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 MrOinkingPig (talk | contribs) at 19:25, 16 July 2021 (→‎Survey and discussion: Reply). 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.

German parties color scheme (1866-1933)

I think it's time to change the color scheme for german parties before 1933. I've been working on a series of election maps for Germany, and the colors between the english-language and german-language wikipedias differ, sometimes they are not even coherent within a wp (for example, parliament diagrams use colors from the spanish-language wp). I think it's time to reboot it and review the whole scheme. I've spent quite some time a few months ago (sorry for making you wait so long) looking at maps and diagrams from several sources and using them to propose a "somewhat-consensus" color scheme. I've left a few colors with question marks along with some room in the talk page to discuss individual colors and not all proposals are definitive, but apart from that most of the work is done. This proposal would only imply changing the /meta/color templates.

What about the existing parliament diagrams? Well, they aren't in phase with the current enwp colors anyway so they'll have to be changed. I have worked on a script to generate them from the results for all national and state elections between 1848 and 1933, so they will be ready to be uploaded once the changes are approved (if they are). What about the existing maps? Well, most them are based on the german-language wp color scheme, which this proposal is closer to (just look at the FKP/DRP color).

Anyway, the entire proposal (along with its talk page) is on User:Julio974fr/sandbox/2. Julio974◆ (Talk-Contribs) 08:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks reasonable to me (although it might be helpful to link party names rather than just have the abbreviations). Cheers, Number 57 10:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for the suggestions, I've now added the links (or at least abbr to the full names) for the parties! Julio974◆ (Talk-Contribs) 12:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! As I've mentioned before in discussions between us, one day I would like to see this information held on wikidata to ensure consistency across all Wikipedias – it could either be called from there, or perhaps updated by bots on each language version. Currently it's a bit of a mess and means maps and parliament diagrams aren't usable across all versions as different colours are used. Number 57 12:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think this will mostly be relevant once Abstract Wikipedia be launched (I'm planning on summarizing on this talk page what this WikiProject should expect from it and what we should or may do when it comes). Julio974◆ (Talk-Contribs) 12:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Julio974fr: maybe relevant: I've tried making a page to document colors for US parties. Perhaps do a similar thing for German ones? (document all the schemes in use, so people at least have an idea of the scope of what needs to be changed, and what they can use for future maps) Elli (talk | contribs) 21:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're talking about this, which I linked in my first post. Julio974◆ (Talk-Contribs) 10:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Julio974fr: exactly, beautiful (feels silly for not clicking that). Elli (talk | contribs) 10:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Erinthecute: I noticed you edited the DVP color template so I'd like to inform you there's some talk here to possibly change these templates. Julio974◆ (Talk-Contribs) 09:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. Apologies for changing the colours (I changed the DNVP as well), I wasn't aware there was an ongoing discussion. This seems like a thoroughly considered proposal and I'd definitely support it. I would favour #FFD800 for the DDP and #63B8FF for the DStP. Also, little mistake I noticed: the proposed colour for the CVP is wrong, the bar is black but the hex given is #0080FF. Erinthecute (talk) 10:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback and I've corrected the color for the CVP! Julio974◆ (Talk-Contribs) 16:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 10 most-viewed, worst-quality articles according to this Wikiproject

Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Popular pages--Coin945 (talk) 06:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add these unhelpful (and unlinked and unexplained) lists everywhere. We're supposed to be concerned that 2022 United States elections (wikilinked for your convenince—don't thank me) is somehow not up to snuff? The article 2022 Punjab Legislative Assembly election has been rated as a stub since its creation in January 2020, when it was a 5,000-word article. It's now at almost 89,000 words, and describes elections still more than eight months away. What is "Unknown"? on every line? What does 114 indicate? Is 2,933 good or bad?
Whatever you are hoping to achieve by posting this, uh, stuff, I don't expect it to happen. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 21:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these articles are not bad quality. Don't know what this strange formatting is or why you wouldn't hyperlink them. This isn't really the place for this anyways. MrOinkingPig (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion guidelines for infobox for parliamentary elections

Can anyone point me to some guidelines or consensus on how parties are determined to be included in the infobox or not for parliamentary elections? I'm mostly asking this in preparation for the 2021 Japanese general election. Japan has many parties, some of which are very small and just curious which ones should be included in the infobox or not. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are no guidelines or site-wide consensus. As it stands, it's generally decided on a case-by-case/country-by-country basis. Number 57 07:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Leadership elections has been nominated for renaming to Category:Political party leadership elections

Category:Leadership elections and 36 of its sub-categories, all of which are within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Political party leadership elections. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VotingWorks

Just wondering whether anybody has been working on an article for VotingWorks, a company that supplies voting machines for use across a number of US states. I've not seen anything in the draft articles category, but not everything appears there. Wouldn't want to begin work on it if somebody's already putting the effort in! Domeditrix (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Domeditrix: I don't see anything - would probably be worthwhile for us to start working on it. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elli: I'll get going on a draft tomorrow, most likely. I think there are enough reliable sources to justify its existence, and it's certainly a topic of interest (given the state of things). If I'm doubtful that it meets the bar, I'll probably go through the WP:AFC process, but there does appear to be quite the backlog there at the moment. Domeditrix (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US elections imagemap not functioning properly

Several imagemap templates are including states that are supposed to be included.

List of templates that are having issues:

This could be user error or some other issue, I'm not sure. It seems like these templates are defaulting to the original "Gov" templates they're based off of, plus the "extra-states", but they're ignoring the "excluded-states".

For Template:2019 United States attorney general elections imagemap and Template:2015 United States attorney general elections imagemap, the templates function as intended, most likely because the gubernatorial and attorney general maps for those years have identical states.

MrOinkingPig (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked and the links look right to mee. Perhaps you have a cache issue? Number 57 21:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I checked on another device so I don't think it's a cache issue.
For clarification, the issue is that some states are clickable even though they shouldn't be. For example, the image in Template:2016 United States attorney general elections imagemap has a link when you hover over North Dakota, even though it shouldn't.
MrOinkingPig (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if anyone could help, it's Elli. Number 57 11:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57 and MrOinkingPig: yes, checking it out right now. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOinkingPig: there was some user error but this is generally my fault for switching from require to mw.loadData in loading the data module, which broke excluded-states in some cases. I've switched this back, thanks for letting me know.
(also, tempted to make separate AG templates for those elections - let me know if you think that would be helpful. I don't really like playing around with excluded-states and extra-states too much with this - I prefer adding new templates) Elli (talk | contribs) 20:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elli: Separate templates would probably be helpful but it's up to you because I have no idea how to make them.
MrOinkingPig (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOinkingPig: have the cycles been consistent for a while? (as in, the cycle that lines up with say, gov2, tends to have the same states up each time). Gov cycles drift the further back you go and I'm sure AG does the same - but if it doesn't drift much then this would be useful. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elli: Yes, they've been consistent. There was a 2014 special election in Utah, but otherwise all of them have been identical. MrOinkingPig (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient elections' infoboxes?

Hi. Why are infoboxes for elections a long time ago such as 1790 United States elections so weird compared to e.g. 2020 United States elections? There isn't a ton that's different; shouldn't they be formatted more similarly for consistent navigation? Stuff like links to the previous elections is missing for some reason. DemonDays64 (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DemonDays64: I don't see a huge difference (a better comparison for the one you linked is 2018 United States elections, as the one you linked is a midterm). I'd assume the lack of navigation between next and previous is just due to someone not bothering to include that, not due to any actual reason (i.e. feel free to add that). Elli (talk | contribs) 05:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost interview

Hi everyone, I have always enjoyed reading WikiProject interviews on the signpost and want to try and revive that section by conducting interviews, but I need some interviewees and I can see this project hasn't been featured yet (I think!) Would anyone be interested in participating in an interview? It would be similar to this one (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-06-27/WikiProject report) and would be open to anyone who wants to answer any questions they would like to. It's a good way to draw attention to your project and the work you conduct here :). Cheers Tom (LT) (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be potentially interested. Might not be the best person to talk to, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Expanding 5% infobox threshold

In a previous RfC, a 5% vote threshold was established for inclusion of candidates in infoboxes of U.S. election articles. I often see this standard applied to non-U.S. election infoboxes, yet I haven't been able to find a broader consensus. Should 5% be the standard infobox inclusion threshold for all elections, including the previously-established caveat that infoboxes should have at least two candidates if only one candidate in a contested election gets above 5%? ― Tartan357 Talk 19:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey and discussion

  • Does this appear to be the de facto standard already being used for these? If so, I don't see a reason not to expand it for consistency. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Elli, at least to me, it does appear to be the de facto standard. ― Tartan357 Talk 19:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I am inclined to support this. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Though, I don't know if it can be applied to parliamentary election articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    GoodDay, I don't think it can, either. I've worded this proposal in a way that it would only apply to elections in which individual candidates are included in the infobox. Parliamentary election infoboxes include parties, representing lists of candidates. ― Tartan357 Talk 21:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, cool. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with the qualification that it only applies to individual candidates. Party lists are a different matter, and depend on the country. For the Israeli Knesset, 1% will elect one deputy, and that is definitely enough to be shown. So party lists are not within the scope of this issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This has been the de facto standard for a long time, but it's good to have a formalised discussion to point to for those who refuse to accept it. Number 57 14:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's the de facto standard. Sea Ane (talk) 12:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This standard only should apply to elections with 3 or more candidates. For elections with less than two candidates, all of the candidates should appear in the infobox regardless of their percentage. It also isn't applicable to parliamentary and other party list elections. We should probably set a different standard for those infoboxes. MrOinkingPig (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @MrOinkingPig: Do you mean less than three? Less than two would only have one candidate anyway :) Number 57 19:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Number 57 Well, an election with only one candidate would also have every candidate in the infobox (1 candidate). That goes unsaid but I included it anyways. MrOinkingPig (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Convention for House of Representatives special elections in the United States

Discussion regarding the format used for listing Special elections to the United States House of Representatives, and for settling on an article naming convention for the same. Detailed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#RfC: Convention for House of Representatives special elections in the United States. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 15:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BACKGROUND & ISSUES: Hi everyone. As some of us would already know, most countries have a article which lists all special/ by-elections held to that country's legislature. For example, List of United Kingdom by-elections (2010–present) & List of federal by-elections in Canada among others. As one would notice the by-elections held are categorised by the term of the Parliament which is also chronologically consistent, as they do NOT conduct simultaneous elections to multiple parliamentary terms. They elect the next parliament upon the dissolution of the current one.

US is currently the only country to have year-specific articles listing all House of Representatives special elections held that year, despite having a list of all special elections ever held, just like any other country (List of special elections to the United States House of Representatives). However, the former part has a problem, special elections held in odd years have their own articles with infoboxes and a short summary of each race, for example, 2019 United States House of Representatives elections, whereas special elections held in even years despite having equivalent encyclopedic content & coverage are just a small subsection of general election articles without even a summary, for example, 2020 United States House of Representatives elections#Special elections.

Furthermore, unlike the countries mentioned above, in US elections to the next Congress can be held simultaneously with special elections to the current Congress, and in some instances of 18th & 19th centuries (prior to 1880), even before special elections to the current Congress are held.

And, if the 2019 United States House of Representatives elections article is ONLY for special elections, why the title doesn't reflect the same, like individual races do, for example 2019 North Carolina's 3rd congressional district special election.

PROPOSALS:

  1. Create year-specific special election articles for all years (odd and even), in the format xxxx United States House of Representatives special elections, where xxxx is the year of such election.
  2. Create congress-specific articles for congresses (without any regards to the election year), in the format Special elections to the yyyth United States Congress (xxxx-xxxx), where yyy is ordinal number of the Congress, and xxxx the years of the tenure of such Congressional term.
  • At the end, there could be other proposals too, that I haven't really thought of.

Thanks! ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 15:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I would personally support grouping the special elections by congress instead of by year, as for most countries (while keeping individual articles for individual special elections when necessary). Mostly like proposal 2, but without the years detailed. Julio974◆ (Talk-Contribs)

It seems like articles such as 2020 United States House of Representatives elections are for all elections that were held during the calendar year, and these includes special elections. This is unlike elsewhere that elections articles are for a specific day/s (if there are multiple rounds or more) of the year. If the article's scope is limited to the general elections in November, we won't have this problem. (That should also mean articles about US House elections in odd-numbered years have to be reconfigured.) Howard the Duck (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Howard the Duck: That should also mean articles about US House elections in odd-numbered years have to be reconfigured I do think a listing of all special elections in a year should exist somewhere. We already cover all the elections in their individual pages too. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could put that, and special elections on even-numbered years that's currently on the November election article on the XXXth United States Congress article in a "Change of membership" section, or a separate "Special elections during the XXXth United States Congress" article. TBH this is duplication of content if there's already a list of all of them somewhere, then another list at several different articles; it's better to put them in just one article. The "XXXX United States House of Representatives elections" articles should be for elections for seats where the winners will sit on January 3rd. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a list somewhere else though. 2019 United States House of Representatives elections is indisputably the list for special house elections in 2019. Adding "special" to the title would be reasonable I suppose. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elli and Howard the Duck: There exists this article, which contains a list of all (known) special elections held to the House since 1789 to present: List of special elections to the United States House of Representatives. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 13:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Special elections to the XXXth United States Congress" (which would include House and Senate special elections), might solve the problem. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What would you do with an election like 2020 United States Senate special election in Arizona? While it was a special election to the 116th United States Congress, it was covered in pretty much all media as part of the 2020 US Senate election cycle, not separate. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would have to be listed under an article called "Special elections to the 116th and 117th United States Congresses". GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's something wrong with an electoral system that means that Arizona voters had to wait more than two years after the death of an incumbent before a successor could be democratically elected. If it hadn't been for Jon Kyl (the appointed - but unelected - successor) resigning after a few weeks, they'd have had to wait four years for the next Class 3 elections. It's fine to hold elections only in November, but it's Not Fine to not hold a special election in the first November following the death of an incumbent. In the UK we can get a by-election completed in seven weeks from the vacancy arising (see 2021 Batley and Spen by-election) at any time of the year; so one US state should have been able to manage it in two and a half months. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: Actually voters do get to elect a new senator in the next ever-yeared November if they don't really want the appointed senator. In Georgia, appointee Kelly Loeffler had to run in the special election against Warnock. Similarly, had Kyl not resigned he would've had to run in 2020. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 12:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's all quite confusing, when it comes to the US Senate. A full term covers 3 congresses & the 100 US Senate terms are stagnated. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: Or maybe "Special elections during the 116th United States Congress" ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 13:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though the fellow completes the term at the end of the 117th United States Congress. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not sure I agree with that. It doesn't make sense to list that separately from the 2020 United States Senate elections (same with the one in Georgia). Elli (talk | contribs) 16:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums&oldid=1033937865"