This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Conceptually, I like having an infobox for presidential elections. I find myself missing the old election summaries that used to be at the top of every article (years ago). However, I think this box needs to be more compact, as the version as of this writing contains way more whitespace than most infoboxes have or should use. -- RobLa 18:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if this is what you guys were discussing above, but on a lot of the election boxes for the different elections, the before_election person goes down an extra row while the after_election person stays all on one line. (in other words, at the bottom of the infobox, the person's name for before is split into 2 lines, while the person who won the election is kept all on one line, which SpiderMMB 22:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)looks strange) You can see this evidenced in the infoboxes on the pages United States presidential election, 1916, United States presidential election, 1920, United States presidential election, 1924, etc. etc. I don't even know where you can go to edit this field to fix it. Does anyone else know how to fix this? ( Cardsplayer4life 01:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC))
A different aspect of this feature: i changed the wording, partly because it seemed awkward and partly bcz it suggests that the election is/was effective immediately. It was only after doing so that it occurred to me that the second issue is not always a temporary one: some people win elections, and never take office:
In such a case, they never hold the office, and the old template wouldn't work right for that election.
Do please note that expressions like "President-elect" are demonstrably not an American peculiarity: in (IIRC, the first vocal number of) the second act of
The Mikado, we find
--
Jerzy•
t (call-me-the-citationeer-elect)
18:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Moving this discussion from Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2004#Winner.2FRunner-Up.
I have to voice my concern that this format is hurting the article. I will post this on a few notable election pages and hope that it's noticed. I have to admire the determination of whoever came up with this idea (it's apparently on every page) but ultimately, I think it should go. I think that having "winner/runner-up" displayed so prominently in the infobox overshadows the importance of the election. Some of these elections were not mere contests, but were epic events in American history where a variety of important viewpoints were symbolically represented and voted upon. Just in the last 50 years, the notable political climates of 1968 and 2004 came to a boiling point around election time. We should not be placing so much emphasis on the "winner" and the "runner-up" -- this is not a spelling bee. If we condense this into who "won" we are doing a disservice to the issues that drove these elections. SpiderMMB 23:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
As someone mentioned above, the entire infobox needs to be more compact. At the very least, the picture size should be toned down and the headings "winner" and "runner-up" should go. I would suggest instead that we list the person's political party (including for third party candidates -- so Strom Thurmond would be a "Dixiecrat" and Ross Perot would be "Reform," instead of listing them as third). Then we can simply have a note such as "elected" under the person who won. SpiderMMB 02:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
A couple of quick questions...this infobox isn't yet in use on Canadian election articles, but I'm currently in the process of preparing to start adding it. I currently have a test page set up at User:Bearcat/Canadian elections templates, but I have a couple of quick questions.
I may have further questions before I actually start applying the template (and I may also need to ask for a couple of special mini-tweaks that kick in only if the country is flagged as Canada), but right now these are my two primary questions. Thanks. -- Bearcat ( talk) 20:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
| before_colour =
and | after_colour =
to define the tags at the bottom of the box. I'd advise you to number the first, second, third and fourth parties 1, 2, 4, 5, respectively so you have two parties on top and two on the bottom. This removes white spaces and just makes the infobox look better. ----
Philip Stevens (
talk)
21:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Is there a way to reduce the amount of whitespace that separates the text information from the vote map in cases, such as Saskatchewan general election, 2007, where there's only a single row of parties to list? Bearcat ( talk) 03:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to discuss a few issues I have with this infobox:
-- Avec nat ...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces. 00:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there a way to make both images (or all three, in some cases) equally sized? Take the United States presidential election, 1980 and United States presidential election, 1984 articles; the picture of President Reagan is larger than that of President Carter, I'm guessing because of the red background behind his photo. But in the '84 article, Reagan's picture is a bit smaller and Mondale's is too big. It appears the problems are with the red or blue backgrounds, as they are differently sized in almost every presidential election article. Is there a way to fix this inconsistency? Happyme22 ( talk) 02:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This is an idea for the next italian general election. It's so difficult. Please help me! Thank you so much
{{Infobox Election | election_name = [[Italian general election, 2008]] | country = Italy | type = parliamentary | ongoing = yes | party_colour = | party_name = no | previous_election = Italian general election, 2006 | previous_year = 2006 | next_election = | next_year = | seats_for_election = | election_date = [[13 April]] [[2008]] | image1 = | colour1 = | nominee1 = | leader1 = [[Silvio Berlusconi]] | party1 = Freedom People | popular_vote1 = | percentage1 = | image2 = | colour2 = | nominee2 = | leader2 = | party2 = | popular_vote2 = | percentage2 = | image3 = | colour3 = | nominee3 = | leader3 = | party3 = | popular_vote3 = | percentage3 = | image4 = | colour4 = | nominee4 = | leader4 = | party4 = | popular_vote4 = | percentage4 = | image5 = | colour5 = | nominee5 = | leader5 = | party5 = | popular_vote5 = | percentage5 = | image6 = | colour6 = | nominee6 = | leader6 = | party6 = | popular_vote6 = | percentage6 = | before_election = | before_colour = | after_election = | after_colour = }} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zizi-EU ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 9 February 2008
| party_name = no
to remove this feature. --
Philip Stevens (
talk)
06:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)When the Opposition is composed of multiple parties with multiple leaders (sometimes an informal "coalition"), this template is way too rigid to be useful. This template also doesn't work for three-way elections. The shortname stuff is especially annoying -- can you just let editors pipe it themselves? Having a shortname template just seems way too long-winded to make any sense. When I try to enter multiple parties for the Opposition, I get a big mess. If for example we want most election articles to use the same template (so we can make global adjustments as needed), then we need a way more flexible template. Furthermore, I think this template is just biting off too much -- it should call separate parliamentary, presidential, etc. templates rather than have it all coded into one template. John Riemann Soong ( talk) 18:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Conceptually, I like having an infobox for presidential elections. I find myself missing the old election summaries that used to be at the top of every article (years ago). However, I think this box needs to be more compact, as the version as of this writing contains way more whitespace than most infoboxes have or should use. -- RobLa 18:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if this is what you guys were discussing above, but on a lot of the election boxes for the different elections, the before_election person goes down an extra row while the after_election person stays all on one line. (in other words, at the bottom of the infobox, the person's name for before is split into 2 lines, while the person who won the election is kept all on one line, which SpiderMMB 22:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)looks strange) You can see this evidenced in the infoboxes on the pages United States presidential election, 1916, United States presidential election, 1920, United States presidential election, 1924, etc. etc. I don't even know where you can go to edit this field to fix it. Does anyone else know how to fix this? ( Cardsplayer4life 01:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC))
A different aspect of this feature: i changed the wording, partly because it seemed awkward and partly bcz it suggests that the election is/was effective immediately. It was only after doing so that it occurred to me that the second issue is not always a temporary one: some people win elections, and never take office:
In such a case, they never hold the office, and the old template wouldn't work right for that election.
Do please note that expressions like "President-elect" are demonstrably not an American peculiarity: in (IIRC, the first vocal number of) the second act of
The Mikado, we find
--
Jerzy•
t (call-me-the-citationeer-elect)
18:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Moving this discussion from Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2004#Winner.2FRunner-Up.
I have to voice my concern that this format is hurting the article. I will post this on a few notable election pages and hope that it's noticed. I have to admire the determination of whoever came up with this idea (it's apparently on every page) but ultimately, I think it should go. I think that having "winner/runner-up" displayed so prominently in the infobox overshadows the importance of the election. Some of these elections were not mere contests, but were epic events in American history where a variety of important viewpoints were symbolically represented and voted upon. Just in the last 50 years, the notable political climates of 1968 and 2004 came to a boiling point around election time. We should not be placing so much emphasis on the "winner" and the "runner-up" -- this is not a spelling bee. If we condense this into who "won" we are doing a disservice to the issues that drove these elections. SpiderMMB 23:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
As someone mentioned above, the entire infobox needs to be more compact. At the very least, the picture size should be toned down and the headings "winner" and "runner-up" should go. I would suggest instead that we list the person's political party (including for third party candidates -- so Strom Thurmond would be a "Dixiecrat" and Ross Perot would be "Reform," instead of listing them as third). Then we can simply have a note such as "elected" under the person who won. SpiderMMB 02:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
A couple of quick questions...this infobox isn't yet in use on Canadian election articles, but I'm currently in the process of preparing to start adding it. I currently have a test page set up at User:Bearcat/Canadian elections templates, but I have a couple of quick questions.
I may have further questions before I actually start applying the template (and I may also need to ask for a couple of special mini-tweaks that kick in only if the country is flagged as Canada), but right now these are my two primary questions. Thanks. -- Bearcat ( talk) 20:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
| before_colour =
and | after_colour =
to define the tags at the bottom of the box. I'd advise you to number the first, second, third and fourth parties 1, 2, 4, 5, respectively so you have two parties on top and two on the bottom. This removes white spaces and just makes the infobox look better. ----
Philip Stevens (
talk)
21:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Is there a way to reduce the amount of whitespace that separates the text information from the vote map in cases, such as Saskatchewan general election, 2007, where there's only a single row of parties to list? Bearcat ( talk) 03:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to discuss a few issues I have with this infobox:
-- Avec nat ...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces. 00:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there a way to make both images (or all three, in some cases) equally sized? Take the United States presidential election, 1980 and United States presidential election, 1984 articles; the picture of President Reagan is larger than that of President Carter, I'm guessing because of the red background behind his photo. But in the '84 article, Reagan's picture is a bit smaller and Mondale's is too big. It appears the problems are with the red or blue backgrounds, as they are differently sized in almost every presidential election article. Is there a way to fix this inconsistency? Happyme22 ( talk) 02:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This is an idea for the next italian general election. It's so difficult. Please help me! Thank you so much
{{Infobox Election | election_name = [[Italian general election, 2008]] | country = Italy | type = parliamentary | ongoing = yes | party_colour = | party_name = no | previous_election = Italian general election, 2006 | previous_year = 2006 | next_election = | next_year = | seats_for_election = | election_date = [[13 April]] [[2008]] | image1 = | colour1 = | nominee1 = | leader1 = [[Silvio Berlusconi]] | party1 = Freedom People | popular_vote1 = | percentage1 = | image2 = | colour2 = | nominee2 = | leader2 = | party2 = | popular_vote2 = | percentage2 = | image3 = | colour3 = | nominee3 = | leader3 = | party3 = | popular_vote3 = | percentage3 = | image4 = | colour4 = | nominee4 = | leader4 = | party4 = | popular_vote4 = | percentage4 = | image5 = | colour5 = | nominee5 = | leader5 = | party5 = | popular_vote5 = | percentage5 = | image6 = | colour6 = | nominee6 = | leader6 = | party6 = | popular_vote6 = | percentage6 = | before_election = | before_colour = | after_election = | after_colour = }} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zizi-EU ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 9 February 2008
| party_name = no
to remove this feature. --
Philip Stevens (
talk)
06:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)When the Opposition is composed of multiple parties with multiple leaders (sometimes an informal "coalition"), this template is way too rigid to be useful. This template also doesn't work for three-way elections. The shortname stuff is especially annoying -- can you just let editors pipe it themselves? Having a shortname template just seems way too long-winded to make any sense. When I try to enter multiple parties for the Opposition, I get a big mess. If for example we want most election articles to use the same template (so we can make global adjustments as needed), then we need a way more flexible template. Furthermore, I think this template is just biting off too much -- it should call separate parliamentary, presidential, etc. templates rather than have it all coded into one template. John Riemann Soong ( talk) 18:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)