I'm reading MPGuy2824's views above correctly, this is what he had outlined as well). But 1% on its own seems like a random number. Top 6 follows the logic of ECI rule and isn't arbitrary; but has the issues you pointed out if used alone. So I think my only suggestion now is to remove "more than NOTA" rule; since 1% and top 6 generally make it unnecessary (the other way - keep NOTA, but rm top6 and/or 1% - also sounds great, but NOTA starts only in 2013)

As an aside, European and American practice seems to be to list everyone, but of course only some of the seats there see so many candidates. hemantha (brief) 09:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

"14 LS constituencies in 2019 had 2%+ NOTA (and 104 had 1.5%+)." ok, but I dont believe that all of them are running into problems with this rule. awkward situation only comes when NOTA is on Second (Very rare) or third place (rare). If NOTA gets 2% and NOTA is on 4th or 5th or 6th. That is acceptable as the Election results page covers the Winner, Runner up and Third position candidate. Beyond the third candidate the relevance to the reader becomes subjective and can vary. Removing NOTA rule is not required since it will only come applicable in elections after 2013. In vast majority of the constituencies NOTA is beyond 4th candidate and safer. Every suggestion we can think of will have some downsides. So lets use this version for now and propose amendments in future, if there are too many problems. Venkat TL (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The US being a Biparty system is not comparable to Indian Multi party system. I am not familiar with Europe system. Venkat TL (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

hemantha, I think I started the 1% thing. As you said, it is completely random and has no basis, but some place to start with. — DaxServer (t · c) 09:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Match between total votes and sum

If we eliminate some candidates, then the total votes will not match the sum of each displayed candidate's votes. How is an editor supposed to take care of this? Maybe add a row for "Others"? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

We are reporting the Vote totals and Vote % as published by the ECI. Since there is no script related addition to calculate the total, why does it matter if the sum of individual votes does not add up to the reported total. One can include a redundant row named others but in my opinion it is totally useless. The reader of the article would not start summing up the totals to check. --Venkat TL (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Yup, yup. No script is doing the totalling up in this case. I think i confused this with Template:Election results. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft

Rules for Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian politics/Constituencies: Article structure#Election results

• In the 'Election results' section of a constituency article, only list candidates who
  1. get more votes than NOTA and
  2. get more than 1% of the total votes polled. and
  3. are in the top 6 candidates in terms of votes polled.
• 6 candidates (+NOTA) is the limit of names in the result section. To add more, discuss the proposal at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics and get consensus.
• Candidates who already have an article can be included, based on editor discretion.

Notes

Draft approved and supported by

1. Venkat TL
2. hemantha
3. DaxServer
4. MPGuy2824
5. Dhruv edits

Why reverse chronological order?

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics/Constituencies: Article structure

Why does this specify "Section each election separately in reverse chronological order" instead of chronological order like most other things? (This is in the "Election results" section.) RJFJR (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I wondered the same and fought against reverse chronological order Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 72#Constituency articles but was replied to be WP:CONSISTENT. — DaxServer (t · c) 19:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC) (typo 19:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC))

@RJFJR, this is standard among all Constituency articles. (example : Edinburgh South (UK Parliament constituency)) @MPGuy2824 may know the real reason. My best guess is that Reverse chronology is for reader convenience. Most users are concerned about the last election followed by second last. Reverse chronology helps here. I personally find Reverse chronology more useful, so we are following the same. The consensus discussion for other things on MOS:INDCONST can be found on the taskforce discussion page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics Venkat TL (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I too have previously tried to search the archives on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums but found nothing which had consensus. As I said in the prev discussion I've kept to this ordering, mostly in the name of consistency. That said, the results of the latest election would be more important to a reader, I think. This logic also applies to the MLA table, but that table is (or can be made) sortable. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note when moving: This discussion is about Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian politics/Constituencies: Article structure § Election results — DaxServer (t · c) 19:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

List of MLA tables in Constituency articles

@MPGuy2824, while conforming the MLA tables in accordance with MOS:INDCONST I have accidentally found out that these tables can be simplified quickly and efficiently in the visual edit mode using the move and delete options. Do try it out. Makes edits a breeze. Venkat TL (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824 The visual mode allows the editor to select an entire column and move it around or delete it. Another point is about the MLA PIC column. Also please spare the pic column. If it is there in the constituency article, then the new editors can include the pic. I have added many pics myself. If the column is deleted, then it is a pain to include the entire column. Venkat TL (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll have to try the visual mode. I'll leave the image columns in the future. Hopefully, i remember. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Constituency titles

Please take a look at the Category:Assembly constituencies of Karnataka. Why are these article title different? Looks strange. --Venkat TL (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• Sujanpur (Himachal Pradesh Assembly constituency)
• Sujanpur (Punjab Legislative Assembly constituency)

More variations are found --Venkat TL (talk) 10:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Consensus across states may be difficult here? Just in south, Kerala - Nigam Sabha, MH - Vidhan sabha, TN - state assembly. But the Karnataka list does need uniformity; I'd prefer "Name (Vidhana Sabha constituency)". Once there's consensus, a Wikipedia:AWB/Tasks request might be the best way to mass rename here. Hemanthah (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hemanthah Thanks for the reply. It is a big headache to find these articles as I have no idea what title these articles are using. I have to search twice or thrice even though I know the name of the city/Area. As I understand all the central and state elections are conducted by ECI. Obviously ECI would be using a standard name to avoid such confusion that I am facing. (What do they use?) We should use one name for all state and assembly constituencies. I understand that there are local names too but they are one among the many names, and they can be valid redirects. I agree with your preference. "Name (Vidhana Sabha constituency)" is fine with me. I am also ok with "Name (Assembly constituency)". (We should use 1 of these 2 names) Also is it necessary to use brackets? It is an additional challenge to use Pipe link to avoid brackets. If it is possible the bracket should be removed.

@MPGuy2824 YttriumShrew Diptyajit Please help to reach a consensus. Is this thread ok or should we start an RFC or Post on WT:INDIA? Venkat TL (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: I agree with your POV. We should use one format for naming all assembly constituencies. Name (Vidhana Sabha constituency). — Diptyajit (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Brackets are favored elsewhere. WP:NCGAL, a guideline, links to this UK convention mandating it; which I take as a strong hint policy-wise to use brackets in suffix.

Pan-India uniformity will raise issues, won't it? In Sujanpur example you mentioned above, more text than just '(Vidhana Sabha constituency)' is needed. I think this is not a problem for ECI since they always group constituencies by state and type (also they don't have to keep both 'Town' and 'Town (constituency)' as we need to). Hemanthah (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles#Legislative Assembly constituency names. Many proposals, arguments for and against are already there. That particular conversation seems dead, but we can start a new one, here. We should include the editors who took the time to comment in that thread. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no closing statement or summary there. If someone has read, they can post the summary here. The second last comment in that thread by (Vijeth N Bharadwaj 6:57 pm, 24 August 2020, Monday (1 year, 4 months, 11 days ago) that suggests, "Place (Assembly constituency)" seems most reasonable to me. With a minor change that I will disambiguate duplicate names using "Place, state (Assembly constituency)"

If 2 duplicate name constituencies are in same state then "Place, district (Assembly constituency)".

Both VSc and Ac is fine with me, see my comment above, though I feel Ac is better for brevity purpose.) Venkat TL (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

All the state legislative assemblies are named as ABC Legislative Assembly, see State legislative assemblies of India. So, we could throw away the VSc disamb. Also, I suggest a notification about this thread to appropriate places (WT:INDIA, WT:MOS/IN, others?) [and users]. — DaxServer (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding to my comment about VSc, I think the English names/disambs must be used (wherever it's used), as we term it State legislative assemblies of India and State legislative councils of India, despite both having alternative names (in their leads). In the end they just boil down to the common names in English for an English Wiki. — DaxServer (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. If my brief read of that previous discussion is correct, this - i.e '(Assembly constituency)' as a uniform suffix - was also the rough consensus then. Hemantha (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds right to me. But getting the consensus is harder. For eg, see this page I found where a move to consistent name was requested (months after the discussion MPGuy2824 linked above) but was blocked. The proposer seems to have later moved it, explicitly against that closure (¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ). And the commenter you quoted himself has particular preferences (Vidhan->Vidhana). This requires somebody to shepherd a proposal through (or fly under the radar like the proposer I mentioned before, haha) Hemantha (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

. We will have a rough estimate of more popular preferences after which we can start an RfC using those options to choose one among those. feel free to tag folks or give notifications. @Hemantha, I understand the reason of the wording Vidhan/a and If we have to use one consistent name, I will prefer "Vidhan" as it is more commonly used in English Media. Using Assembly constituency also avoids that debate. @DaxServer makes a good case for dropping VSc. Venkat TL (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Assembly constituencies of Punjab, India are using Dhuri Assembly Constituency. The naming is a total mess. I have looked at various uses. BBC uses FOO Assembly constituency. Indian paper The Hindu also uses FOO Assembly constituency (Note the capitalization). I propose that we also use the same and standardize all the constituency names to this type of capitalization without brackets, with rules for exceptions discussed above. @Hemantha @MPGuy2824 Venkat TL (talk) 10:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Category:Assembly constituencies of Goa have the capitalization and wording correct. For Goa constituencies, the word "Goa" and brackets need to be dropped for this proposal. Venkat TL (talk) 08:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The A in Assembly has to be capital because it is a definite Assembly, Punjab Assembly in this case. Rest is acceptable. Venkat TL (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal : Wikipedia:Naming conventions Indian constituencies

see Wikipedia:Naming conventions Indian constituencies
Indian Parliamentary constituencies (current or defunct) should have a uniform suffix of "Lok Sabha constituency", whether or not this is required for disambiguation.

Indian Legislative Assembly constituencies (current or defunct) should have a uniform suffix of "Assembly constituency", whether or not this is required for disambiguation.

Handling duplicate names

• Duplicate names should be disambiguated using "Place, state" followed by the applicable suffix.

• If 2 duplicate name constituencies are in same state then use "Place, district" followed by the applicable suffix.

Prior discussion on this topic was done at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles#Legislative Assembly constituency names and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics#Constituency titles

Main points of the proposal:

1. The A in Assembly has to be capital because it is a definite Assembly, Punjab Assembly for example. BBC uses FOO Assembly constituency. Indian paper The Hindu also uses FOO Assembly constituency (Note the capitalization).
2. The suffix "Lok Sabha constituency" or "Assembly constituency" serve as WP:NATURAL disambiguation from the city name, so they do not need to be inside brackets.
3. policy WP:NAMINGCRITERIA sets five criteria all of which are satisfied in the proposal:
   1. Recognizability
   2. Naturalness
   3. Precision
   4. Conciseness
   5. Consistency
4. No precision is lost in dropping the brackets. The proposed constituency name can be used as Wikitext without the need for adding piped links every time to fix the capitalization issues or disambiguation brackets. (example Bidhuna (Assembly constituency) will become Bidhuna Assembly constituency.
5. Since this is English Wikipedia and 'Assembly' is a widely used and understood term, it is used as "the most appropriate word applicable to all states", even though some states have different local names for their Assembly. For example some states use names other than Vidhan Sabha like Vidhan Sauda, Niyamasabha etc. Example New Delhi (Vidhan Sabha constituency) will become New Delhi Assembly constituency.

The current constituency names use wide variety of naming convention perhaps created by different users without centralized discussion. Hence the need for this discussion.Venkat TL (talk) 10:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support - I'd have preferred brackets, but I agree about its superfluousness and especially about the piping issue. Hemantha (talk) 11:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed. The piping issue due to disambiguation bracket is huge. there are close to 4120 Indian assembly constituencies and 545 Lok Sabha constituencies. Each of them gets linked on an average 100 times on Wikipedia. That is 5,00,000 unnecessary piped links. This is exponential damage and waste of efforts which can be saved by dropping the unnecessary bracket. I face this issue everyday while working on constituency and biography articles. Venkat TL (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support removal of the brackets as simply not necessary. I do not agree that "assembly" should be capitalized. My preference is to use lower case per the MOS unless something is clearly a proper noun/name. This search, (by Dicklyon) shows sources use both, therefore with mixed capitalization in sources, we should use lower case. Note also that with brackets, e.g. Bidhuna (Assembly constituency), "assembly constituency" is a disambiguator and definitely should not be capitalized. Removing the brackets should not change anything, unless you think "Bidhuna Assembly" is a proper name, but as I said above, that is not clearly established in sources. MB 20:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support for assembly constituencies. I strongly support the use of the word "assembly". I'm ambivalent about the capitalization/s and about the use of brackets (since some editors (including me) will be piping constituency names in MLA article Infoboxes, in either case). I'm neutral on the need to rename the Lok Sabha constituencies, since I'm ambivalent about the brackets. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks @MPGuy2824 for your support. I just want to point that small 'a' will be wrong grammatically. Look at the examples below by Gabriel Bell, Quote:

  1. “Every morning in school we had assembly” — lower case 'a', because assembly is just a noun for the gathering of the students.
  2. “The Scottish Assembly is the informal name for the group that governs Scotland” — uppercase because it is a proper noun.

  If the assembly is a formal thing it is generally written with an uppercase “A”, otherwise a lowercase “a”.

  In our case all these are constituencies of a particular state assembly like Tamil Nadu Assembly, and not any random assembly. That is by BBC and Hindu who have professionals who care about grammar have used, "Assembly constituency". Venkat TL (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)