![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 9 |
These terms shout not be used as it does not make clear if it referring to the state of the parties before or after the election Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 15:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this is nonsensical; for many elections in proportional election systems, this distinction does not make sense, as often the first party forms a coalition with the second party. (Or even the third party forming a coalition with the second party, as in Austria after the 1999 election.) — Nightstallion 09:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, until someone adds a way to customize the labels (since I don't know wikipedia code), I'm going to undo this edit. -- Noname2 ( talk) 23:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
There's only 3 people discussing this. And what countries use "first party"? -- Noname2 ( talk) 20:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
It'd be great if there was a field in this template for voter turnout - can someone with template skillz through it in? -- Padraic 22:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Can someone more acquainted than I am with Mediawiki's arcane syntax change "PM-Elect" for British general elections? "New PM" would perhaps work. The concept of "Prime Minister-Elect" is nonsensical, as Prime Ministers are appointed, not elected. — Wereon ( talk) 20:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I've added a parameter "posttitle", which, if used, designates what the term is for the "victor". If not used, it is the same as it was before: {{{title}}}-elect. DoubleBlue ( Talk) 18:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I think we should add additional parameters for the seats held prior to election and the seat change due to the election itsef. -- Gordon Ecker ( talk) 03:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add hCard microformats by wrapping the name of each person (candidate/ nominee/ running mate, etc.), thus:
<span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[name]</span></span>
but am wary of breaking the template. Can someone assist, please? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. It slightly bothers me that all of the US election boxes use the current 50-star flag, and not the one that was in use at the time. I poked around a bit and found that Template:Flagicon has a "variant=" attribute which can set the correct flag, but that the election infobox template currently has no way to pass such an attribute to Flagicon.
I think that changing the line
{{flagicon |{{{country|}}}| size=50px}}
to
{{flagicon |{{{country|}}}| variant={{{flagvariant|}}}| size=50px}}
would allow this, but I wanted to check here first as I'm not too familiar with template syntax.
Antony-22 ( talk) 23:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Is this infobox appropriate for state election articles such as United States presidential election in Missouri, 2008 and United States presidential election in Indiana, 2008? It is already used in these articles, but the wording of the infobox parameters suggests that it is only for elections nationally. It is also NOT used in the state election articles for the 2004 presidential election (see United States presidential election in Pennsylvania, 2004 and United States presidential election in Florida, 2004). I am thinking that it probably should not be used, but does anyone else have any knowledge on where exactly this infobox should and shouldn't be placed? Tim meh ! 01:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Could we have a parameter to indicate the speaker of the house being elected at the time of a legislative election? Domminico ( talk) 18:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Should popular vote winners' (in the United States) totals be in bold in this infobox? There seems to be no real consistency among the 2000, 2004, and 2008 presidential election articles. No earlier election articles have the popular vote winners' total and percentage in bold, but the 2000 article does, as well as the 2008 article. The 2004 article does not. I can see the reasoning for putting the numbers in bold, as to show who won the popular vote and how it may differ from the winner in the Electoral College. However, since the popular vote has no effect on the outcome of the election, I would suggest the numbers not be in bold except when they have unusual usefulness as in the 2000 election. Tim meh ! 00:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm re-posting my comment here from Template:Infobox Election because it was getting no replies. Should popular vote winners' totals be in bold in the election infobox? There seems to be no real consistency among the 2000, 2004, and 2008 presidential election articles. No earlier election articles have the popular vote winners' total and percentage in bold, but the 2000 article does, as well as the 2008 article. The 2004 article does not (when I posted the original comment). I can see the reasoning for putting the numbers in bold, as to show who won the popular vote and how it may differ from the winner in the Electoral College. However, since the popular vote has no effect on the outcome of the election, I would suggest the numbers not be in bold except when they have unusual usefulness as in the 2000 election. Tim meh ! 14:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
{{#if:{{{{{#if:{{{nominee4|}}}|nominee|candidate}}4|}}}|{{!}} style="text-align: center" {{!}} {{#ifeq:{{{ongoing|}}}|yes||'''}}{{{{{#if:{{{nominee4|}}}|nominee|candidate}}4}}}{{#ifeq:{{{ongoing|}}}|yes||'''}}}}
to
{{#if:{{{{{#if:{{{nominee4|}}}|nominee|candidate}}4|}}}|{{!}} style="text-align: center" {{!}} {{{{{#if:{{{nominee4|}}}|nominee|candidate}}4}}} }}
(which looks pretty much like the rows for nominee5 and nominee6, and IMO this is the desired outcome). This shouldn't create any problems, but i'm announcing it just in case. -- Jokes Free4Me ( talk) 15:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I've been seeing if I can adapt this template to the elections for the UN Security Council, using United Nations Security Council election, 2008 as a guinea pig, and for the most part it works just fine. However, the template has the annoying "To be determined" thing pop at the bottom, which confuses the living daylights out of me. Can anyone inform me why, and how I can get around it? I've posted the template and my filling of the infobox. I've commented out the annoying bits on the main page.
![]() | |||
| |||
5 (of 10) non-permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council | |||
---|---|---|---|
| |||
![]() Security Council after 2008 elections. | |||
|
Thanks! Lockesdonkey ( talk) 22:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
{{Infobox Election | election_name = United Nations Security Council election, 2008 | country = United Nations | type = legislative | ongoing = no | previous_election = United Nations Security Council election, 2007 | previous_year = 2007 | next_election = United Nations Security Council election, 2009 | next_year = 2009 | seats_for_election = 5 (of 10) non-permanent seats on the [[United Nations Security Council]] | election_date = 17 October 2008 | map_image = UN Security Council 2009.svg | map_size = 300px | map_caption = Security Council after 2008 elections. | title = Members | before_election= {{ZAF}} <small>([[United Nations geoscheme for Africa|Africa]])</small> <br> {{IDN}} <small>([[United Nations geoscheme for Asia|Asia]])</small> <br> {{PAN}}<small>([[United Nations geoscheme for the Americas|LatAm&Car]])</small> <br> {{BEL}} <small>([[Western European and Others Group|WEOG]])</small> <br> {{ITA}} <small>([[Western European and Others Group|WEOG]])</small> <br> | posttitle = New Members | after_election = {{flag|Uganda}} <small>([[United Nations geoscheme for Africa|Africa]])</small><br> {{flag|Japan}} <small>([[United Nations geoscheme for Asia|Asia]])</small><br> {{flag|Mexico}} <small>([[United Nations geoscheme for the Americas|LatAm&Car]])</small> <br>{{flag|Turkey}} <small>([[Western European and Others Group|WEOG]])</small> <br>{{flag|Austria}} <small>([[Western European and Others Group|WEOG]])</small> }}
I've figured out the problem: it appears that "after_party" is a required field, which auto-fills to "To Be Determined" when not filled. Can this be changed? Alternately, can there be some mechanism for leaving it completely blank? Thanks! Lockesdonkey ( talk) 01:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Before the 2008 presidential election, there was a big dispute over which party nominees should be listed in the infobox. I suggest implementing the below text above the notes section so that we have a set standard for something like this. The below is adapted from this proposal, upon which consensus was reached to adopt in the 2008 election article.
Tim meh ! 16:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't see in the template code how this is caused but in the infobox as displaying on British Columbia general election, 2009 these labels display above those of the leaders of teh two parties so far listed (the template, if not already with room for it, needs to display four). My concern is the "First Party, Second Party" gives a POV impression of the party's rankings and projected results. This has to be changed and pronto, as the election campaign is imminent, and the effect of this is POV. Can someone please explain why it's doing that - it doesn't do it in the sample infobox of Bush etc overleaf - or please just make the correction (and allow for two other party leaders, unless that's as simple as just adding more party3= etc fields. Skookum1 ( talk) 12:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Currently, setting "ongoing = yes" turns on a flag that reads:
This article or section contains information about a forthcoming election. Content may change dramatically as the election approaches.
In many cases, this will be inappropriate. As I type this in late April 2009, the Indonesian legislative election can be considered "ongoing", as the counting is still taking place, but it certainly isn't "forthcoming", since the voting is finished.
Perhaps it would be better to have separate flags within the Infobox for congoing or forthcoming, or perhaps the message on the tag needs to be changed.
Ordinary Person ( talk) 01:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
At present, this infobox (which can get quite long), doesn't treat edit links for article sections correctly. The problem can be seen at Icelandic parliamentary election, 2009, where there are three edit links pushed to the bottom of the infobox instead of appearing at its left-hand side. Physchim62 (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
In the context of Indian elections, most governments at both the centre and the states are run by coallitions rather than by a single party. It would be great if this Infobox permits us to add the "Alliance" in addition to the existing "Party" field. This new field can be non-mandatory so that it does not impact those elections where the concept of Alliances does not exist. If there are no violent objections to this idea, I shall try to add this parameter into this template shortly in the future.
Aditya.krishnan.82 (
talk,
contribs)
07:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
All 550 seats of the People's Representative Council and all 128 seats of the Regional Representative Council | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello. I'm wondering if someone can help me edit the infobox since I'm not familiar with infobox markup syntax. I want to make the party name bold in the absence of the party leader field. In Indonesian elections, the leader is not as significant as the party itself. It doesn't make sense to be using this field since the winning party doesn't necessarily make its leader the speaker/chair of the assembly.
{{Infobox Election | election_name = Indonesian legislative election, 2004 | country = Indonesia | type = parliamentary | ongoing = no | previous_election = Indonesian legislative election, 1999 | previous_year = 1999 | next_election = Indonesian legislative election, 2009 | next_year = 2009 | seats_for_election = All 550 seats of the [[People's Representative Council]] and<br/>all 128 seats of the [[Regional Representative Council]] | election_date = 5 April 2004 | image1 = [[:File:Golkar logo.jpg|110px]] | party1 = Golkar | last_election1 = 120 seats, 22.44% | seats1 = 128 | seat_change1 = +8 | popular_vote1 = 24,480,757 | percentage1 = 21.58% | swing1 = 0.86% | image2 = [[:File:PDIPLogo.png|100px]] | party2 = Indonesian Democratic Party – Struggle | last_election2 = 153 seats, 33.74% | seats2 = 109 | seat_change2 = −41 | popular_vote2 = 21,026,629 | percentage2 = 18.53% | swing2 = -15.21% | image3 = [[:File:Optimized_image_93214277.png|85px]] | party3 = National Awakening Party | last_election3 = 51 seats, 12.61% | seats3 = 52 | seat_change3 = +1 | popular_vote3 = 11,989,564 | percentage3 = 10.57% | swing3 = -2.04% | title = Speaker | before_election = [[Akbar Tanjung]] | before_party = Golkar | after_election = [[Agung Laksono]] | after_party = Golkar }}
Thanks for the help! Arsonal ( talk) 06:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I removed the "current election" box as it should not be part of an infobox. It was also throwing hundreds of elections into the current category (e.g. NZ 2011), not to mention the problem with dating the box. If there's consensus we can reintorduce it, but it's a hack, albeit a clever one. Rich Farmbrough, 02:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC).
Does anyone know if there's any way that this template could support the inclusion of an ImageMap to be used on certain articles in place of the map_image parameter? It could be useful in articles for elections with subarticles discussing the election in specific areas, for example United States presidential election, 2008 and 2004. I tried it out in the sandbox, and I think another line similar to the map_image parameter would be enough, but I'm afraid I'm not knowledgeable or confident enough to add it myself. Thanks. — Hysteria18 ( Talk • Contributions) 19:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
{{#if:{{{party1|}}}{{{color1|}}}{{{colour1|}}}|<!-- Images 1, 2, 3 --> {{!}} colspan=2 {{!}} {{!}} style="text-align: center; border-bottom: 6px solid {{#if:{{{party1|}}}{{{color1|}}}{{{colour1|}}}|{{{color1|}}}|<!}}{{#if:{{{color1|}}}|--}}{{#ifeq: {{{party_colo{{#if:{{{party_colour|}}}|u|}}r}}}|no||{{Template: {{{party1}}}/meta/color}}}}{{#if:{{{color1|}}}|-}}{{#if:{{{color1|}}}|->}}{{#if:{{{color1|}}}|#{{{color1}}}}}{{#if:{{{colour1|}}}|#{{{colour1}}}}}"{{!}} {{#if:{{{image1|}}}|{{{image1}}}}} {{!}} style="text-align: center; border-bottom: 6px solid {{#if:{{{party2|}}}{{{color2|}}}{{{colour2|}}}|{{{color2|}}}|<!}}{{#if:{{{color2|}}}|--}}{{#ifeq: {{{party_colo{{#if:{{{party_colour|}}}|u|}}r}}}|no||{{Template: {{{party2}}}/meta/color}}}}{{#if:{{{color2|}}}|-}}{{#if:{{{color2|}}}|->}}{{#if:{{{color2|}}}|#{{{color2}}}}}{{#if:{{{colour2|}}}|#{{{colour2}}}}}"{{!}}{{#if:{{{image2|}}}|{{{image2}}}}} {{!}} style="text-align: center; border-bottom: 6px solid {{#if:{{{party3|}}}{{{color3|}}}{{{colour3|}}}|{{{color3|}}}|<!}}{{#if:{{{color3|}}}|--}}{{#ifeq: {{{party_colo{{#if:{{{party_colour|}}}|u|}}r}}}|no||{{Template: {{{party3}}}/meta/color}}}}{{#if:{{{color3|}}}|-}}{{#if:{{{color3|}}}|->}}{{#if:{{{color3|}}}|#{{{color3}}}}}{{#if:{{{colour3|}}}|#{{{colour3}}}}}"{{!}} {{#if:{{{image3|}}}|{{{image3}}}}} {{!}}- }}
This is pretty broken... — RockMFR 00:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Could someone please fix the colours for UKIP and The Greens in this infobox over at Norwich North by-election, 2009 please? -- [User] Jamie JCA [Talk] 23:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible to modify this template to allow for any number of candidates to be included, Possible array of multiples of three per row? Ukr-Trident ( talk) 08:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm terrible with templates; would anybody be able to take a look at Alberta general election, 1905 and tell me why the party colours and all the data after the map aren't displaying? Steve Smith ( talk) 06:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
What I do, when I am trying to do something that is on another article, is I go to that other article to see how its done. 117Avenue ( talk) 06:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering why the template wasn't rendering right here, with the image/colors not displayed. I realized the parameter "party1" is defined twice in the sample template, first for the main candidate, and then for the minor candidate. I removed part of that section, and now the template is working fine. -- snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 22:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there any place in the Infobox to place a link to the link to MPs after the current election? You can use previous_mps & next_mps to provide a link to the MPs elected in the previous & next elections, but I haven't found anyway to link to the list of current MPs.
Maybe this can be a link below the flag? That way the link is placed in between the links to the previous MPs & next MPs. Any thoughts?
Aditya.krishnan.82 (
talk,
contribs)
17:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I feel this is misleading as the term implies that the leader is currently in office wheras at the time of the election that is not necessarily the case. Previous would be a safer word. This is a template with wide application but I think it should be changed. -- Gibnews ( talk) 23:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Why is the flag needed here? Gnevin ( talk) 11:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
In the upcoming Dutch general election, 2010 no less than 11 parties are defending parliament seats.
Limiting the number of parties to 6 seems a bit arbitrary as we have no space for almost half the parties, even more problematic one of the Vice Prime Ministers (Andre Rouvoet) is the leader of a small coalition party that is in numbers at place 7 in the representation. The limitation to 6 parties means that we cannot show one of the government parties. Can it be extended? Arnoutf ( talk) 16:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Why is it that the infobox for the 2000 Republican primary election doesn't have pictures?-- Jerzeykydd ( talk) 03:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I would like to add a diagram with the final composition of the chamber, just like I did in the Spanish Wikipedia, see here. Any objections? Dove ( talk) 14:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
map_image
can already be used to add an image to the infobox. But if you want two images in an infobox, I see no problem.
117Avenue (
talk)
22:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Thank you, I'll do the changes shortly. I don't mean to add automatically the image, someone will have to make the picture in Commons for each election; I will only add a second map_image
field. Regards.
Dove (
talk)
11:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
How do I make a parliamentary election show two columns (2x2) rather than three (3x2)? Croatian parliamentary election, 2011 looks ugly right now, and I can't easily fill out the remaining two slots, because three smaller parties got 3 MPs (HDSSB, IDS, SDSS), and yet another one got 2 MPs but was in coalition with one of the top four (HSLS) so it was even more important. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 11:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
While the width of this infobox is generally ok for view via a normal web browser, it is almost impossible to see the whole infobox via the iPhone/iTouch application. The optimal width of the info box should be 239px. I understand it will take a lot of work to change every thing, but it is important that wikipedia works/can be viewed on all mediums. nat.u toronto 00:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the top of the infobox at United Kingdom general election, 2010, the layout of "‹ 2010 · members <Flag> Next ›" is, shall we say, a bit crap as the flag is off-centre, the bullet point between 2005 and members implies separation/next element (as in navboxes), and for some reason the elected MPs are missing. I suggest that, if we cannot find a consistent, legible and user-friendly way of including the "members" links, they ought to be omitted. 86.41.61.203 ( talk) 21:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I want to use this template at German presidential election, 2010, but find it very difficult to use, because the candidates are supported by several parties, which makes the template look like this [2]. The template seems to have one party as the only possible alternative. (one candidate is the candidate of CDU, CSU and FDP, and the other is a non-partisan candidate backed by SPD and Greens) Josh Gorand ( talk) 22:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
(also see Talk:German_presidential_election,_2010 Josh Gorand ( talk) 23:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC))
alliance1=FDP
and alliance2=Alliance '90/The Greens
party_colour=no
and party_name=no
anywhere in the template, then replace party1 with party1=[[Christian Democratic Union (Germany)|CDU]], [[Christian Social Union of Bavaria|CSU]], [[Free Democratic Party (Germany)|FDP]]
and party2 with party2=[[Social Democratic Party of Germany|SPD]], [[Alliance '90/The Greens|Green]]
party_name=no
anywhere in the template, then add colour1=000000
and colour2=CC0000
, and replace party1 with party1=[[Christian Democratic Union (Germany)|CDU]], [[Christian Social Union of Bavaria|CSU]], [[Free Democratic Party (Germany)|FDP]]
and party2 with party2=[[Social Democratic Party of Germany|SPD]], [[Alliance '90/The Greens|Green]]
This template is used for party leadership elections as well as standard presidential and parliamentary elections. In a party leadership election, all candidates are members of the same party, so the requirement to specify a party to allow images to display forces editors to choose between not using images or repeating the party name under each image. (See, for example, Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 2005.) Would it be possible to make it so images can display without displaying a party? - Rrius ( talk) 20:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
party1=Conservative Party (UK)
with colour1=0087DC
.
117Avenue (
talk)
23:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
How I can add more results, when there are multiple ballots. I need it here: German presidential election, 1949 -- Boris 15:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
In some elections, such as the 1789, 1792, and 1820 United States presidential elections, there is only one candidate who "deserves" to be included in the infobox. But if only one candidate is included, you get extra whitespace between a number of the fields. Does anyone know why this occurs, or know of a fix for the problem? — JPMcGrath ( talk) 03:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Could someone familiar with this template take a look at this diff from Michigan gubernatorial election, 2010. As of now, five parties have ballot access, but only two have made their nominations. The Libertarian nominees, at the beginning of the second row (party 4), display correctly. But even though the US Taxpayers candidates are (correctly?) entered in the party 6 fields, they are displayed in the party 5 spot. This has been taken out of the article until it can be fixed, because it incorrectly suggests that the US Taxpayers nominees are actually the Green Party nominees. Suggestions on how to fix this display error? cmadler ( talk) 11:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I prefer that the old inbox be put backed. Rizalninoynapoleon ( talk) 15:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Some recent changes appear to have introduced an error, the infobox at New Zealand general election, 2011 has some code text
appearing above the 2nd and 3rd entries. XLerate ( talk) 00:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
One of the most glaring omissions in this infobox is the lack of a prominent link to a list of MPs elected in the election. There are prominent links to the list of MPs elected at the previous and next elections, but not to those elected at the election which the infobox is summarising. I'm sure that this arose unintentionally, but it's a perverse situation and a nuisance for users.
This was discussed above (see Current MPs list), where the suggestion was made to include a link in the seats_for_election field, but that's inadequate in two ways:
So I have used the sandbox to demonstrate a way of doing it, by adding a new data field, elected_mps
(name chosen to match existing fields previous_mps
and next_mps
). Diff
here, and output
here.
Please can we implement this? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Just one voice to say or add to any others that this template is really too wide to sit beside the start of an article. At 1152 by 864 on a 19" monitor, it can squeeze the text to less than 10 words per line. Instead, how about making it the width of the article and placing the article's first paragraph or two of the article above it and the rest of the article below it? And/or maybe make it (partially) collapsed so it doesn't squeeze the text by default. 212.84.100.119 ( talk) 00:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
This election template appears to be the standard template for use in a verity of elections. However, I am a bit perplexed at the limited choices to fill-in for the template's "Type" field: presidential, parliamentary, and legislative. It seems misleading, considering the fact that this template is also used on elections not of those specific types, such as on United States Senate and U.S. gubernatorial election articles.
In these cases (examples below), what I've seen is that the "presidential" option is selected. But why mislabel something? Why not add the option of "gubernatorial" and "senatorial" (among others) to the available choices? A gubernatorial or senatorial election is not a presidential election, so why force people to input an untruth to use this template?
Examples for the abovementioned:
The case for a "gubernatorial" and a "senatorial" option are just thoughts that I have decided to post here. If for any reason there should not be added these options, please let me know why and how I'm wrong. Thank you! -- Sgt. R.K. Blue ( talk) 07:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The placement of the flag between the years of the previous and subsequent elections seems to be confusing rather than arbitrary. It almost seems as if the flag represents the period between those years. Perhaps the years could be more clearly displayed thus:
Previous election | Next election | |
2007 | 2010 | To be called |
This could perhaps be tied in with the previous and next parties/leaders, although this may lead to complications in cases where the leader is changed between elections, e.g., if a leader dies, is impeached, etc., would the elected leader or the person who replaced them (or both) be named? — sroc ( talk) 12:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, I have just made this change, after testing on the sandbox page seemed to work for all of the test cases. Hopefully everyone is OK with this. — sroc ( talk) 14:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Just when I thought that I had my head around templates, the version that I worked on developed a glitch that inserted blank space at the top of some (but not all) articles that contain the infobox. If anyone has any solutions, please feel free to have at it. Thanks also to SuperHamster for pointing this out and restoring the last working version. — sroc ( talk) 02:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Currently, when the next leader is not completed, this defaults to "TBD". However, this has led to some confusion, as discussed at Talk:Australian federal election, 2010#-elect. The problem here seems to lie particularly in this case where there are two parties mentioned: the one on the left is the incumbent (who also appears roughly above the listing for "Incumbent Prime Minister") and the other on the right is the challenger (who appears above the listing for "Prime Minister-elect"). Although an earlier version showed "Prime Minister-elect" as "To be determined", some people appear to have taken this at a glance to imply that the person named on the right (in this case, opposition leader Tony Abbott) is the "Prime Minister-elect" because his photo and stats appear on the same side of the infobox as those words. This has been exacerbated in this case because the end result is still yet to be declared more than a week after the election (the leaders having to negotiate with individual members of parliament to form a majority). I have suggested, in the meantime, that the "Prime Minister-elect" section simply be blanked (as shown here) to avoid any such implication. There seems to be no particular value including it if there is no real data to include there anyway, particularly if including something there is causing confusion or ambiguity.
In light of this, I propose that the template be amended so that the next leader section be omitted when the name is left blank. That is, instead of defaulting to "TBD", it is not shown at all (nor is the heading "[title]-elect"). If you wanted to include this in a particular instance, you could simply write "TBD" for the name of the next leader and the heading would be shown automatically. Thoughts? — sroc ( talk) 14:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe one of the more concerning problems with the template is the misrepresentation of an incumbent prime minister as "prime minister-elect" or "prime minister-designate" after an election that his or her party won. Regard Canadian federal election, 2008, for instance: Stephen Harper was prime minister before the election, which his Conservative Party subsequently won. The prime minister's commission was never withdrawn; he did not thus become prime minister-designate, he just stayed prime minister. The only case in which "prime minister-designate" would be appropriate is if the incumbent prime minister's party lost the election. The same applies to the infobox at Australian federal election, 2010. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I suspect that "Winning candidate" carries other issues about the legitimacy of being declared a "winner" in a parliamentary election, particularly in cases where there is a slim majority or even a minority of votes (with a majority of seats, in a coalition, etc.). I suggest that "Elected <title>" is the most neutral of the terms proposed as it is correct in all cases. If the terms "Re-elected <title>" or "<title>-elect" or anything else are desired, they can be implemented in individual cases using the posttitle parameter of the infobox — but IMHO, coding these into the infobox template for an array of situations would be overly involved and unnecessary. — sroc ( talk) 05:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Politics of Australia Elections in Australia |
![]() |
If we are to retain the flag icon (see #Flag above), it looks a bit barren now. Should we perhaps it out by adding provision for links to other articles about elections/politics for the country/state/etc.? For example:
I find it a bit confusing that the seats won in the last election come before the seats won in the election being discussed, e.g. Australian federal election, 2010.
It would be simpler to find out the number of seats at a glance by showing the current results first. This is the case when most new results are presented.
E.g., currently:
Leader's seat Lalor Warringah
Last election 83 seats 65 seats
Seats won 72 72
Seat change ▼11 ▲7
Proposed:
Leader's seat Lalor Warringah
Seats won 72 72
Seat change ▼11 ▲7
Last election 83 65
I can implement this in a few weeks if there is consensus or at least no significant objection here. Thanks,
Facts707 (
talk)
19:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
If the article for the next election (parameter "next_election") doesn't exist, why isn't a red link included? Why not use a link to encourage creation of a new article? According to Wikipedia:Red link, it ought to be linked.
Specifically, the code in the present template is: {{#ifexist:{{{next_election|}}}|[[{{{next_election}}}|{{{next_year}}}]]|{{{next_year}}}}
—
Markles
16:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Is there anyway we can change the previous holder's title like we can the "posttitle"? I mean where it says "President before election" (or "Incumbent President" in ongoing elections), can a template function be added to make that variable if need be? I was trying on the sandbox, but I couldn't get it to work.-- Tim Thomason 23:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
title
for the title before election. If the title after the election is different, than use posttitle
.
117Avenue (
talk)
00:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
posttitle
that would remove "before election" from the title. Because right now, I can't find any way to do that. posttitle
is similar, in that it removes the "Elected" from the post-title. I've played around with title
, but it always leaves a "before election" tag.--
Tim Thomason
06:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
We have an option for seats and electoral votes, but should we also add the option of delegates for primaries and leadership contests? - Pictureprovince ( talk) 17:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Please make it possible to introduce the fields "Nominee" and "run_mate" for the type "Parliamentary". We will have a parliamentary election, the European Parliament election in 2014, with presidential nominees (candidates for Commission president) who won't be party leaders or parliamentary group leaders. Thanking you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien-223 ( talk • contribs) 22:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
This edit seems to have disrupted the way the the seats_for_election parameter displays. As I recall, it used to be centered, but that is not the case now. What's more, it is small and left-justified, but a link for opinion polls appears below it centered and full-sized. I doubt that's the right place to put a link to opinion polls, but it does help demonstrate what's wrong with the other parameter. For an example, see 41st Canadian federal election. - Rrius ( talk) 03:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Probably can go beneath the line where it says "All ____ seats of the <chamber>." For example, in United Kingdom general election, 2010:
– HTD ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
HTD: it doesn't matter if you are correct or not about the terminology used in the UK. The infobox needs to be universal. How does
this look? I named the parameter majority_seats
.
117Avenue (
talk)
00:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Seats contested: 650 seats in the House of Commons Majority of seats: 326
![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 9 |
These terms shout not be used as it does not make clear if it referring to the state of the parties before or after the election Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 15:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this is nonsensical; for many elections in proportional election systems, this distinction does not make sense, as often the first party forms a coalition with the second party. (Or even the third party forming a coalition with the second party, as in Austria after the 1999 election.) — Nightstallion 09:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, until someone adds a way to customize the labels (since I don't know wikipedia code), I'm going to undo this edit. -- Noname2 ( talk) 23:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
There's only 3 people discussing this. And what countries use "first party"? -- Noname2 ( talk) 20:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
It'd be great if there was a field in this template for voter turnout - can someone with template skillz through it in? -- Padraic 22:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Can someone more acquainted than I am with Mediawiki's arcane syntax change "PM-Elect" for British general elections? "New PM" would perhaps work. The concept of "Prime Minister-Elect" is nonsensical, as Prime Ministers are appointed, not elected. — Wereon ( talk) 20:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I've added a parameter "posttitle", which, if used, designates what the term is for the "victor". If not used, it is the same as it was before: {{{title}}}-elect. DoubleBlue ( Talk) 18:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I think we should add additional parameters for the seats held prior to election and the seat change due to the election itsef. -- Gordon Ecker ( talk) 03:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add hCard microformats by wrapping the name of each person (candidate/ nominee/ running mate, etc.), thus:
<span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[name]</span></span>
but am wary of breaking the template. Can someone assist, please? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. It slightly bothers me that all of the US election boxes use the current 50-star flag, and not the one that was in use at the time. I poked around a bit and found that Template:Flagicon has a "variant=" attribute which can set the correct flag, but that the election infobox template currently has no way to pass such an attribute to Flagicon.
I think that changing the line
{{flagicon |{{{country|}}}| size=50px}}
to
{{flagicon |{{{country|}}}| variant={{{flagvariant|}}}| size=50px}}
would allow this, but I wanted to check here first as I'm not too familiar with template syntax.
Antony-22 ( talk) 23:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Is this infobox appropriate for state election articles such as United States presidential election in Missouri, 2008 and United States presidential election in Indiana, 2008? It is already used in these articles, but the wording of the infobox parameters suggests that it is only for elections nationally. It is also NOT used in the state election articles for the 2004 presidential election (see United States presidential election in Pennsylvania, 2004 and United States presidential election in Florida, 2004). I am thinking that it probably should not be used, but does anyone else have any knowledge on where exactly this infobox should and shouldn't be placed? Tim meh ! 01:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Could we have a parameter to indicate the speaker of the house being elected at the time of a legislative election? Domminico ( talk) 18:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Should popular vote winners' (in the United States) totals be in bold in this infobox? There seems to be no real consistency among the 2000, 2004, and 2008 presidential election articles. No earlier election articles have the popular vote winners' total and percentage in bold, but the 2000 article does, as well as the 2008 article. The 2004 article does not. I can see the reasoning for putting the numbers in bold, as to show who won the popular vote and how it may differ from the winner in the Electoral College. However, since the popular vote has no effect on the outcome of the election, I would suggest the numbers not be in bold except when they have unusual usefulness as in the 2000 election. Tim meh ! 00:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm re-posting my comment here from Template:Infobox Election because it was getting no replies. Should popular vote winners' totals be in bold in the election infobox? There seems to be no real consistency among the 2000, 2004, and 2008 presidential election articles. No earlier election articles have the popular vote winners' total and percentage in bold, but the 2000 article does, as well as the 2008 article. The 2004 article does not (when I posted the original comment). I can see the reasoning for putting the numbers in bold, as to show who won the popular vote and how it may differ from the winner in the Electoral College. However, since the popular vote has no effect on the outcome of the election, I would suggest the numbers not be in bold except when they have unusual usefulness as in the 2000 election. Tim meh ! 14:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
{{#if:{{{{{#if:{{{nominee4|}}}|nominee|candidate}}4|}}}|{{!}} style="text-align: center" {{!}} {{#ifeq:{{{ongoing|}}}|yes||'''}}{{{{{#if:{{{nominee4|}}}|nominee|candidate}}4}}}{{#ifeq:{{{ongoing|}}}|yes||'''}}}}
to
{{#if:{{{{{#if:{{{nominee4|}}}|nominee|candidate}}4|}}}|{{!}} style="text-align: center" {{!}} {{{{{#if:{{{nominee4|}}}|nominee|candidate}}4}}} }}
(which looks pretty much like the rows for nominee5 and nominee6, and IMO this is the desired outcome). This shouldn't create any problems, but i'm announcing it just in case. -- Jokes Free4Me ( talk) 15:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I've been seeing if I can adapt this template to the elections for the UN Security Council, using United Nations Security Council election, 2008 as a guinea pig, and for the most part it works just fine. However, the template has the annoying "To be determined" thing pop at the bottom, which confuses the living daylights out of me. Can anyone inform me why, and how I can get around it? I've posted the template and my filling of the infobox. I've commented out the annoying bits on the main page.
![]() | |||
| |||
5 (of 10) non-permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council | |||
---|---|---|---|
| |||
![]() Security Council after 2008 elections. | |||
|
Thanks! Lockesdonkey ( talk) 22:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
{{Infobox Election | election_name = United Nations Security Council election, 2008 | country = United Nations | type = legislative | ongoing = no | previous_election = United Nations Security Council election, 2007 | previous_year = 2007 | next_election = United Nations Security Council election, 2009 | next_year = 2009 | seats_for_election = 5 (of 10) non-permanent seats on the [[United Nations Security Council]] | election_date = 17 October 2008 | map_image = UN Security Council 2009.svg | map_size = 300px | map_caption = Security Council after 2008 elections. | title = Members | before_election= {{ZAF}} <small>([[United Nations geoscheme for Africa|Africa]])</small> <br> {{IDN}} <small>([[United Nations geoscheme for Asia|Asia]])</small> <br> {{PAN}}<small>([[United Nations geoscheme for the Americas|LatAm&Car]])</small> <br> {{BEL}} <small>([[Western European and Others Group|WEOG]])</small> <br> {{ITA}} <small>([[Western European and Others Group|WEOG]])</small> <br> | posttitle = New Members | after_election = {{flag|Uganda}} <small>([[United Nations geoscheme for Africa|Africa]])</small><br> {{flag|Japan}} <small>([[United Nations geoscheme for Asia|Asia]])</small><br> {{flag|Mexico}} <small>([[United Nations geoscheme for the Americas|LatAm&Car]])</small> <br>{{flag|Turkey}} <small>([[Western European and Others Group|WEOG]])</small> <br>{{flag|Austria}} <small>([[Western European and Others Group|WEOG]])</small> }}
I've figured out the problem: it appears that "after_party" is a required field, which auto-fills to "To Be Determined" when not filled. Can this be changed? Alternately, can there be some mechanism for leaving it completely blank? Thanks! Lockesdonkey ( talk) 01:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Before the 2008 presidential election, there was a big dispute over which party nominees should be listed in the infobox. I suggest implementing the below text above the notes section so that we have a set standard for something like this. The below is adapted from this proposal, upon which consensus was reached to adopt in the 2008 election article.
Tim meh ! 16:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't see in the template code how this is caused but in the infobox as displaying on British Columbia general election, 2009 these labels display above those of the leaders of teh two parties so far listed (the template, if not already with room for it, needs to display four). My concern is the "First Party, Second Party" gives a POV impression of the party's rankings and projected results. This has to be changed and pronto, as the election campaign is imminent, and the effect of this is POV. Can someone please explain why it's doing that - it doesn't do it in the sample infobox of Bush etc overleaf - or please just make the correction (and allow for two other party leaders, unless that's as simple as just adding more party3= etc fields. Skookum1 ( talk) 12:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Currently, setting "ongoing = yes" turns on a flag that reads:
This article or section contains information about a forthcoming election. Content may change dramatically as the election approaches.
In many cases, this will be inappropriate. As I type this in late April 2009, the Indonesian legislative election can be considered "ongoing", as the counting is still taking place, but it certainly isn't "forthcoming", since the voting is finished.
Perhaps it would be better to have separate flags within the Infobox for congoing or forthcoming, or perhaps the message on the tag needs to be changed.
Ordinary Person ( talk) 01:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
At present, this infobox (which can get quite long), doesn't treat edit links for article sections correctly. The problem can be seen at Icelandic parliamentary election, 2009, where there are three edit links pushed to the bottom of the infobox instead of appearing at its left-hand side. Physchim62 (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
In the context of Indian elections, most governments at both the centre and the states are run by coallitions rather than by a single party. It would be great if this Infobox permits us to add the "Alliance" in addition to the existing "Party" field. This new field can be non-mandatory so that it does not impact those elections where the concept of Alliances does not exist. If there are no violent objections to this idea, I shall try to add this parameter into this template shortly in the future.
Aditya.krishnan.82 (
talk,
contribs)
07:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
All 550 seats of the People's Representative Council and all 128 seats of the Regional Representative Council | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello. I'm wondering if someone can help me edit the infobox since I'm not familiar with infobox markup syntax. I want to make the party name bold in the absence of the party leader field. In Indonesian elections, the leader is not as significant as the party itself. It doesn't make sense to be using this field since the winning party doesn't necessarily make its leader the speaker/chair of the assembly.
{{Infobox Election | election_name = Indonesian legislative election, 2004 | country = Indonesia | type = parliamentary | ongoing = no | previous_election = Indonesian legislative election, 1999 | previous_year = 1999 | next_election = Indonesian legislative election, 2009 | next_year = 2009 | seats_for_election = All 550 seats of the [[People's Representative Council]] and<br/>all 128 seats of the [[Regional Representative Council]] | election_date = 5 April 2004 | image1 = [[:File:Golkar logo.jpg|110px]] | party1 = Golkar | last_election1 = 120 seats, 22.44% | seats1 = 128 | seat_change1 = +8 | popular_vote1 = 24,480,757 | percentage1 = 21.58% | swing1 = 0.86% | image2 = [[:File:PDIPLogo.png|100px]] | party2 = Indonesian Democratic Party – Struggle | last_election2 = 153 seats, 33.74% | seats2 = 109 | seat_change2 = −41 | popular_vote2 = 21,026,629 | percentage2 = 18.53% | swing2 = -15.21% | image3 = [[:File:Optimized_image_93214277.png|85px]] | party3 = National Awakening Party | last_election3 = 51 seats, 12.61% | seats3 = 52 | seat_change3 = +1 | popular_vote3 = 11,989,564 | percentage3 = 10.57% | swing3 = -2.04% | title = Speaker | before_election = [[Akbar Tanjung]] | before_party = Golkar | after_election = [[Agung Laksono]] | after_party = Golkar }}
Thanks for the help! Arsonal ( talk) 06:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I removed the "current election" box as it should not be part of an infobox. It was also throwing hundreds of elections into the current category (e.g. NZ 2011), not to mention the problem with dating the box. If there's consensus we can reintorduce it, but it's a hack, albeit a clever one. Rich Farmbrough, 02:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC).
Does anyone know if there's any way that this template could support the inclusion of an ImageMap to be used on certain articles in place of the map_image parameter? It could be useful in articles for elections with subarticles discussing the election in specific areas, for example United States presidential election, 2008 and 2004. I tried it out in the sandbox, and I think another line similar to the map_image parameter would be enough, but I'm afraid I'm not knowledgeable or confident enough to add it myself. Thanks. — Hysteria18 ( Talk • Contributions) 19:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
{{#if:{{{party1|}}}{{{color1|}}}{{{colour1|}}}|<!-- Images 1, 2, 3 --> {{!}} colspan=2 {{!}} {{!}} style="text-align: center; border-bottom: 6px solid {{#if:{{{party1|}}}{{{color1|}}}{{{colour1|}}}|{{{color1|}}}|<!}}{{#if:{{{color1|}}}|--}}{{#ifeq: {{{party_colo{{#if:{{{party_colour|}}}|u|}}r}}}|no||{{Template: {{{party1}}}/meta/color}}}}{{#if:{{{color1|}}}|-}}{{#if:{{{color1|}}}|->}}{{#if:{{{color1|}}}|#{{{color1}}}}}{{#if:{{{colour1|}}}|#{{{colour1}}}}}"{{!}} {{#if:{{{image1|}}}|{{{image1}}}}} {{!}} style="text-align: center; border-bottom: 6px solid {{#if:{{{party2|}}}{{{color2|}}}{{{colour2|}}}|{{{color2|}}}|<!}}{{#if:{{{color2|}}}|--}}{{#ifeq: {{{party_colo{{#if:{{{party_colour|}}}|u|}}r}}}|no||{{Template: {{{party2}}}/meta/color}}}}{{#if:{{{color2|}}}|-}}{{#if:{{{color2|}}}|->}}{{#if:{{{color2|}}}|#{{{color2}}}}}{{#if:{{{colour2|}}}|#{{{colour2}}}}}"{{!}}{{#if:{{{image2|}}}|{{{image2}}}}} {{!}} style="text-align: center; border-bottom: 6px solid {{#if:{{{party3|}}}{{{color3|}}}{{{colour3|}}}|{{{color3|}}}|<!}}{{#if:{{{color3|}}}|--}}{{#ifeq: {{{party_colo{{#if:{{{party_colour|}}}|u|}}r}}}|no||{{Template: {{{party3}}}/meta/color}}}}{{#if:{{{color3|}}}|-}}{{#if:{{{color3|}}}|->}}{{#if:{{{color3|}}}|#{{{color3}}}}}{{#if:{{{colour3|}}}|#{{{colour3}}}}}"{{!}} {{#if:{{{image3|}}}|{{{image3}}}}} {{!}}- }}
This is pretty broken... — RockMFR 00:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Could someone please fix the colours for UKIP and The Greens in this infobox over at Norwich North by-election, 2009 please? -- [User] Jamie JCA [Talk] 23:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible to modify this template to allow for any number of candidates to be included, Possible array of multiples of three per row? Ukr-Trident ( talk) 08:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm terrible with templates; would anybody be able to take a look at Alberta general election, 1905 and tell me why the party colours and all the data after the map aren't displaying? Steve Smith ( talk) 06:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
What I do, when I am trying to do something that is on another article, is I go to that other article to see how its done. 117Avenue ( talk) 06:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering why the template wasn't rendering right here, with the image/colors not displayed. I realized the parameter "party1" is defined twice in the sample template, first for the main candidate, and then for the minor candidate. I removed part of that section, and now the template is working fine. -- snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 22:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there any place in the Infobox to place a link to the link to MPs after the current election? You can use previous_mps & next_mps to provide a link to the MPs elected in the previous & next elections, but I haven't found anyway to link to the list of current MPs.
Maybe this can be a link below the flag? That way the link is placed in between the links to the previous MPs & next MPs. Any thoughts?
Aditya.krishnan.82 (
talk,
contribs)
17:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I feel this is misleading as the term implies that the leader is currently in office wheras at the time of the election that is not necessarily the case. Previous would be a safer word. This is a template with wide application but I think it should be changed. -- Gibnews ( talk) 23:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Why is the flag needed here? Gnevin ( talk) 11:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
In the upcoming Dutch general election, 2010 no less than 11 parties are defending parliament seats.
Limiting the number of parties to 6 seems a bit arbitrary as we have no space for almost half the parties, even more problematic one of the Vice Prime Ministers (Andre Rouvoet) is the leader of a small coalition party that is in numbers at place 7 in the representation. The limitation to 6 parties means that we cannot show one of the government parties. Can it be extended? Arnoutf ( talk) 16:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Why is it that the infobox for the 2000 Republican primary election doesn't have pictures?-- Jerzeykydd ( talk) 03:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I would like to add a diagram with the final composition of the chamber, just like I did in the Spanish Wikipedia, see here. Any objections? Dove ( talk) 14:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
map_image
can already be used to add an image to the infobox. But if you want two images in an infobox, I see no problem.
117Avenue (
talk)
22:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Thank you, I'll do the changes shortly. I don't mean to add automatically the image, someone will have to make the picture in Commons for each election; I will only add a second map_image
field. Regards.
Dove (
talk)
11:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
How do I make a parliamentary election show two columns (2x2) rather than three (3x2)? Croatian parliamentary election, 2011 looks ugly right now, and I can't easily fill out the remaining two slots, because three smaller parties got 3 MPs (HDSSB, IDS, SDSS), and yet another one got 2 MPs but was in coalition with one of the top four (HSLS) so it was even more important. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 11:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
While the width of this infobox is generally ok for view via a normal web browser, it is almost impossible to see the whole infobox via the iPhone/iTouch application. The optimal width of the info box should be 239px. I understand it will take a lot of work to change every thing, but it is important that wikipedia works/can be viewed on all mediums. nat.u toronto 00:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the top of the infobox at United Kingdom general election, 2010, the layout of "‹ 2010 · members <Flag> Next ›" is, shall we say, a bit crap as the flag is off-centre, the bullet point between 2005 and members implies separation/next element (as in navboxes), and for some reason the elected MPs are missing. I suggest that, if we cannot find a consistent, legible and user-friendly way of including the "members" links, they ought to be omitted. 86.41.61.203 ( talk) 21:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I want to use this template at German presidential election, 2010, but find it very difficult to use, because the candidates are supported by several parties, which makes the template look like this [2]. The template seems to have one party as the only possible alternative. (one candidate is the candidate of CDU, CSU and FDP, and the other is a non-partisan candidate backed by SPD and Greens) Josh Gorand ( talk) 22:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
(also see Talk:German_presidential_election,_2010 Josh Gorand ( talk) 23:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC))
alliance1=FDP
and alliance2=Alliance '90/The Greens
party_colour=no
and party_name=no
anywhere in the template, then replace party1 with party1=[[Christian Democratic Union (Germany)|CDU]], [[Christian Social Union of Bavaria|CSU]], [[Free Democratic Party (Germany)|FDP]]
and party2 with party2=[[Social Democratic Party of Germany|SPD]], [[Alliance '90/The Greens|Green]]
party_name=no
anywhere in the template, then add colour1=000000
and colour2=CC0000
, and replace party1 with party1=[[Christian Democratic Union (Germany)|CDU]], [[Christian Social Union of Bavaria|CSU]], [[Free Democratic Party (Germany)|FDP]]
and party2 with party2=[[Social Democratic Party of Germany|SPD]], [[Alliance '90/The Greens|Green]]
This template is used for party leadership elections as well as standard presidential and parliamentary elections. In a party leadership election, all candidates are members of the same party, so the requirement to specify a party to allow images to display forces editors to choose between not using images or repeating the party name under each image. (See, for example, Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 2005.) Would it be possible to make it so images can display without displaying a party? - Rrius ( talk) 20:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
party1=Conservative Party (UK)
with colour1=0087DC
.
117Avenue (
talk)
23:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
How I can add more results, when there are multiple ballots. I need it here: German presidential election, 1949 -- Boris 15:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
In some elections, such as the 1789, 1792, and 1820 United States presidential elections, there is only one candidate who "deserves" to be included in the infobox. But if only one candidate is included, you get extra whitespace between a number of the fields. Does anyone know why this occurs, or know of a fix for the problem? — JPMcGrath ( talk) 03:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Could someone familiar with this template take a look at this diff from Michigan gubernatorial election, 2010. As of now, five parties have ballot access, but only two have made their nominations. The Libertarian nominees, at the beginning of the second row (party 4), display correctly. But even though the US Taxpayers candidates are (correctly?) entered in the party 6 fields, they are displayed in the party 5 spot. This has been taken out of the article until it can be fixed, because it incorrectly suggests that the US Taxpayers nominees are actually the Green Party nominees. Suggestions on how to fix this display error? cmadler ( talk) 11:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I prefer that the old inbox be put backed. Rizalninoynapoleon ( talk) 15:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Some recent changes appear to have introduced an error, the infobox at New Zealand general election, 2011 has some code text
appearing above the 2nd and 3rd entries. XLerate ( talk) 00:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
One of the most glaring omissions in this infobox is the lack of a prominent link to a list of MPs elected in the election. There are prominent links to the list of MPs elected at the previous and next elections, but not to those elected at the election which the infobox is summarising. I'm sure that this arose unintentionally, but it's a perverse situation and a nuisance for users.
This was discussed above (see Current MPs list), where the suggestion was made to include a link in the seats_for_election field, but that's inadequate in two ways:
So I have used the sandbox to demonstrate a way of doing it, by adding a new data field, elected_mps
(name chosen to match existing fields previous_mps
and next_mps
). Diff
here, and output
here.
Please can we implement this? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Just one voice to say or add to any others that this template is really too wide to sit beside the start of an article. At 1152 by 864 on a 19" monitor, it can squeeze the text to less than 10 words per line. Instead, how about making it the width of the article and placing the article's first paragraph or two of the article above it and the rest of the article below it? And/or maybe make it (partially) collapsed so it doesn't squeeze the text by default. 212.84.100.119 ( talk) 00:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
This election template appears to be the standard template for use in a verity of elections. However, I am a bit perplexed at the limited choices to fill-in for the template's "Type" field: presidential, parliamentary, and legislative. It seems misleading, considering the fact that this template is also used on elections not of those specific types, such as on United States Senate and U.S. gubernatorial election articles.
In these cases (examples below), what I've seen is that the "presidential" option is selected. But why mislabel something? Why not add the option of "gubernatorial" and "senatorial" (among others) to the available choices? A gubernatorial or senatorial election is not a presidential election, so why force people to input an untruth to use this template?
Examples for the abovementioned:
The case for a "gubernatorial" and a "senatorial" option are just thoughts that I have decided to post here. If for any reason there should not be added these options, please let me know why and how I'm wrong. Thank you! -- Sgt. R.K. Blue ( talk) 07:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The placement of the flag between the years of the previous and subsequent elections seems to be confusing rather than arbitrary. It almost seems as if the flag represents the period between those years. Perhaps the years could be more clearly displayed thus:
Previous election | Next election | |
2007 | 2010 | To be called |
This could perhaps be tied in with the previous and next parties/leaders, although this may lead to complications in cases where the leader is changed between elections, e.g., if a leader dies, is impeached, etc., would the elected leader or the person who replaced them (or both) be named? — sroc ( talk) 12:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, I have just made this change, after testing on the sandbox page seemed to work for all of the test cases. Hopefully everyone is OK with this. — sroc ( talk) 14:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Just when I thought that I had my head around templates, the version that I worked on developed a glitch that inserted blank space at the top of some (but not all) articles that contain the infobox. If anyone has any solutions, please feel free to have at it. Thanks also to SuperHamster for pointing this out and restoring the last working version. — sroc ( talk) 02:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Currently, when the next leader is not completed, this defaults to "TBD". However, this has led to some confusion, as discussed at Talk:Australian federal election, 2010#-elect. The problem here seems to lie particularly in this case where there are two parties mentioned: the one on the left is the incumbent (who also appears roughly above the listing for "Incumbent Prime Minister") and the other on the right is the challenger (who appears above the listing for "Prime Minister-elect"). Although an earlier version showed "Prime Minister-elect" as "To be determined", some people appear to have taken this at a glance to imply that the person named on the right (in this case, opposition leader Tony Abbott) is the "Prime Minister-elect" because his photo and stats appear on the same side of the infobox as those words. This has been exacerbated in this case because the end result is still yet to be declared more than a week after the election (the leaders having to negotiate with individual members of parliament to form a majority). I have suggested, in the meantime, that the "Prime Minister-elect" section simply be blanked (as shown here) to avoid any such implication. There seems to be no particular value including it if there is no real data to include there anyway, particularly if including something there is causing confusion or ambiguity.
In light of this, I propose that the template be amended so that the next leader section be omitted when the name is left blank. That is, instead of defaulting to "TBD", it is not shown at all (nor is the heading "[title]-elect"). If you wanted to include this in a particular instance, you could simply write "TBD" for the name of the next leader and the heading would be shown automatically. Thoughts? — sroc ( talk) 14:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe one of the more concerning problems with the template is the misrepresentation of an incumbent prime minister as "prime minister-elect" or "prime minister-designate" after an election that his or her party won. Regard Canadian federal election, 2008, for instance: Stephen Harper was prime minister before the election, which his Conservative Party subsequently won. The prime minister's commission was never withdrawn; he did not thus become prime minister-designate, he just stayed prime minister. The only case in which "prime minister-designate" would be appropriate is if the incumbent prime minister's party lost the election. The same applies to the infobox at Australian federal election, 2010. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I suspect that "Winning candidate" carries other issues about the legitimacy of being declared a "winner" in a parliamentary election, particularly in cases where there is a slim majority or even a minority of votes (with a majority of seats, in a coalition, etc.). I suggest that "Elected <title>" is the most neutral of the terms proposed as it is correct in all cases. If the terms "Re-elected <title>" or "<title>-elect" or anything else are desired, they can be implemented in individual cases using the posttitle parameter of the infobox — but IMHO, coding these into the infobox template for an array of situations would be overly involved and unnecessary. — sroc ( talk) 05:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Politics of Australia Elections in Australia |
![]() |
If we are to retain the flag icon (see #Flag above), it looks a bit barren now. Should we perhaps it out by adding provision for links to other articles about elections/politics for the country/state/etc.? For example:
I find it a bit confusing that the seats won in the last election come before the seats won in the election being discussed, e.g. Australian federal election, 2010.
It would be simpler to find out the number of seats at a glance by showing the current results first. This is the case when most new results are presented.
E.g., currently:
Leader's seat Lalor Warringah
Last election 83 seats 65 seats
Seats won 72 72
Seat change ▼11 ▲7
Proposed:
Leader's seat Lalor Warringah
Seats won 72 72
Seat change ▼11 ▲7
Last election 83 65
I can implement this in a few weeks if there is consensus or at least no significant objection here. Thanks,
Facts707 (
talk)
19:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
If the article for the next election (parameter "next_election") doesn't exist, why isn't a red link included? Why not use a link to encourage creation of a new article? According to Wikipedia:Red link, it ought to be linked.
Specifically, the code in the present template is: {{#ifexist:{{{next_election|}}}|[[{{{next_election}}}|{{{next_year}}}]]|{{{next_year}}}}
—
Markles
16:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Is there anyway we can change the previous holder's title like we can the "posttitle"? I mean where it says "President before election" (or "Incumbent President" in ongoing elections), can a template function be added to make that variable if need be? I was trying on the sandbox, but I couldn't get it to work.-- Tim Thomason 23:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
title
for the title before election. If the title after the election is different, than use posttitle
.
117Avenue (
talk)
00:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
posttitle
that would remove "before election" from the title. Because right now, I can't find any way to do that. posttitle
is similar, in that it removes the "Elected" from the post-title. I've played around with title
, but it always leaves a "before election" tag.--
Tim Thomason
06:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
We have an option for seats and electoral votes, but should we also add the option of delegates for primaries and leadership contests? - Pictureprovince ( talk) 17:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Please make it possible to introduce the fields "Nominee" and "run_mate" for the type "Parliamentary". We will have a parliamentary election, the European Parliament election in 2014, with presidential nominees (candidates for Commission president) who won't be party leaders or parliamentary group leaders. Thanking you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien-223 ( talk • contribs) 22:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
This edit seems to have disrupted the way the the seats_for_election parameter displays. As I recall, it used to be centered, but that is not the case now. What's more, it is small and left-justified, but a link for opinion polls appears below it centered and full-sized. I doubt that's the right place to put a link to opinion polls, but it does help demonstrate what's wrong with the other parameter. For an example, see 41st Canadian federal election. - Rrius ( talk) 03:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Probably can go beneath the line where it says "All ____ seats of the <chamber>." For example, in United Kingdom general election, 2010:
– HTD ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
HTD: it doesn't matter if you are correct or not about the terminology used in the UK. The infobox needs to be universal. How does
this look? I named the parameter majority_seats
.
117Avenue (
talk)
00:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Seats contested: 650 seats in the House of Commons Majority of seats: 326