Talk:2018 Brazilian general election/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Color of candidates

Is there any reasons the color used on the page and on the poll graphics are different? Would be way less confusing to use matching colors. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Joaoamoedopartidonovo alo alo bahia (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Coalition

I see that the result tables got upgraded - thanks, by the way ! - and now we have a second table with results by coalitions. But as far as I can see, we don't have any list of which parties are parts of which coalition. I feel like this should be added somewhere, for example as notes on the second table lines? Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I was unaware that the coalitions differed on a state by state basis hence why the table was removed. I got the list of parties from the presidential candidates box where it listed all the parties within each candidates coalition as well as the name of that coalition. Many thanks, Luke 16:45 10/10/2018

Party colors

Are we no longer following the Category:Brazil political party colour templates ? Most of the colors used here don't match at all.--Aréat (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Oops sorry! I was unaware that there was a set of templates when I coloured the results table. I will try and rectify this in due course as I agree that it much less confusing to have a set of templates due to the sheer number of parties. Many thanks, Luke — Preceding unsigned comment added by LMcTaggart00 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for eventually fixing it up!--Aréat (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Poll deletion

Why have all mention of the polls be deleted? --Aréat (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Spliting the article

Seeing as this year's elections in Brazil will see many offices up for grabs for federal and state level, does anybody think it would be a good idea to split this article into General elections and Presidential election? The article is already pretty long. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 06:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree. There definitively should be a split considering the lenght here on so many elections.--Aréat (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the gubernatorial elections should be split off into a separate article, leaving the national elections (presidential and congress) on this article. Number 5 7 07:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

As we've had separate articles on gubernatorial elections for previous years, I've split this to Brazilian gubernatorial elections, 2018. I think there's still scope to reduce the amount of content on this article (for example, do we really need the picture gallery of the defeated or declined candidates?). Number 5 7 07:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the move. I also think it would be better to have the list of all non actual candidates be hidden until clicked on, although I do not know how to do it myself.--Aréat (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Unless there is a major objection, I would recommend organizing this page in a similar manner to United States elections, 2016 with a separate page for presidential, legislative chamber, and gubernatorial elections all linked on one main national elections page. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 05:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree.--Aréat (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Disagree; there's virtually no original text in the split article - the only thing that wasn't covered here after the split was the campaign section. I'll be restoring the text back to this article when I have full internet access later. Number 5 7 14:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

That is because the general election mistakenly includes this information. It should be removed from that page as it is overly focused on the presidential election.-A-M-B-1996- (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Boxes with all candidates

My propoue is to maintain 2 boxes in a way all 14 candidates appears, at least before the election. After it we resume to only the best positioned ones. This way would be more fair. This is the example I proposed. Paladinum2 (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it would make more sense to omit Amoêdo from the infobox or replace him with Cabo Daciolo. They are both weak in polling, but Daciolo's party has seats in Congress and he appears in debates; Amoedo doesn't. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It makes sense, but Amoedo appears there because we used the positions in the polls of the pre campaign, where Amoedo had 1% or more, above Meirelles, Boulos, Daciolo, which had "less than 1%". Also if we put All the pre candidates there is no problem at all with this. Paladinum2 (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Article split?

There have been several editors who have attempted to split Brazilian presidential election, 2018 into a separate article, @-A-M-B-1996- and Alumnum:. This has been reverted by @Number 57:. I don't see the reason not to have separate articles; the mass of images and tables makes this article unwieldy and long as-is. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The issue is that there is hardly any text that is unique to the presidential election. The only things that were being removed from this article were the table of candidates and the ones regarding the debates. Perhaps the latter can be moved into their own article in the same way as Opinion polling for the Brazilian general election, 2018 (e.g. Brazilian presidential election debates, 2018 per Australian federal election debates and forums, 2016). Number 5 7 18:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Getting the debate tables off of this article is reason enough for me to support the split; it seems silly to have stand-alone articles on the presidential debates and presidential polling but not one on the presidential election. Without an influx of Portuguese-reading editors, this isn't going to have enough prose to require a split, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure what the debates tables actually add to the article – especially the second round ones as they were all cancelled – so perhaps we can just remove them? Number 5 7 19:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

That works; I'll convert them each to 1 paragraph of prose. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article is overly focused on the presidential election. It is not an article on that more specific subject, but on all elections in Brazil this year. Maybe you would prefer we rename this article to Brazilian presidential election, 2018. That election is clearly deserving of its own article.

At some point, there will have to be separate elections for the presidential and the general. The question is whether we wait for this article to become so focused on the presidential that readers falsely assume that's its subject. I think we're already there. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Bolsonaro's color

I think Aréat already brought this up but at least in the case of Bolsonaro I notice that the Portuguese article and graphics use green whilst this and most other languages use darkblue. Problem is it causes the graphics to be kind of off, as for example the maps of winning states and the poll graphics use green whilst the rest of the article and the parliamentary graphic uses darkblue. Was darkblue choose for one particular reason? Why is not the same used in Portuguese? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone opposes to use the tone from the Portuguese wiki on Bolsonaro then? If not I'll made the change in a couple of days to match the graphics. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Seem better to just change the maps, imo. (Edit : Done. )--Aréat (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Alright but how about the poll graphic in Opinion polling for the Brazilian general election, 2018? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Look like its author don't intend to change it. Too much of an hassle to make another in blue or to change everything just for one graph. It's not even the same shade of green than the rest anyways.--Aréat (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

New section on fake news during the campaign

Hello, I would like to be authorized to add a section on the use of fake news during the campaign. This is an assignment for a class that I have to do this week. Thank you.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. @Juju00096: If you need access to an article for school related projects please see WP:PERM. The best way to gain access to editing semi-protected articles is to edit ten unprotected Wikipedia articles and allow for your account to be at least four days old then you should be automatically allowed to edit this article by the system once you have meet the requirements. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 11:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

[a]

[b]

[c]

[d]

[e]