This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2014 Indian general election article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " In the news" column on May 17, 2014. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
India,
Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report 4 times. The weeks in which this happened:
|
Actually there are two mistakes in the map which was uploaded through wiki commons which I have spotted. The Kakinada Loksabha seat (Number 23 in the map located in Andhra Pradesh region) is won by TDP candidate Mr. Thota Narasimham by a thin majority of arround 3000 votes; but it was shown as YSRCP won seat. Another one is that of Narsapur/Narsapuram Loksabha seat (Number 36 in the map located in Andhra Pradesh region) which was contest and won by BJP candidate named Mr. Gokaraju Gangaraju. But it was shown as TDP won seat. Please refer to http://ibnlive.in.com/general-elections-2014/india-election/ for better comprehension. Bsskchaitanya ( talk) 12:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I suggest we add AAP (Arvind Kejriwal) to the info box alongwith Narendra Modi and Rahul Gandhi, as AAP seems to be a contender to both of them.
Suggested format : <!-- AAP --> | image1 = [[File:ArvindKejriwal2.jpg|150x150px]] | leader1 = [[Arvind Kejriwal]] | party1 = [[Aam Aadmi Party]] |alliance1 = | leader_since1 = 2013 | last_election1 = | seats1 = | seat_change1 = | popular_vote1 = | percentage1 = | swing1 = What do you all feel? Notthebestusername ( talk) 04:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The AAP is contesting 424 seats all over India (more than INC and BJP as per NY Times)
The Guardian, TOI and Time magazine have already started to show him and AAP in this light.
Notthebestusername ( talk) 06:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Notthebestusername ( talk) 06:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
But yes, your opinions are well noted. Let us see if there are any other points of view from others. Notthebestusername ( talk) 07:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
After Delhi elections, I agree that AAP has emerged as a state party. But currently there are 47 state parties along with 6 national parties. If we put all in the infobox, it will clutter the space, then we may need to have one separate article for that. The infobox has been prepared keeping in mind the last 10-15 year general elections. Earlier third front was also there in the infobox, but as there is uncertainty over third front (it may be formed after elections), it has been removed. Regarding inclusion of third-front/AAP/other national parties, lets wait till the elections, and based on their performances in the elections, these can be included in the infobox. There has been a discussion on this several times. So have a look on that. If you disagree, then you can put your point. And regarding Time magazine and opinion polls, they have been proved wrong several times earlier and they can't be taken as authorized sources as their sample size is very limited. They predict the trend, but actual reality can be entirely different. Logical1004 ( talk) 08:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
@ Notthebestusername: Is Time 100 polls are a Opinion poll (as you say)? By this logic, Barack Obama and Shinzō Abe should be in Infobox. I agree with Bill william compton's fact that if you have proper resources you can easily influence outcomes of any on-line poll. Prateek Malviya• ✉• ✎ 10:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
@Notthebestusername Time magazine online poll is international opinion, (were same person can vote many times also)People from more than 100 countries around the world will vote in it, who cannot vote in Indian election. It doesn't represent the opinion of only Indians,while In Indian elections only citizens of India can vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.242.237 ( talk) 07:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest that a {{ Cleanup}} process be initiated so as to improve the article [1]-
In my view the following are some of the talking points/events/developments during the campaign so far and these should find mention in the article to make it better and complete. These are not in any particular order.
Shyamsunder ( talk) 00:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedians, Results are yet to be declared on May 16. What preparation should we do? as there will be massive amount of work on day of result and days following result. For Example:
sigh] So will we manage these massive work? I suggest to create special taskforce to deal with it where we can divide works, track progress and save lot of time and efforts. Who will manage this? What do you think?
Regards Nizil ( talk) 20:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Aren't Assam in the Indian general election, 2014 instead of Indian general election, 2014 (Assam) and Haryana in the Indian general election, 2014 instead of Indian general election, 2014 (Haryana), for example, more appropriate formats for articles like that? Shouldn't it be [state] in [main event] instead of [main event] ([state])? Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 17:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Indian general election, 2014 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please include state wise and if possible constituency wise poll percentage. You can get information various election comminssion office. If it is difficult for you I can do it. Iloveindia444 ( talk) 22:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Indian general election, 2014 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the sentence "Following an electoral win from the 2013 Delhi election, the Aam Aadmi Party will be contesting from contested from 424 constituencies in India" to "Following an electoral win from the 2013 Delhi election, the Aam Aadmi Party is contesting from 424 constituencies in India" because the current sentence is incorrectly constructed and does not make any sense. Suomoto ( talk) 09:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Done well almost - I don't think we need either of the "from"s in your suggestion, I changed the first one to "in" and omitted the one before "424". Arjayay ( talk) 09:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Before the results come out, we need to agree on how we will present them. I noticed that in the past months there has been a tendency to want to describe the election as a contest primarily as a straight contest between NDA and UPA (as seen, for example, in the infobox debate). This is of course true in a sense, it's highly probable that the next Prime Minister would come from either of the two main camps. We could present (a somewhat arbitrary) count of number of MPs that are identified with either of the 2 main blocs. But in terms of vote % and total number of votes, we cannot categorize them by NDA/UPA/Others, as alliances and seat-sharing differs from state to state. Some examples:
So, in my opinion, the conclusion is that total number of vote, national % percentage and comparison 2009/2014 should be done on basis of party rather than coalition. -- Soman ( talk) 21:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
We should try to use more templates to use in state pages and more reusable format. Rasulnrasul ( talk) 10:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I created a draft here File:Lok sabha map square draft.png, as an alternative Lok Sabha results map. In the other election maps, there is such a huge difference between the size of constituencies, and the urban constituencies just don't show whilst Ladakh and Arunachal are huge. This is just a first draft, maybe somehow with better sense of geography/design would be interested in find a more precise way of aligning the different states and territories. -- Soman ( talk) 23:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Its an addition but not repacement, please use it. Also i would like to know how did you make, i would make similar to use it for
/info/en/?search=Indian_general_election,_2014_(Andhra_Pradesh)
Rasulnrasul (
talk)
13:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Nice idea, Soman. Lets use it too. - Nizil ( talk) 22:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Indian general election, 2014 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Section "4.1.1 Alliance" is empty and should be deleted. It has no sub-sections either. Keerikkadan91 ( talk) 08:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
NDA=279, BJP=235 UPA=103, Congress = 79 Please correct the figures. And why is it separate? Why not in the same table as all other exit polls? Its also an exit poll — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.60.28.196 ( talk) 17:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Done Well I correct figures and move to Exit polls table. Prateek Malviya• ✉• ✎ 06:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Indian general election, 2014 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the celebrity section Actors named Dipankar Deb (TMC), Satabdi Roy(TMC), Tapas Pal(TMC) will be added. 112.79.36.29 ( talk) 19:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello! As the article is nominated at WP:ITNC, we would have to get it clear of major tags. Please help in cleaning all sections. Major orange tag on top is of copy-editing. Also note that at the ITNC, many more comments will come. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 04:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
The results are presented at http://eciresults.nic.in , which is authorative and more reliable than some of the unofficial counting sites. So far no candidate is declared winner, but as they start to appear at 'won', please procede and update articles, with Wikipedia:Indian_general_election,_2014_progress_report as check-list. -- Soman ( talk) 06:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Indian general election, 2014 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Lok Sabha Election Prediction
As per the Predition of Johnson, gowthami leading experts from Tamil nadu , BJP is going to Lead the way by winnning 284 seats and ADMK winning all seats in Tamil Nadu 203.99.193.81 ( talk) 07:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Indian general election, 2014 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
182.19.67.34 ( talk) 12:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
For good reasons, this page is not editable till May 18th. The article refers to a quote from Rahul Gandhi's speech and states that the speech was delievered in Chandigarh and provides a reference to a Washington Post page. However, the Washington Post page clearly mentions the place of the quoted speech to be "Chhattisgarh". Please make the correction if you are reading it and the page is editable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.207.34 ( talk) 05:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Can anyone fix what went wrong here [2]? Not sure how the mark-up error occured. -- Soman ( talk) 13:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Now that we have the results, and we've been able to settle that Kejriwal won't be the next PM, can we expand the infobox per the actual results? The 2 largest parties got 50.1% of the popular vote, it would be a bit weird not to make mention of the other parties. -- Soman ( talk) 13:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
NDA votes percentage is wrong shown as 31% which is of BJP, can you please correct it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.141.215 ( talk) 15:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
In accordance with WP:SUMMARY, I pruned the reactions section to only state who proffered congratulations. Please note that I'm not proposing to remove these outright but would not object if someone did. Although some may feel it is relevant, my concern is that our job is to write encyclopaedic content and not document and quote sound bytes and hollow rhetoric from heads of governments and other self-important politicians and from civil servants who are only following diplomatic protocol of niceties. Such congratulation are routine, which makes them rather humdrum and non-notable. Globally reported by the media, but WP is not the news either. -- Ohc ¡digame! 16:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
By mentioning the political watershed, you seem to be implying that those reactions have some special meaning or are otherwise radically different from comments from world leaders for other elections. BUT THEY ARE NOT! I really fail to see the relevance or importance of having repetitious comments from assorted international leaders that you see again and again in news coverage for most elections. -- Ohc ¡digame! 04:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Please note that I never simply said I didn't like the contents of the Reactions section as you would have it. I advanced substantive policy-based reasons why they should not be there, but I also noted the counter-arguments advanced were not clearly elaborated or not supported by policy. It upsets me that you seem to be either unwilling or unable to put forward cogent arguments of your own, but are merely using the WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument against me.
You (collectively) say that the outcome of the election is important, and I said I don't disagree. There are plenty of sources to also make the analysis which can be used to good effect, and yet you insist on keeping the diplomatic niceties and make this look like just any other election article – which I am certain isn't your intention. You say that the Bangladeshi reaction is kind and has been remarked upon positively, and I don't disagree. But why simply quote Hasina's kind reaction and omit the more significant comments and appreciation of observers of the "gentlemanliness"? Please understand that I am trying to help by redirecting the focus of the article. I want you to make this into a special article that I know it deserves to be. As said, this can be by including significant and noteworthy facts and analyses. Don't boilerplate the article on other election articles. The bland repeated rhetoric and standardised congratulation and invitations that are there are unworthy and even demeaning of such a special event; they takes all the sparkle out of it. -- Ohc ¡digame! 08:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Please note that UPA has won 60 seats, not 59. See this article of Wikipedia- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_Indian_general_election,_2014#Lok_Sabha_Seats , the work done on this article is accurate. There should be consistency between both the pages
Avinds ( talk) 06:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)Avin
At the current stage, the result is only given in terms of number of seats and number of votes in national level. We'd need to give the results by party as well, to describe the outcome. For me, it would make sense to join the outcome with the candidate/campaign passages, but not sure if that would requite reorder the chronology of the article. Would it be weird if we partially mentioned some aspects of the outcome of the results in the 'Parties and Alliances' section, whilst having the full list in the end as well? I'd also say that we could reduce the quotefarming even further. -- Soman ( talk) 18:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the vote share pie diagram from the article as it doesn't really hold much importance. What matters is that how many votes a party got but how many seats it finally got. Such statistics are popularly used and they can stay on Results of the Indian general election, 2014 but not here when we have to write the results only in brief. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 09:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I do not understand the reason for editors to remove it. The previous lok Sabha election, there is a paragraph which states the fact and no one edited it for the last 5 years. Why have inferiority complex and hide the truth?
/info/en/?search=Indian_general_election,_2009#MPs_with_pending_criminal_charges
manchurian candidate 06:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
First of all, this is the talk-page of a Wikipedia article, and not a forum for discussing what does and what does not make a criminal, or whether or not the elected politicians are criminals. Secondly, the section in question uses the phrase "winners with criminal cases", and not just "criminals". Nowhere is it being stated that just by having criminal case(s), a person becomes a criminal. The content of that section is not anyone's personal point of view, original research, or anything else that must not come in a Wikipedia article. It is all a collection of true and important facts that are relevant for the topic of the article, and all the facts are supported by valid references:
The inclusion of the said section in the article is not violating WP:Neutral point of view (including WP:Due) guidelines. The section is not pointing out the criminal and financial details of only one politician, political party or political front. It is pointing out the details of several parties (the ones that have the largest numbers), including both Bharatiya Janata Party and Indian National Congress, the two largest and opposing parties. In fact, not including (or deleting) such important (and reference-backed) information in the article may be a violation of WP:Neutral point of view (NPoV) guidelines. Those trying to hide such information may be wanting to hide the criminal aspect of Indian politics, mentioned political parties, etc. The section also does not violate WP:Biographies of living persons (BLP) guidelines. No living persons are mentioned in that section. Even if they were, it would not be a violation as long as the information was true, relevant for the article and backed up by valid references. Finally, the section is not WP:Tendentious editing (TE). (But repeatedly deleting the section might be tendentious editing.) The section also conforms to WP:Notscandal and other WP:What Wikipedia is not guidelines. Please stop false, baseless and foolish accusations like these. If you bring them up, then you are the one violating Wikipedia guidelines. By the way, the language, typing and presentation styles of some of the above users suggest that they are all the same user who is resorting to WP:Sockpuppetry. -- Sarthak Sharma ( talk) 22:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Substantively, this seems to be another case of people conflating the different roles played by the press (including tabloids) and reference works such as Britannica and WP. I did not say inclusion of the criminal cases text would be in violation of BLP, but it certainly seems to violation WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NPOV. Contrary to what Intelligentguy89 seems to be arguing, there may be stronger grounds for including mentions of legally proven criminals, but the relevance still needs to be demonstrated that it has been a factor during the election and not by some ex-post summary analysis of the results, and I don't see that being the case. It is certainly undue and in my view could also constitute synthesis. Relying on press articles containing flimsy raw data on unproven crimes to try and demonstrate any increasing trend to criminality in the house, and the apparent relative probities of the different parties, is what newspapers do all to often to sensationalise and sell more copy. The worst is the article from TOI, whose heading quite blatantly misleadingly states "Every third newly-elected MP has criminal background" – having a criminal case pending does not constitute a "criminal background". We cannot dismiss that the paper, with such prominent bias, may be driven by some political agenda. -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
The issues raised by User:Ohconfucius and User:Iryna Harpy remain unanswered. The latest version of "Criminal and financial details of the election winners" section should be deleted. Here are some additional reasons:
Therefore, I too support this section be deleted. If any persuasive reasons are found to include it in this or any other wikipedia article, the discussion should be properly expanded to make it WP:NPOV, with content sourced from reliable peer reviewed sources. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 03:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Intelligentguy89, I would suggest you read WP:EDIT WAR and explain how you are justified in accusing me of edit warring given that I've only actually edited the article in question once, whereas you have now been engaged in edit warring there for two consecutive days. I would also ask that you remove your edit warring notification from my talk page before an AN/I is opened against you again. Gaming the system by demanding that the same content be discussed from scratch on each related article is tendentious editing. You cannot claim that you were unaware of the fact that the discussion was taking place here because, frankly, the time stamps for your input regarding the issue on this talk page belie any claims to ignorance. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 04:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa ( talk) 17:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
'Infobox election' template is too wide for small screens. I've started a discussion on the template's talkpage at Template talk:Infobox election#Template too wide for small screens. Jonpatterns ( talk) 18:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I deleted the part of S Gurumurthy as this person is not a leader of mentioned political party and did not try to contest from this particular seat. It was another person and this was a goof up by the Indian media due to similar names. [1] The Nilgiris seat is reserved for SC candidate as per the Election Commission of India [2] while S Gurumurthy is not from the Scheduled Caste. Aditya8993 ( talk) 17:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Indian general election, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Indian general election, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Indian general election, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Indian general election, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Indian general election, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 16 external links on Indian general election, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Indian general election, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2014-01-27/india/46683685_1_2002-gujarat-riots-rahul-gandhi-sikh-riotsWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I think the "leader Since" tag is very ambiguous and needs to be removed. May be we can change it to "Entry into Politics" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dheerajmpai23 ( talk • contribs) 22:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
What is the percentage of total voters voted all over the country Sriram bharathwaj ( talk) 14:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
66.20 Sriram bharathwaj ( talk) 14:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The section 2014_Indian_general_election#Voting_pattern refers several times to "assembly segment". And I see that constituencies in different states have different numbers of segments: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/count-vvpat-slips-of-5-booths-in-each-assembly-seat-sc/articleshow/68786810.cms Is an assembly segment a geographic region? of a certain number of voters or area? Numbersinstitute ( talk) 01:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
The redirect 2014 Lok Sabha Elections has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 26 § 2014 Lok Sabha Elections until a consensus is reached. Exclusive Editor Notify Me! 14:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2014 Indian general election article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " In the news" column on May 17, 2014. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
India,
Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report 4 times. The weeks in which this happened:
|
Actually there are two mistakes in the map which was uploaded through wiki commons which I have spotted. The Kakinada Loksabha seat (Number 23 in the map located in Andhra Pradesh region) is won by TDP candidate Mr. Thota Narasimham by a thin majority of arround 3000 votes; but it was shown as YSRCP won seat. Another one is that of Narsapur/Narsapuram Loksabha seat (Number 36 in the map located in Andhra Pradesh region) which was contest and won by BJP candidate named Mr. Gokaraju Gangaraju. But it was shown as TDP won seat. Please refer to http://ibnlive.in.com/general-elections-2014/india-election/ for better comprehension. Bsskchaitanya ( talk) 12:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I suggest we add AAP (Arvind Kejriwal) to the info box alongwith Narendra Modi and Rahul Gandhi, as AAP seems to be a contender to both of them.
Suggested format : <!-- AAP --> | image1 = [[File:ArvindKejriwal2.jpg|150x150px]] | leader1 = [[Arvind Kejriwal]] | party1 = [[Aam Aadmi Party]] |alliance1 = | leader_since1 = 2013 | last_election1 = | seats1 = | seat_change1 = | popular_vote1 = | percentage1 = | swing1 = What do you all feel? Notthebestusername ( talk) 04:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The AAP is contesting 424 seats all over India (more than INC and BJP as per NY Times)
The Guardian, TOI and Time magazine have already started to show him and AAP in this light.
Notthebestusername ( talk) 06:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Notthebestusername ( talk) 06:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
But yes, your opinions are well noted. Let us see if there are any other points of view from others. Notthebestusername ( talk) 07:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
After Delhi elections, I agree that AAP has emerged as a state party. But currently there are 47 state parties along with 6 national parties. If we put all in the infobox, it will clutter the space, then we may need to have one separate article for that. The infobox has been prepared keeping in mind the last 10-15 year general elections. Earlier third front was also there in the infobox, but as there is uncertainty over third front (it may be formed after elections), it has been removed. Regarding inclusion of third-front/AAP/other national parties, lets wait till the elections, and based on their performances in the elections, these can be included in the infobox. There has been a discussion on this several times. So have a look on that. If you disagree, then you can put your point. And regarding Time magazine and opinion polls, they have been proved wrong several times earlier and they can't be taken as authorized sources as their sample size is very limited. They predict the trend, but actual reality can be entirely different. Logical1004 ( talk) 08:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
@ Notthebestusername: Is Time 100 polls are a Opinion poll (as you say)? By this logic, Barack Obama and Shinzō Abe should be in Infobox. I agree with Bill william compton's fact that if you have proper resources you can easily influence outcomes of any on-line poll. Prateek Malviya• ✉• ✎ 10:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
@Notthebestusername Time magazine online poll is international opinion, (were same person can vote many times also)People from more than 100 countries around the world will vote in it, who cannot vote in Indian election. It doesn't represent the opinion of only Indians,while In Indian elections only citizens of India can vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.242.237 ( talk) 07:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest that a {{ Cleanup}} process be initiated so as to improve the article [1]-
In my view the following are some of the talking points/events/developments during the campaign so far and these should find mention in the article to make it better and complete. These are not in any particular order.
Shyamsunder ( talk) 00:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedians, Results are yet to be declared on May 16. What preparation should we do? as there will be massive amount of work on day of result and days following result. For Example:
sigh] So will we manage these massive work? I suggest to create special taskforce to deal with it where we can divide works, track progress and save lot of time and efforts. Who will manage this? What do you think?
Regards Nizil ( talk) 20:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Aren't Assam in the Indian general election, 2014 instead of Indian general election, 2014 (Assam) and Haryana in the Indian general election, 2014 instead of Indian general election, 2014 (Haryana), for example, more appropriate formats for articles like that? Shouldn't it be [state] in [main event] instead of [main event] ([state])? Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 17:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Indian general election, 2014 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please include state wise and if possible constituency wise poll percentage. You can get information various election comminssion office. If it is difficult for you I can do it. Iloveindia444 ( talk) 22:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Indian general election, 2014 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the sentence "Following an electoral win from the 2013 Delhi election, the Aam Aadmi Party will be contesting from contested from 424 constituencies in India" to "Following an electoral win from the 2013 Delhi election, the Aam Aadmi Party is contesting from 424 constituencies in India" because the current sentence is incorrectly constructed and does not make any sense. Suomoto ( talk) 09:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Done well almost - I don't think we need either of the "from"s in your suggestion, I changed the first one to "in" and omitted the one before "424". Arjayay ( talk) 09:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Before the results come out, we need to agree on how we will present them. I noticed that in the past months there has been a tendency to want to describe the election as a contest primarily as a straight contest between NDA and UPA (as seen, for example, in the infobox debate). This is of course true in a sense, it's highly probable that the next Prime Minister would come from either of the two main camps. We could present (a somewhat arbitrary) count of number of MPs that are identified with either of the 2 main blocs. But in terms of vote % and total number of votes, we cannot categorize them by NDA/UPA/Others, as alliances and seat-sharing differs from state to state. Some examples:
So, in my opinion, the conclusion is that total number of vote, national % percentage and comparison 2009/2014 should be done on basis of party rather than coalition. -- Soman ( talk) 21:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
We should try to use more templates to use in state pages and more reusable format. Rasulnrasul ( talk) 10:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I created a draft here File:Lok sabha map square draft.png, as an alternative Lok Sabha results map. In the other election maps, there is such a huge difference between the size of constituencies, and the urban constituencies just don't show whilst Ladakh and Arunachal are huge. This is just a first draft, maybe somehow with better sense of geography/design would be interested in find a more precise way of aligning the different states and territories. -- Soman ( talk) 23:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Its an addition but not repacement, please use it. Also i would like to know how did you make, i would make similar to use it for
/info/en/?search=Indian_general_election,_2014_(Andhra_Pradesh)
Rasulnrasul (
talk)
13:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Nice idea, Soman. Lets use it too. - Nizil ( talk) 22:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Indian general election, 2014 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Section "4.1.1 Alliance" is empty and should be deleted. It has no sub-sections either. Keerikkadan91 ( talk) 08:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
NDA=279, BJP=235 UPA=103, Congress = 79 Please correct the figures. And why is it separate? Why not in the same table as all other exit polls? Its also an exit poll — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.60.28.196 ( talk) 17:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Done Well I correct figures and move to Exit polls table. Prateek Malviya• ✉• ✎ 06:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Indian general election, 2014 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the celebrity section Actors named Dipankar Deb (TMC), Satabdi Roy(TMC), Tapas Pal(TMC) will be added. 112.79.36.29 ( talk) 19:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello! As the article is nominated at WP:ITNC, we would have to get it clear of major tags. Please help in cleaning all sections. Major orange tag on top is of copy-editing. Also note that at the ITNC, many more comments will come. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 04:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
The results are presented at http://eciresults.nic.in , which is authorative and more reliable than some of the unofficial counting sites. So far no candidate is declared winner, but as they start to appear at 'won', please procede and update articles, with Wikipedia:Indian_general_election,_2014_progress_report as check-list. -- Soman ( talk) 06:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Indian general election, 2014 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Lok Sabha Election Prediction
As per the Predition of Johnson, gowthami leading experts from Tamil nadu , BJP is going to Lead the way by winnning 284 seats and ADMK winning all seats in Tamil Nadu 203.99.193.81 ( talk) 07:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Indian general election, 2014 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
182.19.67.34 ( talk) 12:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
For good reasons, this page is not editable till May 18th. The article refers to a quote from Rahul Gandhi's speech and states that the speech was delievered in Chandigarh and provides a reference to a Washington Post page. However, the Washington Post page clearly mentions the place of the quoted speech to be "Chhattisgarh". Please make the correction if you are reading it and the page is editable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.207.34 ( talk) 05:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Can anyone fix what went wrong here [2]? Not sure how the mark-up error occured. -- Soman ( talk) 13:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Now that we have the results, and we've been able to settle that Kejriwal won't be the next PM, can we expand the infobox per the actual results? The 2 largest parties got 50.1% of the popular vote, it would be a bit weird not to make mention of the other parties. -- Soman ( talk) 13:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
NDA votes percentage is wrong shown as 31% which is of BJP, can you please correct it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.141.215 ( talk) 15:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
In accordance with WP:SUMMARY, I pruned the reactions section to only state who proffered congratulations. Please note that I'm not proposing to remove these outright but would not object if someone did. Although some may feel it is relevant, my concern is that our job is to write encyclopaedic content and not document and quote sound bytes and hollow rhetoric from heads of governments and other self-important politicians and from civil servants who are only following diplomatic protocol of niceties. Such congratulation are routine, which makes them rather humdrum and non-notable. Globally reported by the media, but WP is not the news either. -- Ohc ¡digame! 16:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
By mentioning the political watershed, you seem to be implying that those reactions have some special meaning or are otherwise radically different from comments from world leaders for other elections. BUT THEY ARE NOT! I really fail to see the relevance or importance of having repetitious comments from assorted international leaders that you see again and again in news coverage for most elections. -- Ohc ¡digame! 04:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Please note that I never simply said I didn't like the contents of the Reactions section as you would have it. I advanced substantive policy-based reasons why they should not be there, but I also noted the counter-arguments advanced were not clearly elaborated or not supported by policy. It upsets me that you seem to be either unwilling or unable to put forward cogent arguments of your own, but are merely using the WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument against me.
You (collectively) say that the outcome of the election is important, and I said I don't disagree. There are plenty of sources to also make the analysis which can be used to good effect, and yet you insist on keeping the diplomatic niceties and make this look like just any other election article – which I am certain isn't your intention. You say that the Bangladeshi reaction is kind and has been remarked upon positively, and I don't disagree. But why simply quote Hasina's kind reaction and omit the more significant comments and appreciation of observers of the "gentlemanliness"? Please understand that I am trying to help by redirecting the focus of the article. I want you to make this into a special article that I know it deserves to be. As said, this can be by including significant and noteworthy facts and analyses. Don't boilerplate the article on other election articles. The bland repeated rhetoric and standardised congratulation and invitations that are there are unworthy and even demeaning of such a special event; they takes all the sparkle out of it. -- Ohc ¡digame! 08:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Please note that UPA has won 60 seats, not 59. See this article of Wikipedia- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_Indian_general_election,_2014#Lok_Sabha_Seats , the work done on this article is accurate. There should be consistency between both the pages
Avinds ( talk) 06:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)Avin
At the current stage, the result is only given in terms of number of seats and number of votes in national level. We'd need to give the results by party as well, to describe the outcome. For me, it would make sense to join the outcome with the candidate/campaign passages, but not sure if that would requite reorder the chronology of the article. Would it be weird if we partially mentioned some aspects of the outcome of the results in the 'Parties and Alliances' section, whilst having the full list in the end as well? I'd also say that we could reduce the quotefarming even further. -- Soman ( talk) 18:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the vote share pie diagram from the article as it doesn't really hold much importance. What matters is that how many votes a party got but how many seats it finally got. Such statistics are popularly used and they can stay on Results of the Indian general election, 2014 but not here when we have to write the results only in brief. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 09:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I do not understand the reason for editors to remove it. The previous lok Sabha election, there is a paragraph which states the fact and no one edited it for the last 5 years. Why have inferiority complex and hide the truth?
/info/en/?search=Indian_general_election,_2009#MPs_with_pending_criminal_charges
manchurian candidate 06:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
First of all, this is the talk-page of a Wikipedia article, and not a forum for discussing what does and what does not make a criminal, or whether or not the elected politicians are criminals. Secondly, the section in question uses the phrase "winners with criminal cases", and not just "criminals". Nowhere is it being stated that just by having criminal case(s), a person becomes a criminal. The content of that section is not anyone's personal point of view, original research, or anything else that must not come in a Wikipedia article. It is all a collection of true and important facts that are relevant for the topic of the article, and all the facts are supported by valid references:
The inclusion of the said section in the article is not violating WP:Neutral point of view (including WP:Due) guidelines. The section is not pointing out the criminal and financial details of only one politician, political party or political front. It is pointing out the details of several parties (the ones that have the largest numbers), including both Bharatiya Janata Party and Indian National Congress, the two largest and opposing parties. In fact, not including (or deleting) such important (and reference-backed) information in the article may be a violation of WP:Neutral point of view (NPoV) guidelines. Those trying to hide such information may be wanting to hide the criminal aspect of Indian politics, mentioned political parties, etc. The section also does not violate WP:Biographies of living persons (BLP) guidelines. No living persons are mentioned in that section. Even if they were, it would not be a violation as long as the information was true, relevant for the article and backed up by valid references. Finally, the section is not WP:Tendentious editing (TE). (But repeatedly deleting the section might be tendentious editing.) The section also conforms to WP:Notscandal and other WP:What Wikipedia is not guidelines. Please stop false, baseless and foolish accusations like these. If you bring them up, then you are the one violating Wikipedia guidelines. By the way, the language, typing and presentation styles of some of the above users suggest that they are all the same user who is resorting to WP:Sockpuppetry. -- Sarthak Sharma ( talk) 22:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Substantively, this seems to be another case of people conflating the different roles played by the press (including tabloids) and reference works such as Britannica and WP. I did not say inclusion of the criminal cases text would be in violation of BLP, but it certainly seems to violation WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NPOV. Contrary to what Intelligentguy89 seems to be arguing, there may be stronger grounds for including mentions of legally proven criminals, but the relevance still needs to be demonstrated that it has been a factor during the election and not by some ex-post summary analysis of the results, and I don't see that being the case. It is certainly undue and in my view could also constitute synthesis. Relying on press articles containing flimsy raw data on unproven crimes to try and demonstrate any increasing trend to criminality in the house, and the apparent relative probities of the different parties, is what newspapers do all to often to sensationalise and sell more copy. The worst is the article from TOI, whose heading quite blatantly misleadingly states "Every third newly-elected MP has criminal background" – having a criminal case pending does not constitute a "criminal background". We cannot dismiss that the paper, with such prominent bias, may be driven by some political agenda. -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
The issues raised by User:Ohconfucius and User:Iryna Harpy remain unanswered. The latest version of "Criminal and financial details of the election winners" section should be deleted. Here are some additional reasons:
Therefore, I too support this section be deleted. If any persuasive reasons are found to include it in this or any other wikipedia article, the discussion should be properly expanded to make it WP:NPOV, with content sourced from reliable peer reviewed sources. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 03:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Intelligentguy89, I would suggest you read WP:EDIT WAR and explain how you are justified in accusing me of edit warring given that I've only actually edited the article in question once, whereas you have now been engaged in edit warring there for two consecutive days. I would also ask that you remove your edit warring notification from my talk page before an AN/I is opened against you again. Gaming the system by demanding that the same content be discussed from scratch on each related article is tendentious editing. You cannot claim that you were unaware of the fact that the discussion was taking place here because, frankly, the time stamps for your input regarding the issue on this talk page belie any claims to ignorance. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 04:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa ( talk) 17:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
'Infobox election' template is too wide for small screens. I've started a discussion on the template's talkpage at Template talk:Infobox election#Template too wide for small screens. Jonpatterns ( talk) 18:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I deleted the part of S Gurumurthy as this person is not a leader of mentioned political party and did not try to contest from this particular seat. It was another person and this was a goof up by the Indian media due to similar names. [1] The Nilgiris seat is reserved for SC candidate as per the Election Commission of India [2] while S Gurumurthy is not from the Scheduled Caste. Aditya8993 ( talk) 17:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Indian general election, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Indian general election, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Indian general election, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Indian general election, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Indian general election, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 16 external links on Indian general election, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Indian general election, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2014-01-27/india/46683685_1_2002-gujarat-riots-rahul-gandhi-sikh-riotsWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I think the "leader Since" tag is very ambiguous and needs to be removed. May be we can change it to "Entry into Politics" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dheerajmpai23 ( talk • contribs) 22:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
What is the percentage of total voters voted all over the country Sriram bharathwaj ( talk) 14:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
66.20 Sriram bharathwaj ( talk) 14:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The section 2014_Indian_general_election#Voting_pattern refers several times to "assembly segment". And I see that constituencies in different states have different numbers of segments: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/count-vvpat-slips-of-5-booths-in-each-assembly-seat-sc/articleshow/68786810.cms Is an assembly segment a geographic region? of a certain number of voters or area? Numbersinstitute ( talk) 01:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
The redirect 2014 Lok Sabha Elections has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 26 § 2014 Lok Sabha Elections until a consensus is reached. Exclusive Editor Notify Me! 14:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)