Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hog Farm (talk | contribs) at 00:45, 26 May 2024 (→Good article reassessment for Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency): new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Redirects to yearly election lists

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation) § Redirects to yearly election lists for visibility

Template:Party shading/Independent (US)

So I have been on the platform for a bit, though I am still learning the ropes to an extent, and I have noticed Template:Party shading/Independent (US) is used on a lot of older or more prominent current election articles. Does this color need to exist on a fundamental level? Especially since a US independent is no different to independents in other countries in any legal, historical, cultural, or electoral way. The color seems arbitrary and is not even used as a basis for colors on maps, which use the internationally-based independent colors instead for holds/gains, or vote % colors. Talthiel (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you on this, I have been going through and editing pages to change it to the generic Independent color. Am I alone in this or are they both just shades of gray? I had someone describe it as gold to me and that surprised me. Nevermore27 (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it's more of a yellowish-gray, but regardless, the way to go about making this change is to make "Independent (US)" an alias or redirect for "Independent" in the color coding templates. Going through and making this change to every page makes it extremely difficult to make changes in the future. The gray color is confusing and very similar to the "Vacant" and "Hold" color templates used in other US politics pages. It is also inconsistent with coloring used by most US-based publications: the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and Bloomberg use a shade of gold or orange for Independents; CNN, Fox News, and Politico use purple; and the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, and USA Today use green (for "Other"). NBC was the only publication I found that uses gray. The color templates exist for a reason and have been used for years without issue. WMSR (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is also inconsistent with coloring used by most US-based publications: the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and Bloomberg use a shade of gold or orange for Independents; CNN, Fox News, and Politico use purple; and the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, and USA Today use green (for "Other").
This feels like a lot of American exceptionalism, American independent politicians are no different to ones in any other country, and other countries would in theory have the same issue of "confusion," yet do not have differently colored independent templates. The US is the only one and it is a very redundant and pointless color with no basis in legal, cultural, or political history in the US. Talthiel (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, yellow/gold has been used for 1) tossups (see here and here) and 2) the Libertarian party, so does it really reduce confusion? And if the proposed fix is to use the current color, which is merely a different shade of gray, then what's the point? The idea that American independent politicians must have a separate color code is nonsense. Nevermore27 (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that hue of yellowish-gray that is currently coded to "Independent (US)" is not similar to any other parties that I am aware of, while the shade of gray coded to "Independent" is indeed similar to templates used for other purposes in US politics pages (including Party shading/Hold, Party shading/Loss, Party shading/Vacant, etc.). The nature of the templates used on Wikipedia for US politics necessitates a color other than gray for independent politicians, and we have done so since 2012. Would it solve any issues if the regular "Independent" color was changed to the one currently coded to "Independent (US)"? I can't see why it would be a problem for other countries to use country-specific templates either. I'm honestly confused about what the issue is here — is the current color causing any confusion? If not, why does this need to be addressed or changed at all? WMSR (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is largely redundant, these are colors for parties, as it stands there is no difference between independents across the world and the US, and as such a separate color is unnecessary and should be removed. Talthiel (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So then, does changing the regular "Independent" color to the one currently coded to "Independent (US)" solve that problem? WMSR (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No because America is not special, not much different than the rest of the world. It would be absurd to apply a standard erroneously applied to one set of articles, to all the others. It only makes sense that the Independent (US) template should be phased out for the international standard. Talthiel (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth noting that Ireland also has its own particular shade for independent politicians ( #DDDDDD ), as do India ( #DB7099 ), Vietnam ( #FF6666 ), and the UK House of Lords ( lightgrey ). This is not a case of American exceptionalism, but simply a matter of what makes the most sense for a certain country's pages. The "international standard" color (currently  #DCDCDC ) is too similar to other templates used in US politics spaces on Wikipedia, which is why it was replaced with  #DDDDBB . I understand your preference for one standard color, but I have repeatedly said why that isn't feasible. Something being "unnecessary" is not justification for removal on Wikipedia. Indeed, all of these colors are technically unnecessary, but exist on this platform because they are helpful to readers. Changing the color to something that means something else in other US politics templates makes it much less helpful. WMSR (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have yet to articulate a colorable (no pun intended) reason why having different colors for a different country is somehow "better". You're just pointing out that different colors exist. Which, ok? Though the Ireland and House of Lords examples are functionally identical to the "international standard" so it's a distinction without a difference. As to the "feasibility" question, the fact that something would take a fair amount of work to standardize is not a reason to do nothing. Nevermore27 (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and I double checked, I am not seeing where you came up with those colors for India and Vietnam, because both the Lok Sabha and National Assembly of Vietnam and previous elections pages for both use #DDDDDD or #DCDCDC for their Independents. Nevermore27 (talk) 03:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those come from {{Party color|Independent (India)}}, {{Party color|Independent (Vietnam)}}, etc. And I have articulated several times that similar shades of gray are used to indicate hold/gain/vacant/loss in US politics templates. The point of using colors is to aid readers, and if they are too similar to other colors in common use around the same same pages, they do not serve that purpose. All of that said, I don't know if the onus is on me to make a case here, as I'm not the one who made the change. Standardization is not a requirement on Wikipedia, and there are countless country-specific templates in use around the project. I don't see why this should be treated any differently, and I don't understand what is accomplished by such an undertaking. How do readers benefit by seeing gray next to American independent politicians instead of buff? WMSR (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the case should be made #DB7099 and #FF6666 should not exist either, as again the color has no functional reason to exist, but this is more so about the US's #DDDDBB, and the normal "Independent color" #DCDCDC, is not hard to understand for readers nor does it cause confusion. It is simply solving a problem that does not exist, serving a redundant role which should not exist anymore, which is not used anywhere else in US politics articles. Show me where the color is used for maps, or for gains/holds? Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/USA legend colors#Seat control uses #999999 for holds and #666666 for gains, removing "Independent (US)" would only bring it in line with those pre-existing colors. Talthiel (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
to the "not used anywhere else in US politics articles" I will admit that I have been on a campaign of changing pages away from the #DDDDBB so if you haven't seen it, it might have been due to me. But the fundamental question remains the same: Why should a separate color for Independents from the United States (or any other country) exist? I have not seen a compelling answer. Nevermore27 (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the legend should probably switch toward using a color that isn't so similar to "no election", and #DCDCDC is exceedingly similar to the "no election" color on that legend. And the reason you aren't seeing it is indeed likely @Nevermore27's campaign of removing it from every possible page, which has continued even during this discussion. I have also been saying consistently that various shades of gray are used all over Wikipedia, especially on US politics templates, for lots of things that I've already listed, including party shading templates and images representing "no election". Perhaps this would be best addressed by an RfC? WMSR (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Make a RfC, I don't really care, but it doesn't change the fact that  #DCDCDC  (Independent) does sorta look like  #d3d3d3  (No election),but its irrelevant when you realize these two colors would never be used together, and have never been used anywhere together that I have seen. But to cover our bases, ( #DCDCDC ) does not look like  #999999  (Hold) or  #666666  (Gain), which would not be used in the same context either. I don't really know where you are coming from, having compared all the colors, about "Reader confusion" when the color in question is used to denote parties on charts, not on maps, the "no election" color is not used in charts, it is used in maps, which use a different color for independents. @WMSR @Nevermore27, if an RfC is made, I'll look at it tomorrow. Talthiel (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seem to me it would be better to use #DCDCDC for independents lile in most other countries, and just change the no election color.--Aréat (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the thing though, the "no elections" color is not used in the same context or situation as #DCDCDC, so it is kinda a moot point. Talthiel (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's switch independent to #DCDCDC, then ! --Aréat (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Talthiel This isn't true. The colors are used together on election maps. WMSR (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not change all independents to #DDDBB? I still don't understand what the problem is here. WMSR (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which color is chosen is not super important, the point is there's no reason to have more than one color for independents, period. Why is #DDDDBB better though? You have an unusual attachment to it. Nevermore27 (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
#DDDBB is only used in the US, while almost every other country use some shade of grey akin to #DCDCDC. It make sense to just switch the US, rather than nearly two hundreds countries.--Aréat (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose every country or culture may have different colors for independent candidates, just as with the various liberal and conservative parties. Would you guys consider having separate entries for Independent (U.S.), Independent (South Africa), Independent (Solomon Islands), and so on? Howard the Duck (talk) 07:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I've been trying to say. It's not American exceptionalism, it's just that a certain color works better in the US. There is no need for this to be internationally standardized. WMSR (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this difference one observed in sources, or just a habit of editors? Because if it's the later, there's no real reason to keep it inconsistent, when it's already consistent in almost every other countries. --Aréat (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could swear independents in Australia use a darker shade of gray here in Wikipedia, at least maps. I saw BBC TV coverage of the UK local elections and independents are denoted by a pink color. This does seem to vary per country. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What shade of gray is not particularly important. And while news coverage may vary from country to country or even channel to channel within a country, I think it's pretty well understood on Wikipedia that gray means no party, and there's genuinely no reason to stray from that or have multiple colors. There is nothing that makes an American independent politician distinct from a British one or an Indian one or an Australian one, etc. There needs to be a better reason than "I like it", which is all I've seen here. Nevermore27 (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All due respect, you are the one proposing the change here. While you may like using a standard color internationally, there is no policy requiring standardization across countries, and therefore no policy-based reason for this change. The onus is on you to demonstrate consensus. The Independent (US) color has been in use for 12 years, so it's pretty well understood on Wikipedia that gray means no party doesn't quite pass muster. WMSR (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
besides just appealing to tradition, you really haven't made the case yourself. Talthiel (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and that "tradition" was created on a whim in the first place Nevermore27 (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I am not proposing a change here. There isn't a case for me to make. WMSR (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling Nevermore27 (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the policy- and guideline-based discussion to be had here? The only objections given here to maintaining a separate color code for Independent (US) have been that "we don't need it" and "it should be standardized." Frankly, both of these sound to me like "I don't like it", and neither is backed by any policy. I have made plenty of substantive points about maintaining: it is more consistent with colors used by US-based media outlets (few if any use gray), it is less similar to other color templates, it is on par with other countries that have separate color codes for independent politicians, and there is simply no policy-based reason for a change. In most countries, red is associated with progressive politics, but in the US, it represents the more conservative party. Should that be standardized too? I'm sorry if this comes off as rude or uncivil, but I truly don't understand why this is such a point of contention in the first place. WMSR (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) Wikipedia does not take its cues from "US-based media outlets", 2) the template has only been at its current hex code since January 2022, so there's no longevity argument to make 3) there is nothing that distinguishes an American independent politician from an independent politician from any other country. 4) "other countries that have separate color codes for independent politicians" don't actually use those templates, they use gray. 5) you of course don't agree, which is fine, but "there's no need for any country to have their own hex color for independent politicians" is a policy-based argument.
There is no actual, colorable (again, no pun intended) reason for a separate color except "I want to have a separate color", which is again meaningless because in the end it's just a slightly different shade of gray, which you used as an argument against it "(few if any use gray)"! Google "Hex code DDDDBB" and both color-hex.com and colorhexa.com (the top two results) say that the "web safe" equivalent is...#CCCCCC. i.e., gray. Nevermore27 (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as someone who makes election maps, "no election" is not similar to the colors used to show indepdendents on a map Talthiel (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bug in "election box" on Wikipedia mobile app

The election box is not respecting the theme selected by the user on Wikipedia mobile app. Refer to below data and the box, Last three rows are shown with white background, when the theme selected on Wikipedia is dark. I couldn't add the screenshot from mobile app, because Wiki do not consider it as "own work". :D 

{{Election box begin | title=[[2019 Indian general elections]]: [[Pilibhit]]}}
{{Election box winning candidate with party link|
  |party      = Bharatiya Janata Party
  |candidate  = [[Feroze Varun Gandhi]]
  |votes      = 704,549
  |percentage = 59.38
  |change     = +7.32
}}
{{Election box candidate with party link|
  |party      = Samajwadi Party
  |candidate  = [[Hemraj Verma]]
  |votes      = 448,922
  |percentage = 37.83
  |change     = +15.00
}}
{{Election box candidate with party link|
  |party      = NOTA
  |candidate  = [[None of the Above]]
  |votes      = 9,973
  |percentage = 0.84
  |change     = -0.26
}}
{{Election box candidate with party link|
  |party      = Independent (politician)
  |candidate  = Varun Gandhi
  |votes      = 4,483
  |percentage = 0.38
  |change     = +0.38
}}
{{Election box candidate with party link|
  |party      = Independent (politician)
  |candidate  = Surendra Kumar Gupta
  |votes      = 4,442
  |percentage = 0.37
  |change     = +0.37
}}
{{Election box candidate with party link|
  |party      = Shiv Sena
  |candidate  = Anita Tripati
  |votes      = 3,974
  |percentage = 0.30
  |change     = +0.30
}}
{{Election box candidate with party link|
  |party      = Independent (politician)
  |candidate  = Munesh singh
  |votes      = 2,129
  |percentage = 0.18
  |change     = -0.41
}}
{{Election box candidate with party link|
  |party      = Independent (politician)
  |candidate  = Jafri Begum
  |votes      = 1,633
  |percentage = 0.14
  |change     = +0.14
}}
{{Election box candidate with party link|
  |party      = Janata Dal
  |candidate  = Dr. Bharat
  |votes      = 1,624
  |percentage = 0.14
  |change     = +0.14
}}
{{Election box candidate|
  |party      = Pragatishil Party
  |candidate  = Mohammad Hanif
  |votes      = 1,276
  |percentage = 0.11
  |change     = +0.11
}}
{{Election box candidate |
  |party      = Sabka Dal United
  |candidate  = Dr. Sita Ram Rajput
  |votes      = 1,098
  |percentage = 0.09
  |change     = +0.09
}}
{{Election box candidate with party link|
  |party      = Independent (politician)
  |candidate  = Kaif Raza Khan
  |votes      = 926
  |percentage = 0.08
  |change     = +0.08
}}
{{Election box candidate with party link|
  |party      = Independent (politician)
  |candidate  = Urvashi Singh
  |votes      = 864
  |percentage = 0.07
  |change     = +0.07
}}
{{Election box candidate |
  |party      = Naitik Party
  |candidate  = Sanjay Kumar Bharti
  |votes      = 696
  |percentage = 0.06
  |change     = +0.06
}}
{{Election box majority|
   |votes      = 255,627
   |percentage = 21.55
   |change     = -7.68
 }}
 {{Election box turnout|
   |votes      = 1,187,225
   |percentage = 67.41
   |change     = +4.55
 }}
 {{Election box hold with party link|
   |winner = Bharatiya Janata Party
   |swing  = +7.32
 }}
{{Election box end}}


2019 Indian general elections: Pilibhit
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
BJP Feroze Varun Gandhi 704,549 59.38 +7.32
SP Hemraj Verma 448,922 37.83 +15.00
NOTA None of the Above 9,973 0.84 −0.26
Independent Varun Gandhi 4,483 0.38 +0.38
Independent Surendra Kumar Gupta 4,442 0.37 +0.37
SS Anita Tripati 3,974 0.30 +0.30
Independent Munesh singh 2,129 0.18 −0.41
Independent Jafri Begum 1,633 0.14 +0.14
JD Dr. Bharat 1,624 0.14 +0.14
Pragatishil Party Mohammad Hanif 1,276 0.11 +0.11
Sabka Dal United Dr. Sita Ram Rajput 1,098 0.09 +0.09
Independent Kaif Raza Khan 926 0.08 +0.08
Independent Urvashi Singh 864 0.07 +0.07
Naitik Party Sanjay Kumar Bharti 696 0.06 +0.06
Majority 255,627 21.55 −7.68
Turnout 1,187,225 67.41 +4.55
BJP hold Swing +7.32

PyneEditor (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use {{Election results}}? It also has functionality for cases such as "none of the above". Howard the Duck (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks. Let me check. PyneEditor (talk) 11:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for 1880 Republican National Convention

I have nominated 1880 Republican National Convention for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 18:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By-elections for UK county councils?

So I just finished updating the results for Bourne (electoral division), but I happened to notice that some by-elections happened as well, should those be added to the page as well? (excuse the dumb question, only recently got the urge back to edit on Wikipedia again) Knockknock987 (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, any by-elections would be good to add - your updates so far are great! Gazamp (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks (excuse the late response, I don't use Wikipedia as much), will get those updated in the morning, thanks for the kind words :D Knockknock987 (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polls and page width

2024 Mississauga mayoral by-election#Polling is currently overlapping the Tools menu on my system. That said, there's another candidate that should have a column, but the recent edit by another user didn't add them.

What happens when the number of names is too large?

Note that Christine Simundson was thrown into an early poll, but neither registered for the election or publicly declined. Secondly, Peter McCallion withdrew from the ballot before the end of the nomination period. So they're the easiest to remove, for last minute entrant Brian Crombie, who is on the most recent poll. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need sample size and margin of error in these tables. That's more detailed than they need to have and those aren't relevant for the vast majority of readers. We also link the poll right in the second column. Sure there are some low quality polls with small samples, but maybe we can leave out polls under 300 people or just add a footnote? It seems trivial, just something election nerds like us squabble over more than we should. The MOE is typically 2-4% and there can always be outliers. That goes for any election regardless of the number of candidates. Reywas92Talk 23:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Infobox Change at 1960 United States presidential election

The page for the 1960 United States presidential election is currently locked due to edit warring around a proposed change to add unpledged electors as a column alongside individual candidates in the infobox. In order to find consensus for a change, if the topic is of interest please discuss at Talk:1960 United States presidential election. Yaksar (let's chat) 05:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parish council elections

Do we make pages on British Parish Council elections?

I know most aren't competitive but if we have one that is political and electorally competitive is it possible? Or would it be better to include it in the page for the specific parish council? Does a parish Council count as notable?

Lankyant (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say only if it receives substantial media attention. And even then it might not warrant an entire page for just that one election. Gust Justice (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been some articles on parish council elections, but as far as I understand, they were all deleted. I don't think politics at that level is notable, particularly given the lack of power held by parish councils. I also think it's unlikely that parish councils would be notable enough for an article separate to the village/parish one. Number 57 20:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gust Justice@Number 57
Thanks for the replies. I agree. I've created the page Darwen Town Council will add election results history to that. It does have some interesting politics to it but probably not notable enough.
Thanks for your replies Lankyant (talk) 02:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calculation of election percentages

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Election_Percentages as to whether we use a source's percentages or recalculate them on a different basis when presenting them in infoboxes. NebY (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually quite like a manual of style on election percentages/infoboxes, to have a way to kill off all these arguments. "The percentage is wrong" is an annoying source of edit... I don't want to say "war". Edit low-intensity conflict, perhaps.
Most recently this has spread to the question I posed over here, with annoying disagreements on reporting requirements for elections using anything but FPP.
To give a simple example, say an election is held using Minimax. That means that each candidate's score is equal to their worst performance in a one-on-one matchup. e.g. if Charlie loses to Alice 45-50% and to Bob 40-55%, Charlie's score is 40%.
I'd be interested in hearing @Number 57's thoughts on having such a manual of style for elections (assuming such a thing is possible). Because non-FPP electoral systems are fairly niche, I think that particular question can be delegated to the folks over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Voting systems. –Sincerely, A Lime 04:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency)

Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 00:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums&oldid=1225676038"