Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Naming discussion

Some outside (preferably apolitical) input would be welcomed at Talk:Irish general election, 1918#Requested move concerning how to name the article. Thanks,--Kotniski (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The standard format for this kind of thing is United Kingdom general election in Ireland, 1918 (see here and here for examples from other countries). However, there is no way you will get Irish nationalists to accept the words United Kingdom in the article title, so I suggest it's worth giving up now. Sadly, reasonable arguments simply don't work in that part of Wikipedia. Number 57 22:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
If reasonable people give up, the decisions will end up being made by unreasonable people.--Kotniski (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
That's been the case for several years in certain topic areas. Attempts to bring in outside voices simply do not work (you can RFC until you're blue in the face, but you will never attract enough neutral editors to get a sensible result). Until admins are brave enough to block nationalists on sight (and others are not stupid enough to unblock them) then there's not much point in editing in these areas. I've been waiting six years for this to happen, and I'm not holding my breath. Number 57 10:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Naming conventions (government and legislation)

I am looking for some feedback on what seems to be a de-facto standard in recent years about article titles, which has not been made retroactively consistent, and has led to a variety of unilateral moves based on editor concerns re WP:DAB, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, as currently being discussed at Talk:Washington_Initiative_1029.

My view is that standard consensus recently has been for the naming convention Jurisdiction + Measure Type + Designator + (Parenthetical Year) and that this should be proposed as a multinational standard.

Whether a jurisdictoin re-uses numbers or not. The basic title format of Jursidiction + Type + Number + (Parenthetical year) provides maximal information very concisely: California Proposition 13 (1978), Oregon Ballot Measure 9 (1992), Washington Referendum 71 (2009), Washington Initiative 502 (2011), and Colorado Amendment 64 (2012). Redirects such as Proposition 13 can easily be established for famous items or from year-to-year, with those easily converted do disambiguation pages as needed should similar titles be WP:Notable. The State + Type + Number + (Parenthetical year) format is well established for many US states, if not most, and this seems to me the simplest, soundest, most comprehensive and least ambiguous solution. This article, with its previous parenthetical year number, was consistent with long-established practice across all of Wikipedia. The permanent article should include the year number, with redirects such as Initiative 502 created or changed as necessary, based on current events. One clear example where this approach has been widely adopted and useful is with 1st amendment (note capitalization) which has a WP:REDIRECT to First Amendment to the United States Constitution and also a WP:DAB page.

This project seems the most logical place for this discussion to happen, given its scope and depth, so what are editors' views on this? Rorybowman (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, American state articles on ballot measures are just about the only election and referendum articles that do not conform to the standard "Fooian type election/referendum, XXXX". I do not see why they should be the exception to the rule. Number 57 16:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Requested moves. Hmmm, "Fooian type election/referendum, XXXX". Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I would change them to all use commas like in other election articles rather than using parentheses for disambiguation. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
So your position is to keep four-digit years but with a comma as delimiter rather than parentheses? Rorybowman (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure why the articles on this project don't follow the pattern I've seen almost everywhere else, which would be "XXXX Fooian type election/referendum" Number 57 17:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

What topics are you editing to see the year first "almost everywhere"? Almost everywhere I look the year is at the end: United States presidential election, 2012, Japanese general election, 2003, Quebec referendum, 1995, and so on. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
That's because you're looking at articles on this project. I'm thinking of things like 1888–89 Football League, 2011 East Africa drought, 1924 Summer Olympics, etc etc. Number 57 17:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is mixed in this regard, see Talk:Tiananmen Square protests of 1989#Move? – Wbm1058 (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
A discussion in which there was only one response (yours) fails to convince me. Number 57 09:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Opinion polling in or Opinion polling for?

There are 2 ways opinion polling articles (or lists) are titled, "Opinion polling in" as in, "Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2006", and "Opinion polling for" as in "Opinion polling for the New Zealand general election, 2011". Unless this is an WP:ENGVAR issue, there should only be one way to title these articles. Which is it? –HTD 14:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It depends on whether you consider the polling as a part of the election, viewed as in terms of a cycle, ("in") or a something apart the election, viewed as a singular event or as a series of singular events ("for"). This difference is more than just a difference of title, but includes the whole article's tone. Compare the first sentence of the former with the first sentence of the latter: "... showed a long period of variable support ... Prior to and throughout much of the campaign ..." vs. "...throughout the duration of the [] Parliament and in the leadup to the [election] ..." The former considers the campaign polling to be part of the "election". The latter considers the "election" to be a singular event which the campaign and polling lead up to. I think the titles actually fit the articles' leads (didn't check the rest of the articles) as they are now - if the titles are changed, the leads would need to be changed as well. I suppose I should note that I'm not sure if the differing perceptions of the elections is a regional variation or just the perspective of the pages' authors. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't the articles' tones, basically the way it is written, be basically the same in cases such as this? Now the question is if if which should be tone of the article: if polling is a part of the election, or if polling just leads up to the election per se. FWIW, it's not a big of a difference. –HTD 19:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Papal conclave articles

The Category:Papal conclaves articles which have infoboxes (20th & 21st century conclaves and 1800,1513,1492,1294) all directly code their infoboxes instead of transcluding them. this causes variances in display, and should have an infobox instead of direct coding. Can someone clean this up? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any extant infoboxes that will work with this, so one will have to be created. I'll see what I can do, unless someone else has already started. Thank you for bringing this up. Standardizing the pages would be better. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I made one up and placed it on the Papal conclave, 2005 page. You can see what I did there, but also look at the template's page: {{Infobox papal conclave}}. If any changes are needed, just ask. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I've just been working on one, but you got there first and look much better. So let's use that. :) KTC (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Looks good, though perhaps an "altnernate names" should be added if the conclave is also widely known by other names? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely, will add that in. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Done. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Election districts post-Census

What is the "plan of attack" vis-a-vis the election district boundary changes after the last Census? Some districts, while sharing the district number of a previous incarnation, actually have little or nothing to do with that previous incarnation in reality (other than the number.)

California's 37th State Senate district is a good example. Before 2011, the 37th district was very different. Are the old district articles being renamed, or are all articles just going to be rewritten such that any links to the old district going to link to the new district? Int21h (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

We already have a schema-of-sorts for federal House districts, which can change in similar ways to state legislative districts. See, for example, California's 19th congressional district#List of representatives, which explains where the district was and how it has changed over time. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes for elections

Please see and comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 January 25#Template:Infobox Israeli Election. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

This has been kept. Now, what? –HTD 12:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps rename it to Infobox multi-party election and then use it for the likes of the Netherlands and other countries will silly numbers of parties winning seats? Number 57 12:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Two issues:
  1. I'd want that infobox to look almost exactly like the current election infobox we have now. Just that there are no leaders' photos and the same list orientation, maybe with party colors too. Probably ditch the exact votes and just leave out percent of votes and seats won.
  2. It still doesn't resolve how many parties would have to be in the infobox. Like what I said at the TFD, the whole point of infoboxes is that they're summaries. Putting every party that won at least one seat isn't a summary, it's everything. In fact, I'd prefer the 6-party cut-off of the current election infobox, just transform it in the Israeli infobox format.
–HTD 12:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
It is a summary, as it excludes parties that didn't win seats. And if we do have a cut-off for parties that won seats, who gets to decide which parties make the cut then? IMO that's an NPOV violation, and one of the reason I don't use the main infobox when I write election articles. I don't agree with the inclusion of party colours either - I think in many cases this is OR (how do you decide which colours parties have?) Number 57 13:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
On summaries: The whole point of (multi-winner) elections is to win seats. If you'd include all parties that won seats, it's not a summary, it's everything. As for NPOV, WP:DUE is one thing that comes to mind, although there are some parties that do win just one seat and turns out to lead the chamber or become prime minister; that's the time we'd include them.
On party colors: Surely these are cited for the most part. I don't think anyone would argue that the party of the Thai red shirts did not use red; these are quite different in countries such as say, Senegal. I'd rather be swayed on an argument that a column of colors stacked on each other may look unsightly, or if there are no maps or charts within the infobox that uses those colors (making them irrelevant in the presentation). –HTD 13:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I disagree - it's not everything as it excludes parties that won seats. But personally I'd rather see infoboxes scrapped altogether. Number 57 19:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
How can putting every party in parliament be not everything? How can putting all parties not violate WP:DUE? How can putting all parties violate the whole point of infoboxes being summaries? –HTD 03:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
"How can putting every party in parliament be not everything?" For the third time: Because it doesn't include parties that didn't win seats (and this is generally more parties than did). Regarding WP:DUE, the whole issue is where you draw the cut-off point - in the Israeli elections there is no clear major parties, but rather a gradual gradient of seats won (31, 19, 15, 12, 11, 7, 6, 6, 4, 4, 3, 2). Number 57 12:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
"Also for the 3rd time because putting all of the parties that won seats is everything, as the whole point of elections is to win, just as you don't list all of the teams that competed in the 2011–12 FA Cup, only the finalists.
"You're issue on WP:DUE is valid though. I don't think the Knesset is like the Canadian or Spanish parliaments that recognizes parties when it reaches a minimum number of seats. The recourse here is to see the different RS to find out which parties go in: I've read some Israeli election coverage the last month and they barely mentioned Kadima. Of course, someone who'd point out some newspaper did mention them but for the most part they were marginal to the result of the election. Is this bordering on WP:OR? No, as long as you're using RS; that's tantamount to saying that "it's OR to say the Liberal Democrats use gold because the BBC uses that color to distinguish them". –HTD 12:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Winning parties only is clearly not "everything" - around 7% of voters in the last Israeli election voted for parties that didn't cross the threshold (including a couple that got a fair amount of media coverage) - I'm fairly sure that's not nothing. And extending this logic, you'd only include one candidate in presidential election infoboxes as the whole point is to win the election, and only the person that won is "everything". I'd actually say the current situation is the same as your FA Cup example. All the parties that didn't make the final (winning Knesset seats) have been excluded from the infobox. That is the only "round" in this competition.
As stated above, that's only valid in multi-winner elections. In single-winner elections it's quite different.
As for the FA Cup example, there are some more "rounds" in government formation, which is important as the elections per se. –HTD 13:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Government formation is irrelevant - some smaller parties will be included and some larger parties excluded. It's likely that Labor (3rd largest) will not be in the government, but Kadima (smallest) will be. Number 57 13:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
"Government formation is irrelevant." I'm sorry, but isn't the whole point of elections is to form governments? Well probably it's irrelevant, unless the prime minister comes from Kadima, then it has to be somehow included if we're not listing all parties.
What's the record in the number of parties that won seats? 100% divided into 2% is 50: that's the maximum number of parties that can "win". Let's say 30 parties won, we'd list them all? The infobox can only accommodate 15 parties. –HTD 12:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what the record is, but the infobox coding can easily be expanded to cope with more parties. Number 57 12:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
What if 40 parties won? That's a rather long infobox that'll be repeated with an even longer results section...–HTD 19:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
What if those 40 parties all won three seats each? Or what if the vast majority of (or all) seats were won by independents? Number 57 21:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
It's actually very much possible for parties receiving roughly equal number of seats if there are 40 of them; 100/40=2.5 seats per party. So what to do now? –HTD 11:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Not having infoboxes would be my preferred option (and is why I never add them to election articles I have written). Number 57 11:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I actually have a real life example if 44 parties won: see Philippine House of Representatives party-list election, 2010. Even without a three-seat cap, the largest party would've just still won 3 seats. The reason there's no infobox is that there are no political party templates for most parties as these are mostly created just for participating in the party-list election and not for any other election (in other words, it's wasteful); if I'd use the 2% "soft" threshold, there's still 12 of them, if I'd use a totally arbitrary 3% threshold there'd only be 6 of them, with just under a quarter of the vote (and just over 1/5 of the seats). Compare to the latest Israeli election where the top 5 had just under 2/3 of the vote (and just under 3/4 of the seats).
Not having infoboxes is a sad cop-out though. At least there's a reason on that real example (no templates); readers have to see the snapshot (summary) of the article in some way. There's no reason we can't present a summary of any article in an infobox, or a graphic (like what I did on the example I gave, by having a pie chart.). We are depriving readers of a benefits of an infobox just because we can't figure out a way to summarize data. –HTD 11:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
In response to your idea about the second issue (" The recourse here is to see the different RS to find out which parties go in"), I'd say that's a huge OR violation. Plus media coverage isn't necessarily linked to the number of seats won. When the Pensioners Party won seven seats in the 2006 elections in Israel it caused a huge stir, and they received far more attention than some parties that won more seats. I think the same goes for the Party for the Animals in the Netherlands when they (just) crossed the electoral threshold for the first time and ended up being the smallest party in the House of Representatives. Number 57 12:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
As I expected, you'd have a very narrow understanding of OR and DUE. It's like saying RS can't be trusted on anything. On the Dutch example I can imagine the sheer volume on RS about the likes of VVD 18000 and PVDA 20300 vs. the Party of Animals 968. Cries of WP:NPOV shouldn't be abused to let parties that barely had seats in parliament, considering that WP:RS is also a part of the NPOV policy. –HTD 13:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Firstly the Gnews hits aren't relevant now because that election was some years ago. Secondly, where would you draw the dividing line. That's the OR bit. Number 57 13:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
GNews says "any time" so I guess there are some GNews hits from today since God knows when. As for dividing line, I honestly don't know. I'd certainly don't want to go into the WP:OR trap you're espousing. Just as the same as the BBC using only three colors in their illustrations (like the Swingometer and this) in their website's election coverage, the infoboxes for UK elections only show the 3 parties, with the others seen on the article text. We'd follow WP:RS and WP:COMMONSENSE; it's like thumbnails in articles, or article sizes: how big is "big"? Any argument would see cries of WP:OR. If we'd be like that for every decision we'd make, it's time to WP:IAR as it's not helping us any bit.
With that said the Israeli election is a particularly difficult case. At least the Dutch lower house election had a significant drop from the 6th-place party (12 seats) to the 7th one (5). –HTD 05:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sweden candidate->seat mapping

I had asked a question a number of months ago about Elections in Sweden, but it is probably just as well asked here as it probably pertains to a number of similar election systems: Are the 310 members of the Parliament of Sweden tied to a particular electoral constituency?

To sum up what I can tell about it:

  1. people vote for (ordered) party lists with preference votes
  2. parties are allocated seats, seats which are created based on constituencies and their populations
  3. ??? (some sort of mapping occurs to give candidates actual seats or positions in Parliament)
  4. profit

So this begs the question: Are the MPs (or seats) in any way tied to a particular constituency? So, as a generic example, assume province A gets 20 seats and province B gets 10 seats, then party X gets allocated 10 seats and party Y gets allocated 5 seats, etc. Do the seats still have a nexus to the province? If they do, does party X get its seats from province A or province B or a mix of both? Int21h (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

All MPs are tied to a particular constituency (see this list on the Riksday website which states the constituency and seat of all MPs). 310 members are elected in multi-member constituencies, and their names appear on lists in those constituencies. The remaining 39 seats are given to parties based on their national share of the vote, although I do not know how these seats are assigned to the MPs. Number 57 20:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Wow. Thanks. I have been looking for that for a long time now. How were these mappings chosen, though? Is there some government or party official that makes these decisions? Are the prospective members put on the lists by constituency before the vote or allocation? Int21h (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, nevermind. Note to self, please read before replying. Int21h (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Also, what is the current practice for listing constituencies on Infobox officeholder templates? (Like the UK MPs.) I have never really seen it for Swedish ministers and I was wondering if there was a conscious choice there. Int21h (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, nevermind, I see they do now. Int21h (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Elections in San Marino

Could someone please intervene at {{Sammarinese elections}}. Barlafus (talk · contribs) has repeatedly (four times so far today and I am unable to revert the last removal) removed the link to Sammarinese Constitutional Assembly election, 1906, claiming that it did not happen, and has also redirected the article twice so far (although this seems to have stopped). The article is referenced to what I think can be regarded as a reliable source, although Barlafus claims it is wrong. Number 57 00:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Nobody will intervene because anyone sees you and your source are wrong. Considering that there is no Constitution in San Marino, and no Constitutional Assembly could write a document that does not exist, no election can take place for an assembly that never existed and that could not write a document that does not exist. Bye.--Barlafus (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
As we discussed, it is a distinct possibility that it was a Constituent Assembly (as the source does not seem to differentiate between the two). The fact that voting figures are available suggest that there was some form of election. This source backs up the Nohlen & Stöver book's claim that a Council (in this case referred to as the "Consiglio Principe e Sovrano") drew up a new electoral law after March. Perhaps this body was the elected one. As you have continued to attempt to redirect the article, I will file a WP:RFPP. Number 57 02:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Non-notable candidate

Non-notable candidates are not listed on US elections pages. However, Matthew Hess, a Google search about whom finds only his personal website, is constantly being re-added to Colorado gubernatorial election, 2014. Could another user intervene here? Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 11:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Do Libertarians have ballot access? –HTD 11:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Seeing other articles such as Colorado gubernatorial election, 2010, it seems that third party candidates that are in their primary's ballot are listed. If this guy gets to be included in the Libertarian primary, he'd be listed eventually somewhere, most probably at the results table for the primary; if he wins the nomination, he'd be included in the general election results table.
  • Now? His announcement has to be covered in WP:RS, but that's just delaying the inevitable if hasn't, if mere announcement of candidacy would be enough to be included in the Libertarian Party primary. If he withdraws and no WP:RS covers his announcement and withdrawal, he shouldn't get in. –HTD 11:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Article alerts

FYI there's now Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Article alerts which will track proposed renames and deletions. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Good stuff. Shame that the bot that runs User:AlexNewArtBot/ElectionsSearchResult seems to be malfunctioning at the moment, as that's a good page to keep an eye on too. Number 57 13:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Notability of elections

On what level of elections would be our minimum for notability standards? We have Police commissioner elections in the UK, same for by-elections/special elections. What would be our criteria?

Electorate size. How many is the minimum?
Level of the elected official. Virtually all elections to a national legislature are accepted. This includes by-elections. How about gubernatorial elections? Mayoral elections? City council elections? How about all levels of elections in a jurisdiction on election day?
Voter turnout. Police commissioner elections have notoriously low turnouts, yet we have articles about them.
Interest. Quite hard to gauge.

–HTD 12:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It is a difficult question. Certainly national-level elections and referendums should all be automatically considered notable. For second-level elections, there needs to be some kind of standard - certainly elections in California, Ontario, Scotland or North Rhine Westphalia are notable independently, but for second-level divisions in countries like Liechtenstein, they would not be, and instead I would say that there should be a single article covering all local elections in the country. Perhaps the dividing line could be that second-level entities in federal states (i.e. where the second-level units have lawmaking powers) are article-worthy, but those in other countries should generally be combined into single articles? I think we have far too many individual articles on local elections in UK for a start (rather than all the individual articles in Category:Ipswich Council elections, I would prefer a single article listing all the elections, year-by-year. I'm not sure we need ward level results).
With specific regards to the PCC election, I would be in favour of the status quo of a single article containing all the results in one place. I was involved in the one in my county (as a count assistant) and don't think I could justify a standalone article on it. Number 57 12:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
We have one article on Reading Borough Council police and crime commissioner election, 2012 - note that's just the results in Reading rather than the whole Thames Valley. Test case AFD? Timrollpickering (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Go for it. Just having the Reading part of the PCC results is rather absurd as they are meaningless. Reading Borough Council European Parliamentary election, 2009 is also particularly pointless as Reading is not an EU constituency. Number 57 13:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I asked this question since I'm sorta looking over on articles about local elections in the Philippines. The format of articles here are:
  • For Senate elections: A main article, a list of candidates, an article about opinion polling, an article about senators elected. The senators are elected on a national level (there's only one "district".)
  • For lower house elections: A main article, a list of candidates, an article about opinion polling, an article about representatives elected, elections on individual seats grouped per region (This is analogous to articles such as United States House of Representatives election in Alaska, 2012.), an article on the party-list election and another on opinion polling on the party-list election.
  • For provincial elections: A province may have a separate article for all local elections within its jurisdiction: elections for the governorship, vice governorship (those two are separate ballot questions), provincial council, lower house elections, and all of the mayoral (and even vice mayoral elections) for every town and city. A province has an average population of 1 million people. Not all provinces have separate articles about local elections.
  • For municipal/city elections: A city may have a separate article for all local elections within its jurisdiction: elections for the mayorship, vice mayorship (those two are separate ballot questions), city/municipal council, lower house elections (if applicable). A city should have a minimum population of 250,000; towns should have a minimum population of 25,000, but most municipal election articles have a population of just under 250,000.
There had been previous AFDs on this, and all were kept:
  • 2013
  • 2010
    These two AFDs established the precedent that all articles about lower house elections grouped per region are notable.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manila local elections, 2010
    This one established the precedent that all articles about elections in a province during election day (in this case, Manila is considered as if it is a province) are notable.
This AFD led to a delete:
–HTD 13:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Alright, as long as I have permission! The biggest difference I'm aware of is that we Americans don't really use the term "by-election". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Another issue is the notability of indirect elections, e.g. Samoan o le Ao o le Malo election, 2007 or Israeli presidential election, 1963. Even though I created one of those, I've come to the conclusion that they shouldn't be stand alone articles, and should perhaps be under a single list article. Number 57 18:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess the issue here isn't if it's directly elected by the people or indirect via the parliament and/or electoral college, but if the president has extensive powers or merely has a ceremonial role. The Singaporean president is directly elected, but he's ceremonial, like his indirectly elected counterparts in Germany and Italy, but unlike the indirectly elected presidents of the US and South Africa. –HTD 18:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I was only thinking of ceremonial presidents elected by legislatures. Number 57 18:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
TBH I dunno how to deal with those. –HTD 03:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion, although I would be nervous in reaching a conclusion that tries to match elections in one country with those in another, especially where there is active editing and creation of articles or an active national wikiProject. It seems to me there should be two tables: one for the types of election and one for the types of election article. There are

  1. stand-alone articles for a single election, listing the candidates and their votes and naming the winner: French presidential election, 2012, Eastleigh by-election, 2013;
  2. articles for an election on a single day to a legislature giving only summary results: United Kingdom general election, 2010, Lower Saxony state election, 2008;
  3. articles for a single election on a single day to a single seat in a single electoral district of some legislature Virginia's 2nd congressional district election, 2006 or the hypothetical French legislative election at Paris' 2nd constituency, 2007;
  4. articles for an election on a single day to a legislature giving results for each electoral district (in the whole country/state etc or grouped by state/county etc): Kenya National Assembly elections in Baringo, 2013, Eastbourne Council election, 2011;
  5. articles for a collection of elections, probably on a single day, to similar positions in a range of districts etc (in the whole country/state etc or grouped by state/county etc): England and Wales Police and Crime Commissioner elections, 2012, United States gubernatorial elections, 2010
  6. articles describing a time series of elections to a particular position or seat, giving detailed results over the span of years:Batley and Spen (UK Parliament constituency), the hypothetical English translation of fr:Deuxième_circonscription_de_Paris_de_1988_à_2012

I am thinking in that list of articles which give detailed figures: there are those like New York state elections, 2010 linkedin the table, which don't do so but contain political information which is often absent from the figures-dominated articles which are often those proposed for deletion. Maybe the discussion should be which types of election should have which types of article. Sussexonian (talk) 10:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


Election types table

Article is about... Notable? Notes Example AFD outcomes
Article is about national general/presidential elections
Elections of a head of state Yes French presidential election, 2012
General elections to a national legislature Yes United Kingdom general election, 2010
Article is about by-elections/special elections
Special/by-elections of a head of state Yes Polish presidential election, 2010
Special/by-elections to a national legislature Yes Mayo by-election, 2008
Special/by-elections of a first-level subdivision chief executive in a federal state — West Virginia gubernatorial special election, 2011
Special/by-elections to a first-level subdivision legislature in a federal state — ???
Special/by-elections of a first-level subdivision chief executive in a unitary state — ???
Special/by-elections to a first-level subdivision legislature in a unitary state — ???
Article is about first-level subdivision elections on one position
Elections to a national legislature of a federal state — Virginia's 2nd congressional district election, 2006
Elections to a national legislature of a unitary state — A hypothetical article about French legislative election at Paris' 2nd constituency, 2007
Elections of a chief executive in a first-level subdivision of a federal state Yes California gubernatorial election, 2006
General elections in a first-level subdivision of a federal state Yes Lower Saxony state election, 2008
Elections of a chief executive in a first-level subdivision of a unitary state Some Bangkok gubernatorial election, 2009
General elections in a first-level subdivision of a unitary state Some Scottish Parliament general election, 2007
Article is about collection of elections on many positions
Collection of elections of members of a national legislature Kenya National Assembly elections in Baringo, 2013 Kept
Collection of elections of chief executives in a first-level subdivision of a federal state United States gubernatorial elections, 2010
Collection of elections of chief executives in a first-level subdivision of a unitary state Philippine gubernatorial elections, 2010
Collection of elections in a first-level subdivision of a federal state on election day New York state elections, 2010
Collection of elections in a first-level subdivision of a unitary state on election day Cebu local elections, 2013 Kept
Collection of elections in a second-level subdivision (or lower) of a federal state on election day ???
Collection of elections in a second-level subdivision (or lower) of a unitary state on election day ???

Election tables results

There had been different ways on how results are sorted once the results are known -- via the number of seats won, and via number of votes. Which should be preferred? I realize this shouldn't (almost) be an issue to elections done via proportional representation. –HTD 19:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing seats won because that's the part that most people would call the "outcome". —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
There's some quirks here: for example, in the United Kingdom general election, 2010, the DUP (which ran in just 16 districts) are the fourth largest party in the House of Commons, while the UKIP (which ran in 572 districts), the fourth largest vote-getter, got blanked. I realize that in UK general elections results tables, it is ordered by number of votes instead of seats won.
An additional issue is on staggered elections such as Japanese House of Councillors election, 2010: the LDP won 51 vs the DPJ's 44 but DPJ still had the "lead" as it had more seats that weren't up vs the DPJ's. The infobox on that one is quite wrong too... –HTD 20:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Another question is if independents should always stay at the bottom or should be in their relevant place (seats or votes) at the table. –HTD 20:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
This is where we should be wary about "one size fits all". As noted above, in the UK votes =/= seats, and although our governments are formed by those parties which win the most seats, election boxes on Wikipedia are sorted by votes received. I don't think it's necessary to change the way UK tables are presented, even though this is the case. With quirks such as the Japanese system - and for very different reasons the Maltese and Greek systems - trying to ensure an easy solution might be difficult. Maybe a rule of thumb, if we need one, is "ordered by total votes unless easier to sort otherwise"? doktorb wordsdeeds 20:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I think the results should always be sorted by the number of votes (with the exception of independents, who should always be listed at the bottom) as this is the true measure of "popularity" rather than seats won (as FPTP systems are not representative of true popularity). Number 57 09:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate the points stated here. –HTD 11:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Nearly all systems have potential differences between votes and seats, it's not just an FPTP issue. An election is not an academic exercise to give a snapshot of the country, it is the filling of posts to do business and that should be the pre-eminent determination for listing the results. Listing by seats also avoids the problem of systems where there's more than one set of vote figures - e.g. the Additional Member System with separate seat and list votes or the Alternative Vote with primary and two party preferred results. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I think in cases where there are two sets of vote figures, the nationwide/proportional one should be used for ranking. I also do not think listing by seats is helpful to the reader (and doing so would involve some form of double ranking - first by seats and then by votes for parties with the same number of seats, which is just confusing the issue), particularly if votes are in the second column after the party names. Number 57 09:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
In most cases where there the voter has 2 votes, total seats is used in determining the order, not vote total nor seat total. See Japanese general election, 2012. Also seeing that, should be there rules on coalitions/electoral alliances? The Australians always have the Coalition, the Germans have the Union, etc. –HTD 02:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The table in the Japanese election article is awful - I really do not think that coalitions should be grouped, especially if they are only speculation (as is the case with the Japanese one at present - surely "Prospective LDP–NKP Coalition" is just OR?). The table just looks a mess to me with the votes not in order. Number 57 12:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on Japanese politics (not by a long shot) but the LDP and New Komeito have always been coalition partners (by "coalition partners" meaning they're always together in government or in opposition but from what I know, New Komeito and LDP candidates still run against each other in elections) ever since the New Komeito existed, even if the LDP has enough seats for a majority (or even a 2/3 supermajority). Neither has partnered with another party without the other, although the sample size is very small, as the LDP has lost only once (2009) ever since the New Komeito was formed. The more doubtful "coalition" is the so-called coalition led by the DPJ. –HTD 15:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

In New Zealand general elections, where votes generally do equal seats (since MMP was introduced, and subject to minimum requirements) we use two results tables - one for represented parties (plus the catch-all "Others"), and a table for those parties that failed to win representation. From election to election there is sometimes some transfer from one list to another which may require some explanatory note for gains and losses. As in the UKIP/DUP example above, there are parties with a wide geographical base failing to gain seats while other parties with less votes win representation within a smaller electorate. We take the view that the effective result of an election is representation gained while votes are the means to securing the result. While this may seem to disregard the large number of disenfranchised voters (i.e. UKIP), surely that is exactly what FPTP intends. FanRed XN | talk 12:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I would say that is a model that should be strongly discouraged. Why should the parties that didn't win seats be excluded from the results table? Number 57 12:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
They are not excluded, they're just relegated to the second division of parties that failed to gain representation. I note your comments above that suggest weight should be given to the total vote count as a measure of popularity: my point is that elections are more complex than voting in The X Factor or American Idol, and the only true measure of success is in seats gained. By any objective measure DUP beat UKIP - all UKIP won was a lesson in electoral mathematics. FanRed XN | talk 12:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
They are excluded, as they do not appear on Template:New Zealand election, 2011. What is the problem with having an extra five rows to include them? What if readers want to see all the parties at once? I think this needs to be changed. Number 57 13:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm with 57 here; unless there isn't any data for individual parties (whether if they did win seats or not), there's no reason to lump them as "Others", much less relegate them to a separate tab;e/template/both. AFAIK this also happens in Aussie elections articles. See Italian general election, 2013#Results for Chamber of Deputies for an example of an exhaustive table for all parties. –HTD 13:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
This Template says they are not. Instead of playing strawman with templates though, how about sticking to the main article which quite clearly lists both results tables, as I previously said. There is a further point to separating the successful parties from the unsuccessful - proportionality is derived from a recalculated distribution of the votes for successful parties, but in any event the information contained the UK results is much less accessible due to the confusing mix of parliamentary parties and fringe parties and single issue independents - I think it needs to be changed. The Italian example above is differently organised into coalitions or blocks, otherwise it follows my model of listing by seats won (as you'd expect from a PR system, this correlates with votes won), and as some coalitions include parties that won no seats it is not practical to separate represented parties from unrepresented parties. Do you have an example that doesn't confuse the issue? FanRed XN | talk 13:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you are bringing up strawman arguments here. My point was that the minor parties are being excluded from the main results table, which is the first thing readers see. Israeli legislative election, 2013#Results and Icelandic parliamentary election, 2013#Results are more examples of all parties being included without separate sections. Number 57 13:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure either on how you concluded that the Italian example is different to the NZ one. While they may be grouped into coalitions, all parties, including those that won less than 0.00% of the vote, are included in the table. I can be convinced by 57's argument above of including all parties that won seats in the infobox, but segregating winners and non-winners in the table of results is a hard-sell. –HTD 14:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
For an example of a template where all parties that participated are in one table, see German federal election, 2009 -- almost exact copy of NZ's election model. AFAIK, only the NZ and AU election articles are the only ones that segregate winners and non-winners into two separate templates. –HTD 14:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I didn't conclude that the Italian example was different to the NZ one - I said it "otherwise follows my model of listing by seats won" - quite the opposite of your inference. I said it differed in the organisational structure at the political level (and in its wiki article) as Italian elections are strongly focused on blocks or coalitions (albeit with a singularly strong party heading each main block) and therefore it was a poor example to illustrate your point as Berlisconi's centre-right block had six minor parties that failed to gain seats (Monti's block had one seatless party). These parties naturally were included within their respective blocks, and as unrepresented parties were included here no case could be made for otherwise listing the other 30 parties. So, the only justification for including them (at least in terms of this discussion) is that the blocks include some parties that failed to gain representation - and that makes for a confused argument. The strawman inference was to the misrepresenting of the inclusion of all parties in the selection of the template when the section New Zealand general election, 2011#Results contains more than a brute calculation of "Other". The reference to "Aussie elections" throws up another contentious point - Australian federal election, 2010#Results does lump the four Independents together, as well as not bothering to clarify "Other" - this is clearly not what is happening in the New Zealand election article. In the US Presidential election of 2000 the extra 540,000 votes that Gore won over Bush didn't mean he got listed first in the results - all that mattered was the five extra electoral college voted Bush won. Different electoral systems require different models to explain them; New Zealand's general election pages here do not show electorate (constituency/division/district) votes as they are irrelevant to the scope of the article apart from the numbers of seats each party brings to be deducted from the total of each party's parliamentary strength as calculated according to the the Sainte-Laguë method. And as minor, unrepresented parties do not figure in the Sainte-Laguë PR calculations they are of minor interest and rightly separated from the list of parties that do have their voted reapportioned as seats. Finally, one cannot seriously suggest that the UK election tables make for easy reading.FanRed XN | talk 15:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Point of order: Can we discuss issues one-by-one? Your original issue was on whether there should be two templates (or tables). Almost all election articles have one results table (for every "election") whether or not a party wins or not. NZL doesn't. Other issues, such as the older ones on how to order parties in results tables (By vote total or by seats won?), lumping of minor parties into "Other" and even independents have not yet been resolved. –HTD 15:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
My "original issue" was to the ordering of results tables, and in answer to your original question as to whether to do this by votes or seats, and your speculation as to whether this was an issue in PR systems. You followed up with the anomaly of the thinly spread UKIP vote versus the regional DUP vote, then you added in a Japanese example and when I mentioned the way NZ election results are tabulated (mentioned, not suggested it as appropriate for all wiki-projects) your counter to that was to throw an Italian election into the discussion, and Number 57 added Israel and Iceland to the mix (was there a sale on elections in states beginning with I - buy two and get one free? ... and what happened to Indian general election, 2009). You also threw in to the soup mix the Australian and German federal elections. Yet when I address points you and Number 57 have raised somehow it is I that needs to address issues "one-by-one". There, by attempting to define the terms of this conversation you've managed to sidetrack it even further. Apart from a facetious repetition of Number 57's comment, "I think this needs to be changed", I have not advocated changing anything on any other wiki project - much less splitting results tables into winners and losers so please stop misrepresenting my position. Like any other other wiki project, the NZ politics series is achieved by compromise and consensus and when tables were reorganised (starting in 2005) minor parties were sidelined, as this was not as inclusive as should be I created (around the 2008 election) the minor parties template as a compromise. While you may not like it for conflicting with a "one size fits all" worldview it is actually fit for the purpose of quantifying New Zealand elections - not UK, Japanese, Australian, Italian, Icelandic, American or Indian elections. And further, it was a side issue to the main point of whether we list by seats or votes, so if you want to keep the discussion on track then please do so. FanRed XN | talk 01:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer, and I apologize for what you had perceived as sidetracking of the discussion. As you've said, the original discussion had plenty of issues and they haven't been resolved yet. With that said, on what aspect would you want to discuss first?
As for ordering by vote totals or by seats won, I have no opinion on it, hence I started a discussion on how to deal with it. –HTD 03:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
As for how NZ election results are to be presented, the official count results don't segregate winners from the losers. Can you present WP:RS that present the results in a segregated manner? –HTD 05:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually they do segregate them. The official results list parties achieving representation, then those that won no seat follow on.
United Future, 13,443 votes 0.60%, 1 electorate seat, 0 list seats, 1 seat total
Conservative Party, 59,237 votes, 2.65%, 0 electorate seats, 0 list seats, 0 seats total
Two lists, occupying the same table ... not much different than two tables with a minimal white space between.FanRed XN | talk 08:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Eh... I can't believe this LOL.
What has gotten into you? On a tabled list, a table and a list is coterminous. Every table has exactly one list; a list is within one table... you can split a list into two tables (like what's done on NZ election results tables), you can make two lists and two tables (like for example, a separate election results table for every electoral system used to elect members in one body), but you can't make two lists in one table. It doesn't happen. "Two lists on one table" is nonsensical. I've seen justifications on arguments but this takes the cake. That's akin to saying there are "two lists" in 2012 New Zealand rugby league season#Season standings: one for teams that have wins, and one for those which doesn't (lol poor Northern Swords). –HTD 09:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
What's there to understand? Your attempt to use the official results to prove your point didn't work since all it did was illustrate my point instead of yours ... so you start talking about rugby league? AFAIK rugby league competitions aren't decided by popular vote so I'm not in the least interested in in wandering off topic and onto the sports field. The (electoral, not footie) example you provided clearly shows two lists in the one table - largest to smallest parties with representation, then largest to smallest parties without representation. The two tallies I provided above show clearly that the Conservatives gained more than the lowest polling party to win a seat (they actually polled more than each of the four smallest represented parties). So we have a separation of the unrepresented parties (by virtue of their higher vote not being included higher in the list), and we have listing by seats gained instead of just by votes gained. This answers both main points in this conversation, and to my favour. It does not particularly matter that the data is coterminous - there is a defined boundary, and all the NZ elections pages do is make it clearer. In any event, attempting to use the official govt electoral site as the last word on the matter is fraught with other dangers. I'm sure you would be interested to know that the same official results site lists electorate results alphabetically by candidate surname, then party vote where there is no candidate (Auckland Central official results 2011) while we organise our NZ electorate election result tables by descending vote for candidates then for parties (wiki article - Auckland Central, 2011 election). By your rationale since we do not follow the official site we are doing it wrong, just as by not doing in the manner you prescribe we are also doing it wrong. What is fairly obvious is that the official electorate result is an approximation of a voting form, and when we want to create a wiki article from said data we need to wikify it into a form that fits our purpose. So what's it to be? Unlike Schrödinger's Cat I cannot both be right and wrong for both ordering electorate tables by votes, and for not following the official site's format - you seem to want both. Similarly your criticism of my separating two lists where you think there should be one, and your insistence that "you can't make two lists in one table" - again, what's it to be?. Finally, tables are a construct - nothing more, and there is no logical, practical or biological reason why they cannot contain whatever lists one chooses. Should I expect you'll next be telling me a tower block cannot have parking in the basement, shops at street level, offic for ten floors and apartments above? (you get the analogy ... table=tower block, etc.) Or will you just open with another personal attack along the lines of "What has gotten into you"? FanRed XN | talk 10:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

open list constituency<->seat mapping redux

(See my question above. I am trying to wrap my head around this and I just chose Sweden to do research on.) So am I to understand, in Sweden, open lists are constituency specific? IOW each constituency has list cartels with candidates that are different from other constituency lists? OK, assuming yes, problem: Assume the country has 2 constituencies, constituency A has 1000 voters and constituency B has 50000 voters, and party Z gets X seats out of 100 seats nationwide.

How is it chosen which constituency gets which how many seats (so as to determine which candidates in that constituency actually get elected)? Is the seat allocation done on a constituency basis, as in party Z will get X% of seats per constituency (instead of just saying they get X of the national 100 seats)? Or is there some other mapping system that allows them to put all X seats in constituency A? Int21h (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

To the first half of your set of questions, the answer is yes.
And yes, parties win seats in specific constituency. What happens in constituency A is irrelevant to the seat allocation in constituency B, which is solely based on the vote count in that constituency. It's only for the equalising seats that national figures are used. Number 57 12:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
OK. I think I got it. The article jumps between constituency and national tallies (and breaks the flow to describe the constituencies) unclearly. Almost everything is described nationally, even though it is implemented at a constituency level. Int21h (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

"Next [X] election" articles

Is there a rule of thumb on how WP:CRYSTALish to be about future elections? Especially in parliamentary systems with no fixed terms, and even more particularly where the jurisdiction concerned has a mixed track record of their legislatures sitting for the maximum possible duration or not. I've looked at a couple, and am yet to find any on-topic content, or indeed a single cited source. There doesn't seem to be so many that there's any obvious sign of presumption of their being a "next election" article for every such country regardless. Any guidance anyone can offer? 84.203.34.166 (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

CRYSTAL suggests that "if preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." But "articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate." 117Avenue (talk) 06:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
My strong impression is that articles like Next Sarawak state election fail this test by some distance. I've nominated this one for deletion, as a starting point. Or rather, I would have, had I not forgotten that AFDing requiring page-creation privs, so can't be done as an anon edit. I'm sure comment over at that talk page is welcome in the meantime. 84.203.39.131 (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

To do

I've created a couple of projectspace pages to help identify what needs to be done on election and referendum articles:

The first is something I've been working on with Antemister for some time, but I thought it would be good to get wider input. The second was something I thought of today when I realised that the election results in the articles on the most recent two elections in Paraguay were the provision ones.

Hope this is helpful and that we can make some progress on improving the articles/templates. Cheer, Number 57 22:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Gains and holds following boundary changes

Hi, I would welcome an opinion at Talk:Oxfordshire County Council election, 2013#Gains and holds. Thanks. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Party shares in multi-wards and multiple independents

Please see Talk:Isle of Anglesey County Council election, 2013#General comments for one of the trickier cases. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Consensus on pre-election opinion polls

Can anyone here guide me to some central discussion that formed a consensus regarding inclusion of opinion poll data for elections that have not yet taken place? My concerns are principally those of WP:NOTNEWS and a more generic appreciation that polls, and polls of polls, can be wayward even though the psephologists love them and the candidates do if the results are in their favour. More specifically, if a poll appears to be conducted by an independent body but that body acknowledges it had "technical assistance" from someone who is a recognised psephologist but who has turned to an active political role, what the heck do we do? Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Turkish elections template

The template Template:Turkish elections seems to have been spun off into another template, Template:Turkish presidential elections. The user Number 57 claims that this is "convention," since pre-2007 constitutional amendment to the Turkish Constitution, Presidents of Turkey were elected by the legislature instead of the public. However, in a similar case, the template Template:United States Senate elections DOES list American senatorial elections before the 17th amendment, which also switched elections of senators from legislatures to the public.

I find no reason to unnecessarily diverge election templates unless they are very massive, which Template:Turkish elections is not. Articles exist for pre-2007 presidential elections by the legislature, and diverging the elections template almost eliminates their visibility.

Instead of spinning off the presidential elections, I propose that the original Template:Turkish elections be edited to include both, in a separate fashion, like this: Old revision of Template:Turkish elections

Ithinkicahn (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to give a bit of (conveniently omitted) background, other countries with indirect presidential elections have separate templates – {{German presidential elections}}, {{Israeli presidential elections}}, {{Pakistani presidential elections}}, {{Albanian presidential elections}}, {{Italian presidential elections}}), {{Moldovan presidential elections}} – so the US Senate template comparison is not particularly relevant. If anything the US Senate comparison supports the existence of separate templates for the Presidency because it is a template for a single institution, and some of the templates above (e.g. the German and Moldovan ones) do separate the indirect and direct elections.
However, the question of whether this convention should continue is a relevant question. If the decision is to include, I would rather they appeared on a single line (like this) rather than splitting the template. Number 57 18:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Them appearing on a single line is fine by me, but you wanted to disclude them for being indirect elections, so why not delineate them? Ithinkicahn (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Mistakes in USA gubernatorial election results.

Please see the write up at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-04-18/In the news and the comment at the bottom (transcluded talk page). -- Jeandré, 2011-04-19t13:37z


Sources for opinion-poll tables

There is a discussion in progress at Talk:United States Senate election in Nebraska, 2014 concerning the formatting of opinion-poll tables. The issue is whether a link to a source should be in the form of an external link, piped through the polling organization's name; or whether it should be presented as a formatted citation. The difference between the two formats can be seen in this diff

I'd suggest that formatted citations are more appropriate, per WP:ELPOINTS, which deprecates ELs in most situations, and whose short list of exceptions doesn't appear to apply here; and because ELs are subject to linkrot, and don't allow the reader to evaluate the source without actually following the link. Another editor maintains that ELs are not only permissible but desirable, as in keeping with the usual practice in articles about elections, and in view of this has reverted my addition of formatted footnotes.

Could we get some opinions from members of this WikiProject? Thanks. Ammodramus (talk) 03:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to remove flagicons from {{Infobox election}} this series templates

WP:MOSICON outlines a number of reason why these flags are not required along with the following reasons

  1. They requires knowledge of 160+ flags (not including sub national flags if they are used)
  2. They requires the ability to distinguish between similar flags at 25px
  3. These templates are rarely if ever on pages where the country hasn't been mentioned a dozen time before fixed sentence fragment
  4. MOSICON only makes an argument for "visual cue" in long lists which these aren't. The country name is a few pixels away from the flag and words are clearer (WP:WORDPRECEDENT)

Gnevin (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Assuming you actually meant this series of templates, not the infobox (as this is what the other discussion was about) WP:MOSICON actually outlines why these flags are useful (see #4 below). To rebut your points one-by-one
  1. It does not require knowledge of 160+ flags unless you are viewing them all on the same page (which never happens as AFAIK Wikipedia cannot cope with more than 100 on one page). As far as I am aware, there are never more than three of these on one page, and they are always about related countries or entities. One could argue that it actually teaches readers who are not familiar with flags, as they are made aware of the flags for the entities in question.
  2. Doesn't seem to be a problem anywhere else on Wikipedia where flagicons are used (a lot of places), so why here?
  3. This sentence makes no sense
  4. Simply untrue. The introduction to the guideline states (bold for emphasis) "The use of icons in Wikipedia encyclopedic project content, mainly lists, tables, infoboxes and navboxes can provide useful visual cues"
Flagicons have been used on these templates since 2006 or 2007 to aid readers and are not causing a problem with regards to clutter etc. I really don't understand why a few editors have such a zealous crusade against them. Number 57 17:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  1. It is WP:NOT our mission to "teach.. readers who are not familiar with flags."
  2. WP:OSE is not an argument to keep.
  3. I think Gnevin was saying that there are seldom more than one of these on the same page. Thus they do not form a list, thus there is no navigational utility.
  4. These are not a list.
I regularly remove typos and malformed code which have been there for years; being in place for a while is not a reason to keep errors. It's apparent that you don't understand why most of the project isn't as keen on the tiny flags as you are. You could do worse than read the MoS to start you off. --John (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  1. Perhaps I worded it badly, but the point was that Wikipedia is here to provide information. Flags are a form of information.
  2. You are correct that WP:OSE is not an argument to keep, but that's not relevant to my point. Gnevin claimed the flags were too small to be useful, but this is the the flagicon standard size, a size that has clearly been set as it is deemed to be useful.
  3. There are at least 150 articles with more than one template on to my knowledge.
  4. I didn't say they were a list, I pointed out that the MOS (which I have read) says the flags can be useful on navboxes (I highlighted it in bold above if you missed it).
These are not errors, so I'm not sure why the comparison is being made. Number 57 20:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

In short;

  1. We are not asking people to learn 150+ flags. Wikipedia shows users what those flags are, and the title of the box should guide users to the flag's identity in any case.
  2. The MoS says flags can have uses in many contexts, and as said above, "Wikipedia is here to provide information. Flags are a form of information."
  3. Having had flags in that position for so long without comment or complaint, I can't help but thinking that we're just getting into faffing around for the sake of it

In shorter: keep the flags

doktorb wordsdeeds 20:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You are expecting people to recognise a nations flag , there are over 160 nations thus for a recognition argument to be valid people need to learn these flags in order to recognise.You say the title is pixels away , this is true so why are be repeating ourselves ?
Wiki is not here to teach via backdoor mean , if so we'd have hieroglyphs and semaphore instead of words and letters
There has been plenty of comment and complaint over the life time of these template Gnevin (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
The whole point of a visual cue is to duplicate text, as some people identify pictures more easily than words. Number 57 21:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Do they? Is it only written representations of countries they have problems with or should we duplicate all the information we carry in pictographic form? --John (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I won't be sad if the flags are gone; they're redundant as the name of the country/state/whatever is already on top of it, plus it wastes an entire row all by itself. If we can find another use for these flags they can be saved. –HTD 20:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums/Archive_7&oldid=1079931386"