Template talk:Infobox election

Government/Opposition

These terms shout not be used as it does not make clear if it referring to the state of the parties before or after the election Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 15:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Seems pretty obvious to me... -Noname2 (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Also the government/opposition makes no sense when the two largest parties form the government such as Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 15:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps there should be an option added instead weather to include government/opposition or not, because in most cases the second place party is the opposition. --Noname2 (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is nonsensical; for many elections in proportional election systems, this distinction does not make sense, as often the first party forms a coalition with the second party. (Or even the third party forming a coalition with the second party, as in Austria after the 1999 election.) —Nightstallion 09:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, until someone adds a way to customize the labels (since I don't know wikipedia code), I'm going to undo this edit. --Noname2 (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Erm, no -- right now, the majority is against using "government" and "opposition", because it doesn't make sense in most systems. Stop reverting. —Nightstallion 20:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There's only 3 people discussing this. And what countries use "first party"? --Noname2 (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Turnout

It'd be great if there was a field in this template for voter turnout - can someone with template skillz through it in? --Padraic 22:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good idea, where do you think the section should be put? --Philip Stevens (talk) 07:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe near the top, underneath the date? That seems to be the place for the non-party-specific facts. --Padraic 13:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Philip Stevens (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"PM-Elect"

Can someone more acquainted than I am with Mediawiki's arcane syntax change "PM-Elect" for British general elections? "New PM" would perhaps work. The concept of "Prime Minister-Elect" is nonsensical, as Prime Ministers are appointed, not elected. —Wereon (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree but wording is an issue. "New PM" is not great because if the incumbent party wins, he simply remains PM. Also, to be precise, a new PM would need to be appointed some time following the election. Possibly "Next PM" could work though it still hints a little at a change in leader. "Following PM" might be correct but something about it rings wrong for me. Any other suggestions? DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Canada generally refers to the leader of the newly elected governing party as the Prime Minister - Designate. The same is true of new party leaders chosen for govening parties. Until actually named Prime Minister by the monarch or viceroy, that new leader is the Prime Minister Designate. Online sources suggest the same term is used in Australia and Ireland. --Llewdor (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I'd edit it myself if I could figure out how, so confident am I that it's a better term. --Llewdor (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I like this term for new PMs but it's not accurate, is it, for continuing PMs? DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. The Prime Minister continues to be the Prime Minister until he resigns - in all cases - which is why the viceroy first asks him if he can form a government, regardless of the election outcome. So, for example, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is still Prime Minister following yesterday's Canadian election. But that would be true even had he lost the election. Until he informs the viceroy that he no longer wishes to lead the government, he's Prime Minister. Certainly if another party had won the election its leader would now be the Prime Minister Designate, but I honestly can't tell you whether Stephen Harper today is both the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister Desginate, or if he's just the Prime Minister. --Llewdor (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

He remains PM until losing confidence of the House, there is no re-swearing ceremony or anything; he just continues on. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"Next PM" may not be particularly formal nor florid but I think it is accurate. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The proper term should be 'Prime Minister-Designate" not "Prime Minister-Elect." Next PM, etc. is not a proper term. Can someone fix this? I'm not sure how and it appears to be something beyond our powers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.59.51 (talk) 08:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The proper term is not -designate when the PM's party wins and he continues on as PM, as I noted above. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added a parameter "posttitle", which, if used, designates what the term is for the "victor". If not used, it is the same as it was before: {{{title}}}-elect. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

More parameters

I think we should add additional parameters for the seats held prior to election and the seat change due to the election itsef. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding hCard microformats

Unresolved

I would like to add hCard microformats by wrapping the name of each person (candidate/ nominee/ running mate, etc.), thus:

<span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[name]</span></span>

but am wary of breaking the template. Can someone assist, please? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Flag variant

Hi all. It slightly bothers me that all of the US election boxes use the current 50-star flag, and not the one that was in use at the time. I poked around a bit and found that Template:Flagicon has a "variant=" attribute which can set the correct flag, but that the election infobox template currently has no way to pass such an attribute to Flagicon.

I think that changing the line

{{flagicon |{{{country|}}}| size=50px}}

to

{{flagicon |{{{country|}}}| variant={{{flagvariant|}}}| size=50px}}

would allow this, but I wanted to check here first as I'm not too familiar with template syntax.

Antony-22 (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

State election articles?

Is this infobox appropriate for state election articles such as United States presidential election in Missouri, 2008 and United States presidential election in Indiana, 2008? It is already used in these articles, but the wording of the infobox parameters suggests that it is only for elections nationally. It is also NOT used in the state election articles for the 2004 presidential election (see United States presidential election in Pennsylvania, 2004 and United States presidential election in Florida, 2004). I am thinking that it probably should not be used, but does anyone else have any knowledge on where exactly this infobox should and shouldn't be placed? Timmeh! 01:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaker of the House of Commons/other Legislature

Could we have a parameter to indicate the speaker of the house being elected at the time of a legislative election? Domminico (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Popular vote winner in bold?

Should popular vote winners' (in the United States) totals be in bold in this infobox? There seems to be no real consistency among the 2000, 2004, and 2008 presidential election articles. No earlier election articles have the popular vote winners' total and percentage in bold, but the 2000 article does, as well as the 2008 article. The 2004 article does not. I can see the reasoning for putting the numbers in bold, as to show who won the popular vote and how it may differ from the winner in the Electoral College. However, since the popular vote has no effect on the outcome of the election, I would suggest the numbers not be in bold except when they have unusual usefulness as in the 2000 election. Timmeh! 00:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Copy/paste discussion from Talk:United States presidential election, 2008 [1] here to centralize. (Further) reverts at articles affected by this should add "per Template:Infobox Election and point to this thread so editors are not only aware of it but also in need to comment here if they think or feel different and would like to reach a different consensus. Till then I consider the template example as consensus which should be applied to all affected articles w/o exceptions (unless there is a clear valid reason and different consensus reached on one (affected article's talk page to do so).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Bold only the Electoral winners. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Popular vote winner in bold?

I'm re-posting my comment here from Template:Infobox Election because it was getting no replies. Should popular vote winners' totals be in bold in the election infobox? There seems to be no real consistency among the 2000, 2004, and 2008 presidential election articles. No earlier election articles have the popular vote winners' total and percentage in bold, but the 2000 article does, as well as the 2008 article. The 2004 article does not (when I posted the original comment). I can see the reasoning for putting the numbers in bold, as to show who won the popular vote and how it may differ from the winner in the Electoral College. However, since the popular vote has no effect on the outcome of the election, I would suggest the numbers not be in bold except when they have unusual usefulness as in the 2000 election. Timmeh! 14:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Our election system doesn't recognize the popular vote to determine the winner and therefore it would give to much weight bolding them in the infobox. We have them (besides others) in bold in the more detailed tables further down the article and that should do it.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Only the Electoral Vote winner, shoul be in bold. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The only number that makes a difference is the electoral college vote and that is the only one that should be bold. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I see the usefulness of having the popular vote total and percentage in bold in the 2000 article (and, perhaps, the articles for the elections elections of 1876 and 1888, in which articles the popular vote winner's totals are in bold), but it would seem inconsistent to me to only have the popular vote total and percentage in bold in such a small number of articles.

Also, states. If the popular vote total is not bold, then neither should the higher number of states carried be in bold, as that number does not determine the winner either.

The 1888 presidential election article's infobox is interesting - the higher electoral vote total is in bold, and the higher popular vote total and percentage are in bold, but the higher state total is not in bold. We should try to make the infoboxes from each election more consistent with each other. Penthamontar (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe the best method would be to not have either the popular vote total/percentage or the number of states won in bold, unless the candidate who wins the election does not win the popular vote. Then the popular vote total and percentage should be in bold. It wouldn't cause too much inconsistency, as that has only happened three times. Timmeh! 23:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Timmeh, when the winner does not carry the highest number of states, do you think that the loser's highest number of states be in bold, as in 1976? Penthamontar (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the number of states carried has any effect on the winner of the election. The popular vote does, as the popular vote winner in each state gets its electoral votes. In contrast, the number of states won really has no effect on the outcome of the election. You can win with as little as 11 states or lose while winning as many as 40 (including DC). Timmeh! 00:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I just think we shouldn't put "losers" in bold. No electoral vote --> no bold.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Presenting the states carried in bold is maybe not needed but ok with me.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• (outdent) Ok. As for the electoral vote there is no question about it to leave it in bold as is. Right? Everything else is a matter of personal preference and since personal preferences shouldn't be a factor in an encyclopedia we could just leave the whole rest "un-bolded".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

A candidate's number of states carried affects the outcome of the election because carrying states gives the candidate electoral votes, which are what ultimately matter.

The fact that a candidate could lose the election with 39 states and DC does not mean that the candidate's number of states carried does not matter. A candidate could lose the election with 75% of the popular vote, but that does not mean that the popular vote does not matter. Just the same, a candidate could lose the election while carrying more than 75% of the states, but that does not mean that the candidate's number of states carried does not matter. Penthamontar (talk) 07:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Only leave the electoral vote of the winner in bold. Timmeh! 12:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of "only winner in bold"... i think there was some copy-pasting that made person#4 become bold too. I'm thinking of changing:

{{#if:{{{{{#if:{{{nominee4|}}}|nominee|candidate}}4|}}}|{{!}} style="text-align: center" {{!}} {{#ifeq:{{{ongoing|}}}|yes||'''}}{{{{{#if:{{{nominee4|}}}|nominee|candidate}}4}}}{{#ifeq:{{{ongoing|}}}|yes||'''}}}}

to

{{#if:{{{{{#if:{{{nominee4|}}}|nominee|candidate}}4|}}}|{{!}} style="text-align: center" {{!}}                                  {{{{{#if:{{{nominee4|}}}|nominee|candidate}}4}}}                                 }}

(which looks pretty much like the rows for nominee5 and nominee6, and IMO this is the desired outcome). This shouldn't create any problems, but i'm announcing it just in case. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

When and why does the "To be determined" pop up?

I've been seeing if I can adapt this template to the elections for the UN Security Council, using United Nations Security Council election, 2008 as a guinea pig, and for the most part it works just fine. However, the template has the annoying "To be determined" thing pop at the bottom, which confuses the living daylights out of me. Can anyone inform me why, and how I can get around it? I've posted the template and my filling of the infobox. I've commented out the annoying bits on the main page.

United Nations Security Council election, 2008

17 October 2008
5 (of 10) non-permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council
Security Council after 2008 elections.
Members before election South Africa (Africa) Indonesia (Asia) Panama(LatAm&Car) Belgium (WEOG) Italy (WEOG) New Members Uganda (Africa) Japan (Asia) Mexico (LatAm&Car) Turkey (WEOG) Austria (WEOG)

Thanks! Lockesdonkey (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

{{Infobox Election
| election_name      = United Nations Security Council election, 2008
| country            = United Nations
| type               = legislative
| ongoing            = no
| previous_election  = United Nations Security Council election, 2007
| previous_year      = 2007
| next_election      = United Nations Security Council election, 2009
| next_year          = 2009
| seats_for_election = 5 (of 10) non-permanent seats on the [[United Nations Security Council]] 
| election_date      = 17 October 2008
| map_image = UN Security Council 2009.svg
| map_size = 300px
| map_caption = Security Council after 2008 elections.
| title = Members
| before_election= {{ZAF}} <small>([[United Nations geoscheme for Africa|Africa]])</small> <br> 
{{IDN}} <small>([[United Nations geoscheme for Asia|Asia]])</small> <br> 
{{PAN}}<small>([[United Nations geoscheme for the Americas|LatAm&Car]])</small> <br> 
{{BEL}}  <small>([[Western European and Others Group|WEOG]])</small> <br> 
{{ITA}} <small>([[Western European and Others Group|WEOG]])</small> <br> 
| posttitle = New Members
| after_election = {{flag|Uganda}} <small>([[United Nations geoscheme for Africa|Africa]])</small><br>
{{flag|Japan}} <small>([[United Nations geoscheme for Asia|Asia]])</small><br>
{{flag|Mexico}} <small>([[United Nations geoscheme for the Americas|LatAm&Car]])</small>
<br>{{flag|Turkey}} <small>([[Western European and Others Group|WEOG]])</small>
<br>{{flag|Austria}} <small>([[Western European and Others Group|WEOG]])</small> 
}}

I've figured out the problem: it appears that "after_party" is a required field, which auto-fills to "To Be Determined" when not filled. Can this be changed? Alternately, can there be some mechanism for leaving it completely blank? Thanks! Lockesdonkey (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

United States party nominees in infobox

Before the 2008 presidential election, there was a big dispute over which party nominees should be listed in the infobox. I suggest implementing the below text above the notes section so that we have a set standard for something like this. The below is adapted from this proposal, upon which consensus was reached to adopt in the 2008 election article.

Candidates must surpass the following requirements in order to be listed in the infobox prior to a presidential election:

• The party candidate must be listed on the ballot in enough states to win 270 electoral votes.

• The party candidate must exceed 12% of the nationwide popular vote in any one of the following polls: ABC News, Associated Press, CNN, Fox News, Gallup, Ipsos, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, CBS News, NBC News, MSNBC, Newsweek, Time Magazine, US News & World Report, or USA Today.

• Once a candidate gains the 12% milestone, he or she will remain in the infobox until the election. This assumes the candidate is running around that figure and has not lost support entirely due to some scandal, gaffe, etc. If support drops below 6.6% (see [1980 United States election article]) then discussion should ensue on the talk page to see if there is consensus to remove the candidate.

• Any candidates who do not meet these criteria may be listed in a prominent wikilink to "Other candidates."

Timmeh! 16:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"First Party, Second Party"

I can't see in the template code how this is caused but in the infobox as displaying on British Columbia general election, 2009 these labels display above those of the leaders of teh two parties so far listed (the template, if not already with room for it, needs to display four). My concern is the "First Party, Second Party" gives a POV impression of the party's rankings and projected results. This has to be changed and pronto, as the election campaign is imminent, and the effect of this is POV. Can someone please explain why it's doing that - it doesn't do it in the sample infobox of Bush etc overleaf - or please just make the correction (and allow for two other party leaders, unless that's as simple as just adding more party3= etc fields.Skookum1 (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Use the "ongoing = yes" parameter on the article page. --maclean 05:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing, but not forthcoming

Currently, setting "ongoing = yes" turns on a flag that reads:

This article or section contains information about a forthcoming election. Content may change dramatically as the election approaches.

In many cases, this will be inappropriate. As I type this in late April 2009, the Indonesian legislative election can be considered "ongoing", as the counting is still taking place, but it certainly isn't "forthcoming", since the voting is finished.

Perhaps it would be better to have separate flags within the Infobox for congoing or forthcoming, or perhaps the message on the tag needs to be changed.

Ordinary Person (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit links

At present, this infobox (which can get quite long), doesn't treat edit links for article sections correctly. The problem can be seen at Icelandic parliamentary election, 2009, where there are three edit links pushed to the bottom of the infobox instead of appearing at its left-hand side. Physchim62 (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The answer was to use the {{fixbunching}} template, which I have now done for that article. The problem is not actually the infobox, but a result of it and the Iceland government template both pushing down into the next sections. This is a problem that could happen with any templates or images (but obviously comes into play more often with longish infoboxes). -Rrius (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding a separate "Alliance" parameter for each leader

In the context of Indian elections, most governments at both the centre and the states are run by coallitions rather than by a single party. It would be great if this Infobox permits us to add the "Alliance" in addition to the existing "Party" field. This new field can be non-mandatory so that it does not impact those elections where the concept of Alliances does not exist. If there are no violent objections to this idea, I shall try to add this parameter into this template shortly in the future.
Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 07:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

As there were no objections to my suggestion, I have made the additions. The changes were tested in Sandbox prior to making the changes. I have also verified the election pages of a few countries to ensure that it looks fine. In the unlikely event anyone notices something going crazy, please revert my changes and leave me a message on my (talk page. Pages verified are - Indian general election, 2009, United Kingdom general election, 2005, United States presidential election, 2008 & Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008
Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 16:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Bold on winning party

Indonesian legislative election, 2004

5 April 2004
All 550 seats of the People's Representative Council and all 128 seats of the Regional Representative Council
First party Second party Third party   110px 100px 85px Party Golkar PDI-P PKB Last election 120 seats, 22.44% 153 seats, 33.74% 51 seats, 12.61% Seats won 128 109 52 Seat change +8 −41 +1 Popular vote 24,480,757 21,026,629 11,989,564 Percentage 21.58% 18.53% 10.57% Swing -0.86% -15.21% -2.04%
Speaker before election Akbar Tanjung Golkar Elected Speaker Agung Laksono Golkar

Hello. I'm wondering if someone can help me edit the infobox since I'm not familiar with infobox markup syntax. I want to make the party name bold in the absence of the party leader field. In Indonesian elections, the leader is not as significant as the party itself. It doesn't make sense to be using this field since the winning party doesn't necessarily make its leader the speaker/chair of the assembly.

{{Infobox Election
| election_name      = Indonesian legislative election, 2004
| country            = Indonesia
| type               = parliamentary
| ongoing            = no
| previous_election  = Indonesian legislative election, 1999
| previous_year      = 1999
| next_election      = Indonesian legislative election, 2009
| next_year          = 2009
| seats_for_election = All 550 seats of the [[People's Representative Council]] and<br/>all 128 seats of the [[Regional Representative Council]] 
| election_date      = 5 April 2004
| image1             = [[:File:Golkar logo.jpg|110px]]
| party1             = Golkar
| last_election1     = 120 seats, 22.44%
| seats1             = 128
| seat_change1       = +8
| popular_vote1      = 24,480,757
| percentage1        = 21.58%
| swing1             = 0.86%
| image2             = [[:File:PDIPLogo.png|100px]]
| party2             = Indonesian Democratic Party – Struggle
| last_election2     = 153 seats, 33.74%
| seats2             = 109
| seat_change2       = −41
| popular_vote2      = 21,026,629
| percentage2        = 18.53%
| swing2             = -15.21%
| image3             = [[:File:Optimized_image_93214277.png|85px]]
| party3             = National Awakening Party
| last_election3     = 51 seats, 12.61%
| seats3             = 52
| seat_change3       = +1
| popular_vote3      = 11,989,564
| percentage3        = 10.57%
| swing3             = -2.04%

| title              = Speaker 
| before_election    = [[Akbar Tanjung]]
| before_party       = Golkar
| after_election     = [[Agung Laksono]]
| after_party        = Golkar
}}

Thanks for the help! Arsonal (talk) 06:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance template

I removed the "current election" box as it should not be part of an infobox. It was also throwing hundreds of elections into the current category (e.g. NZ 2011), not to mention the problem with dating the box. If there's consensus we can reintorduce it, but it's a hack, albeit a clever one. Rich Farmbrough, 02:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC).

ImageMap

Does anyone know if there's any way that this template could support the inclusion of an ImageMap to be used on certain articles in place of the map_image parameter? It could be useful in articles for elections with subarticles discussing the election in specific areas, for example United States presidential election, 2008 and 2004. I tried it out in the sandbox, and I think another line similar to the map_image parameter would be enough, but I'm afraid I'm not knowledgeable or confident enough to add it myself. Thanks. — Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 19:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be awkward, but I'm still kind of waiting on an answer here. If anybody can help in any way, or can direct me to the talk page of somebody who may be able to help, it'd be very much appreciated. Thanks! – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 19:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Color code

{{#if:{{{party1|}}}{{{color1|}}}{{{colour1|}}}|<!-- Images 1, 2, 3 -->
{{!}} colspan=2 {{!}}
{{!}} style="text-align: center; border-bottom: 6px solid {{#if:{{{party1|}}}{{{color1|}}}{{{colour1|}}}|{{{color1|}}}|<!}}{{#if:{{{color1|}}}|--}}{{#ifeq: {{{party_colo{{#if:{{{party_colour|}}}|u|}}r}}}|no||{{Template: {{{party1}}}/meta/color}}}}{{#if:{{{color1|}}}|-}}{{#if:{{{color1|}}}|->}}{{#if:{{{color1|}}}|#{{{color1}}}}}{{#if:{{{colour1|}}}|#{{{colour1}}}}}"{{!}} {{#if:{{{image1|}}}|{{{image1}}}}}
{{!}} style="text-align: center; border-bottom: 6px solid {{#if:{{{party2|}}}{{{color2|}}}{{{colour2|}}}|{{{color2|}}}|<!}}{{#if:{{{color2|}}}|--}}{{#ifeq: {{{party_colo{{#if:{{{party_colour|}}}|u|}}r}}}|no||{{Template: {{{party2}}}/meta/color}}}}{{#if:{{{color2|}}}|-}}{{#if:{{{color2|}}}|->}}{{#if:{{{color2|}}}|#{{{color2}}}}}{{#if:{{{colour2|}}}|#{{{colour2}}}}}"{{!}}{{#if:{{{image2|}}}|{{{image2}}}}}
{{!}} style="text-align: center; border-bottom: 6px solid {{#if:{{{party3|}}}{{{color3|}}}{{{colour3|}}}|{{{color3|}}}|<!}}{{#if:{{{color3|}}}|--}}{{#ifeq: {{{party_colo{{#if:{{{party_colour|}}}|u|}}r}}}|no||{{Template: {{{party3}}}/meta/color}}}}{{#if:{{{color3|}}}|-}}{{#if:{{{color3|}}}|->}}{{#if:{{{color3|}}}|#{{{color3}}}}}{{#if:{{{colour3|}}}|#{{{colour3}}}}}"{{!}} {{#if:{{{image3|}}}|{{{image3}}}}}
{{!}}-
}}

This is pretty broken... — RockMFR 00:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Norwich North by-election, 2009

Norwich North by-election

July 23 2009

Nominee Chloe Smith Chris Ostrowski April Pond Party Conservative Labour Liberal Democrats Popular vote 13,591 6,243 4,803 Percentage 39.5% 18.2% 14.0%   Nominee Glenn Tingle Rupert Read Party UKIP Green Popular vote 4,068 3,350 Percentage 11.6% 9.7%

Member of Parliment before election Ian Gibson Labour Elected Member of Parliment Chloe Smith Conservative

Could someone please fix the colours for UKIP and The Greens in this infobox over at Norwich North by-election, 2009 please? -- ^[User]Jamie JCA_[Talk] 23:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Can this template be modified to allow for more then six candidates

Is it possible to modify this template to allow for any number of candidates to be included, Possible array of multiples of three per row? Ukr-Trident (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Help!

I'm terrible with templates; would anybody be able to take a look at Alberta general election, 1905 and tell me why the party colours and all the data after the map aren't displaying? Steve Smith (talk) 06:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Solved the second issue. I still can't figure out why the party colours aren't displaying. Steve Smith (talk) 06:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

What I do, when I am trying to do something that is on another article, is I go to that other article to see how its done. 117Avenue (talk) 06:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I actually tried that, using Alberta general election, 2008 as my model. The template there doesn't seem to use the colour fields at all. Thanks for sorting it out, though. Steve Smith (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"Minor candidates" section breaks the template?

I was wondering why the template wasn't rendering right here, with the image/colors not displayed. I realized the parameter "party1" is defined twice in the sample template, first for the main candidate, and then for the minor candidate. I removed part of that section, and now the template is working fine. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 22:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Current MPs list

Is there any place in the Infobox to place a link to the link to MPs after the current election? You can use previous_mps & next_mps to provide a link to the MPs elected in the previous & next elections, but I haven't found anyway to link to the list of current MPs. Maybe this can be a link below the flag? That way the link is placed in between the links to the previous MPs & next MPs. Any thoughts?
Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 17:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Incumbent

I feel this is misleading as the term implies that the leader is currently in office wheras at the time of the election that is not necessarily the case. Previous would be a safer word. This is a template with wide application but I think it should be changed. --Gibnews (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. 117Avenue (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Flag

Why is the flag needed here? Gnevin (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

To represent what the election is for, but remember, if it is a non-free flag, you can't use it. 117Avenue (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:ICONDECORATION says using flags should have an Encyclopaedic purpose. These are purely decorative and don't help the reader . Gnevin (talk) 10:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

They are not decorative, and something does happen when you click on them, (it should go to the country's article). 117Avenue (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think these flags do have a non-trivial identification value. Yes, they're not strictly necessary since the name of the country/state/city/etc. is part of the article title, in large bold text at the top of the page, but I don't think it is as irrelevant and distracting as other flag icon usage out there. Also, per my comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#RFC: Removing flag icons from templates in Category:Election and referendum year templates, the tiny icons on the bottom-of-page navbox are redundant and useless if there is a larger sized identification flag in this infobox. But if both are removed, something is lost, I think. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

non-trivial identification value more so than the words in the title and bold in the open paragraph? The user still knows the country this is related to by reading the words. If they want to learn about the flag they can go to flag of x. Why include the flag here and not the seal or coat of arms or a map. This is not a long list or anything else the MOSICON says is acceptable. It's nationalist pride and territory marking. Why don't we add flag to every article that has the word Ireland or France or whatever in the name for identification value? Gnevin (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The seals and coat of arms are more often non-free or copyrighted, and cannot be placed on any article other than the country/state/city and the article on itself. 117Avenue (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That isn't really and argument about why the flags are useful Gnevin (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Why only 6 parties allowed in the template?

In the upcoming Dutch general election, 2010 no less than 11 parties are defending parliament seats.

Limiting the number of parties to 6 seems a bit arbitrary as we have no space for almost half the parties, even more problematic one of the Vice Prime Ministers (Andre Rouvoet) is the leader of a small coalition party that is in numbers at place 7 in the representation. The limitation to 6 parties means that we cannot show one of the government parties. Can it be extended? Arnoutf (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, now we have to select six out of eleven parties. This is not a neutral point of view in any way.—Totie (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem: 2000 election

Why is it that the infobox for the 2000 Republican primary election doesn't have pictures?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Either a party or a color needs to be specified for each candidate. 117Avenue (talk) 07:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Final composition of the chamber

I would like to add a diagram with the final composition of the chamber, just like I did in the Spanish Wikipedia, see here. Any objections? Dove (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

map_image can already be used to add an image to the infobox. But if you want two images in an infobox, I see no problem. 117Avenue (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem perse. But you will have to adapt the picture though. If you want to use puppets (like you do in spain) the image should automatically (based on a single parameter) recallibrate based on number of representaties (e.g. in the Netherlands the image should only depict 150 representative). This is probably fairly advanced programming. The alternative would be the much more boring "half pie chart". Arnoutf (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll do the changes shortly. I don't mean to add automatically the image, someone will have to make the picture in Commons for each election; I will only add a second map_image field. Regards. Dove (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

two columns

How do I make a parliamentary election show two columns (2x2) rather than three (3x2)? Next Croatian parliamentary election looks ugly right now, and I can't easily fill out the remaining two slots, because three smaller parties got 3 MPs (HDSSB, IDS, SDSS), and yet another one got 2 MPs but was in coalition with one of the top four (HSLS) so it was even more important. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Use candidate numbers 1, 2, 4, & 5, rather than using number 3. 117Avenue (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

size issue

While the width of this infobox is generally ok for view via a normal web browser, it is almost impossible to see the whole infobox via the iPhone/iTouch application. The optimal width of the info box should be 239px. I understand it will take a lot of work to change every thing, but it is important that wikipedia works/can be viewed on all mediums. nat.utoronto 00:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The size of the box is dependent on the size of the candidate pictures or map added to the box. If you don't like the way wikipedia looks on a phone you'll have to take it up with Wikipedia. 117Avenue (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like the way Wikipedia looks on the iPhone/iTouch you'll have to take it up with Apple. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

(1) Actually, the size of the photos could be fixed and the infobox could be reorganized to fit 239px. and its not the way wikipedia looks, but the way this infobox looks on the iPhone/iTouch. (2) Taking it up with Apple will do nothing as this has nothing to do with Apple. nat.utoronto 03:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

In the Spanish Wikipedia, I modified your infobox into a vertical design, instead of the horizontal one used still in the English Wikipedia. How about if you take a look? It's way much smaller, and it can be perfectly displayed in a small mobile device like my iPhone. Dove (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

A number of parameters have been removed, with the addition of those, and a full six candidates, it would be just as long. 117Avenue (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Previous mps/next mps

Looking at the top of the infobox at United Kingdom general election, 2010, the layout of "‹ 2010 · members <Flag> Next ›" is, shall we say, a bit crap as the flag is off-centre, the bullet point between 2005 and members implies separation/next element (as in navboxes), and for some reason the elected MPs are missing. I suggest that, if we cannot find a consistent, legible and user-friendly way of including the "members" links, they ought to be omitted. 86.41.61.203 (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)