![]() | 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 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
I don't know when the parameter or whatever was added. But the election infoboxes look great, with the addition of flags. GoodDay ( talk) 03:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I noticed somebody removed the flag from the 2024 US presidential election article's infobox. But the flag is in all the Year US presidential election articles infoboxes. Indeed the flags are in all the Year Place election articles infoboxes across Wikipedia. GoodDay ( talk) 20:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I also note that using flags for sub-national regions is an even more egregious violation of MOS:FLAG as per MOS:SOVEREIGNFLAG. If we can't get a general agreement, I hope we could at least agree not to use flags for elections not at a national level. Bondegezou ( talk) 21:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I suppose the flag identifies which country or even subdivision the election is being held at. I suppose it's better if this is transformed into a "countryname" parameter just like 99% of other infoboxes out there.
This also identifies in which body the election is being held under. For example, special elections (sorry, by-elections) can be unclear on which political entity it is being held at. A US flag means it's for one of the houses of Congress, a state flag means it is for a state legislature. Again, transforming this to a countryname parameter would make this better. 13:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
There is an RfC that is perhaps of general interest at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_2022_Australian_federal_election#RfC_on_commentary_rows around whether opinion polling tables should have rows providing commentary on the events of the day. Input welcomed. Bondegezou ( talk) 12:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
As I was reading through an article, I noticed that it lacked an Infobox. I went to the talk page, but noticed that the WikiProject banner template is fairly minimalistic. I am wondering if there should be a new parameter added to the banner that should be used on articles that lack infoboxes. This parameter can be found on WikiProject Sweden, architecture, and molecular biology. Compare the article on the 2021 Gibraltar abortion referendum (does not have an infobox) to the article on the 2021 Mexican corruption trial referendum (has an infobox). — Painting17 ( talk) 20:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
how do we get members to help focus on a particular article? Thanks a bunch. Quiet2 ( talk) 09:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Without looking, can you tell the difference between Durham (electoral district) and Electoral district of Durham? Maybe WP:AUSPOL mandates "Electoral district of Foo" whereas WP:CANADA (or the inactive subproject WP:CANELEC) uses "Foo (electoral district)". Perhaps some other country's Wikproject has decided on a third pattern. Until I edited the articles listed at Durham (disambiguation)#Electoral_districts, they generally had hatnotes for articles about other districts in the same country, but not those abroad. To avoid confusing unwary readers, it seems to me that electoral-district articles need either (a) more cross-national hatnotes or (b) a cross-national disambiguator convention — in this case, maybe "Foo (Barian electoral district)" or "Electoral district of Foo (Barland)". jnestorius( talk) 06:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Template talk:Croatian elections#2022 redux regarding the layout of the template. Views would be welcomed. Cheers, Number 5 7 20:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:2022_Uttar_Pradesh_Legislative_Assembly_election#Adding_Opinion_Polls about what polling is reliable and should be included in the article. I don't know what the right answer is, but I think some additional input is needed to stop a cycle of reverting. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I've just cut this:
↓ | |||||||||
160 | 119 | 32 | 25 | 2 | |||||
Liberal | Conservative | BQ | NDP | G |
from 2021 Canadian federal election. These kinds of bars display incorrectly on some devices with smaller screens (and that's how most people read Wikipedia). The bars for each party can be the wrong size, because the bar always remains large enough to display the text in it. (Try minimising your browser window while looking at the Green Party bar.) The majority point arrow can go all over the place. In other words, we have an articles that 'say' the wrong thing because the graphic doesn't work. We have previously agreed that we should therefore never use these and a bunch were deleted from articles. But they keep turning up again! Can I ask for a more concerted push from WikiProject members to get rid of these (or replace with a graphic that displays reliably)? Bondegezou ( talk) 09:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I suspect if one were to go through many of the older Canadian federal/provincial/territorial election articles. They'll find many out-dated graphics. GoodDay ( talk) 20:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I have proposed a cleanup/rescoping of the categories Category:Redistricting, Category:Electoral redistributions and category:Redistricting in the United States. You are invited to the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 17#Redistricting. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Redistricting and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 15#Redistricting until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Thryduulf (
talk)
12:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1891 Cisleithanian legislative election#Requested move 22 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1897 Cisleithanian legislative election#Requested move 22 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1907 Cisleithanian legislative election#Requested move 22 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1907 Cisleithanian legislative election in the Kingdom of Dalmatia#Requested move 22 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1911 Cisleithanian legislative election#Requested move 22 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1911 Cisleithanian legislative election in the Kingdom of Dalmatia#Requested move 22 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1900–1901 Cisleithanian legislative election#Requested move 22 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --- CX Zoom(he/him) ( let's talk| contribs) 21:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to see if any of you thinks that interactive maps should be inserted into articles on congressional districts or lists of them (eg. Illinois's congressional districts). I believe this is a positive since this removes the hassle of making maps in the form of images one by one and readers can click around and zoom into the maps. This would look a lot like the map I added in User:Twotwofourtysix/sandbox#Heading 1. I appreciate any feedbacks. (Courtesy ping to CX Zoom) — twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 04:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I've now added these maps in the individual congressional district articles of Montana, Utah, Massachusetts, Iowa's 3rd and 4th, and I'm now working on Illinois. The problem I've come across now is, other than the uncertain nature of maps in litigation, that some districts switch numbering. For example, Tucson-based AZ-2 became AZ-6, Flint-based MI-5 became MI-8, and IA-1 & IA-2 switched places for some reason, just to name a few. This is a problem because I'm using switchers to switch between the old and new district lines. Are there any suggestions for this? — twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 09:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for having to bother you all again, but which of these interactive maps are better: the one currently at Minnesota's 1st congressional district with the switcher template, or this one which depicts district changes directly (losses from district in red, gain in lime green):
— twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 10:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:European Parliament constituencies in the Republic of Ireland#Requested move 14 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 20:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I've done a fair bit of work organising 2022 Coventry City Council election, but I'm having some difficulty with one of the templates (the one which makes party colours automatically insert). I've explained my problem in the talk page for the article, if someone has 5 minutes to spare could they help out with that? Cheers! 5.68.219.54 ( talk) 15:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I've noticed that a huge number of election articles contain As of {{CURRENTYEAR}}
, usually in a sentence such as As of {{CURRENTYEAR}}, this is the last time
. This use of the "CURRENT" magic words should be avoided when dating statements, as it implies that the article has been verified more recently and is more up to date than it really is (and I've found examples where the statement it referred to was out of date). Although these articles don't use the {{
as of}} template, the advice at
Template:As_of/doc#Usage_guidelines still stands that Using this template with values such as
I am going through and fixing these in batches, usually just replacing the year with the current year (except in cases where there is a clearly defined year that should be used instead), but I wanted to give this WikiProject a heads up. --
Ahecht (
TALK{{
As of|now}}
or variables such as {{
As of|{{CURRENTYEAR}}}}
is a
relative time reference and the equivalent to using "currently", which is generally against the
precise language guideline.
PAGE)
14:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Following up on the earlier discussion about this, I think it's become abundantly clear we need an actual solution on the matter. Since the RfC - where reactions were mixed at best - these large image galleries have continued to proliferate in election articles - even in elections with only a single candidate in each primary, like 2022_United_States_Senate_election_in_Vermont. In many articles, like the 2022 Rhode Island Congressional elections, the images are of a visibly horrendous quality, likely screengrabbed from YouTube videos. This image in particular is clearly awful and lacks any real encyclopedic value, as is this one currently being used on 2022 United States Senate election in Arkansas. It boggles the mind how anyone could find value in these.
Moreover, most of these galleries are now accompanied with an obnoxious disclaimer that:
The images in this gallery are in the public domain or are otherwise free to use. This gallery should not be construed as a list of major or noteworthy candidates. If a candidate is not included in this gallery, it is only because there are no high-quality, copyright-free photographs of them available on the Internet.
This is, of course, a patently ridiculous and unprovable claim; you cannot, in fact, claim that there are no free-use images on the entire internet. This is an inherently unprovable claim, and putting this ridiculous claim in Wikipedia's voice is clearly not acceptable. Moreover, giving images to some candidates but not others does inherently provide credibility to some candidates but not others, and that's before getting into inherent concerns over clutter and accessibility. Simply put - there's a lot of issues with these galleries and tables.
While it's clear that some editors do want these galleries, there's no project-wide consensus on the matter. I highly recommend we come to some sort of recommendation on to how these galleries are to operate, if we even keep them to begin with. I'm of the frame of mind that they should be removed entirely from all articles except for Presidential elections, per longstanding WP:EDITCON. Toa Nidhiki05 14:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Agree that the footnote is unnecessary. The nominees’ pictures will go in the infobox. Reywas92 Talk 01:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Template talk:Infobox election § Should an election's official logo be included in the infobox?.
Chlod (
say hi!)
00:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I think that UK parliamentary by-elections, for example: /info/en/?search=2022_Birmingham_Erdington_by-election should have as the link to "last" not as the link to the last general election but instead to the last election for that constituency, for the previous example, that would be: /info/en/?search=Birmingham_Erdington_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s. Has this already been answered and if not, do people agree or disagree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18egr ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I see the title of a lot of articles (all?) on election and referendum polls in enwiki start with Opinion polling for.... That strikes me as wrong; strictly speaking, voting surveys are not opinion polls. An opinion is what someone thinks of something, not something she intends to do. That's why
RealClearPolitics calls them election polls, and
YouGov calls them voting intention surveys. An "election opinion poll" would ask people who they think will win, not who they intend to vote for.
I could
boldly start renaming the pages in the best spirit of
WP:CYCLE, but I'm sure someone will click-revert it without even asking simply bc that's the current norm. So I thought I'd raise the issue here first. —
Guarapiranga
☎
04:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't see support for your suggestion of "voting survey" or "voting/er intention survey".
After spending the last days following the very interesting NI elections, I've just fallen on 2017 Clackmannanshire Council election, which (as of the time of writing, I'm going to correct this in a moment) contains some obviously fictitious results (which, on top of that, did not have a proper source to support them until I added one just now). Now, the user who seems to have contributed these doesn't seem to have been particularly active ( Special:Contributions/Scottishbanter93); but I wouldn't be writing this here if I didn't doubt that its possible similar fictional numbers also exist elsewhere ( 2017 Stirling Council election has other obvious examples, but I'd bet it's not the only one). If anybody has some patience, a wee bit of common sense about how STV works, and some know how in finding acceptable sources ( this seems somewhat borderline, but its probably accurate and much better than nothing), extending the exercise to other pages might be worthwhile. Cheers, RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 03:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Philippines political party results tables were wholesale changed -- in the middle of an election! -- then conveniently a "discussion" was started justifying(?) the change. This changed the look of the tables from the rest of the world. I would agree changes were needed, but a discussion first has to be done, then do the changes next, instead of the reverse.
We'd also be needing templates for tables such as this if ever the project wants a consistent "look" for tables such as this. Howard the Duck ( talk) 22:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Is there a template or a recommended way to include county-level results when we're adding the results from Gubernatorial/Senate elections in the United States? I've come into possession of a copy of Dubin's book of results from 1776-1860, so I have the data, but I'm unsure what the best way would be to add it to articles. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they) Talk to Me! 15:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi all. I recently discovered this known inconsistency, with cumulative voting claiming to be a type of cardinal voting, but cardinal voting strongly implying that it excludes cumulative voting! Who's right? There are threads on both the cardinal talk page and the cumulative talk page with existing discussion on the matter. Grateful to anyone who can help clear it up! DougInAMug talk 22:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Discussion about Australian election tables showing full results in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#Election results if you want to comment.
-- Yilku1 ( talk) 17:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Since OurCampaigns is now listed at WP:RSP as "generally unreliable," I've been slowly replacing OurCampaigns references with better sourcing, such as academic texts or official election results - I know books are less verifiable because of access issues, but especially for older or more obscure elections, they're the only place results are available. I'm wondering if people have any strong feelings about OurCampaigns links in the external links section of articles. I know it's not unusual to link to UGC there (for example, IMDB links on relevant articles), so I haven't been removing them. Any thoughts on this? ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they) Talk to Me! 17:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi all, is there a policy/guideline page which mentions the outcome of this RfC? I need to cite it when reverting an edit in my watchlist. Thanks! — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 13:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Recent UK by-elections articles, like 2022 Wakefield by-election and 2022 Tiverton and Honiton by-election, now show the same results in four different formats: there's the main Results section with a table of the results; the same results are tabulated in the infobox (excluding candidates on less than 5%); the infobox also has a two-part bar chart (the first showing the results and the previous results; the second showing change) for several but not all candidates (cut-off unclear but not the same 5% cut-off); and there is also a pie chart of the results in the Results section.
This is silly. I've never seen a real encyclopaedia article give the same results four times over. I've not see any online coverage give the same results four times over.
I suggest 2 things: (1) Dump the pie chart. Pie charts are a poor way of showing data. To quote the
pie chart article:
Statisticians generally regard pie charts as a poor method of displaying information, and they are uncommon in scientific literature.
(2) Move the bar charts to the Results section. Infoboxes are meant to be compact things according to the MOS. Repeating the same results twice in an infobox is unnecessary. The bar charts are too shrunken to be clear when in the infobox. So move them somewhere more sensible.
I started a discussion at Talk:2022_Wakefield_by-election#No_pies, but I think this needs Project consensus. I will also seek input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. Bondegezou ( talk) 21:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for everyone's input so far. I think it's currently 5:1 against the pie charts, and there's also a clear majority in favour of moving the bar charts out of the infobox. There are also several issues that have been raised about the details of the bar chart: I'm tagging 沁水湾, who did those charts. Further input is welcome. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I noticed today that articles about Israeli elections all misused bold face. For example, in 1983 Israeli municipal elections, the opening sentence appeared as:
It doesn't make any sense to bold-face text that doesn't correspond at all to the article title. MOS:TITLEABSENTBOLD says "In general, if the article's title (or a significant alternative title) is absent from the first sentence, do not apply the bold style to related text that does appear", and it uses 1999 Nepalese general election as an example, pointing out that bold-facing "General elections" in the opening sentence would be wrong.
When I noticed the problem with Israeli election articles, I assumed that one person with an interest in Israeli elections had not read the manual of style and had thus introduced the error. However, as I look into it, I see that the problems goes far beyond Israel, and in fact appears to affect the overwhelming majority of all election articles. For instance, except for the one article specifically highlighted in the MOS, all articles about general elections in Nepal currently misuse bold face in their opening sentences.
So, the problem must lie with editors of election articles in general. So I would like to ask here: why do the overwhelming majority of election articles use bold face incorrectly? 164.134.2.50 ( talk) 11:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Many articles on state congressional districts are still outdated and do not reflect how those districts have been redrawn after the 2020 census. I think we need an organized effort focused on updating those articles and the maps of districts used therein to reflect these changes. If such an effort already exists I am not aware of it but would very much appreciate anyone bringing it to my attention. IntoThinAir ( talk) 16:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
The bottom of the 2021 California gubernatorial recall election infobox, should read Governor before recall & Governor after recall. As Newsom was not recalled & thus nullified any election result. GoodDay ( talk) 01:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Are the decrease and increase templates used in results tables? Do they have to be removed? Yilku1 ( talk) 22:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Following up on the earlier discussion about this, I think it's become abundantly clear we need an actual solution on the matter. Since the RfC - where reactions were mixed at best - these large image galleries have continued to proliferate in election articles - even in elections with only a single candidate in each primary, like 2022_United_States_Senate_election_in_Vermont. In many articles, like the 2022 Rhode Island Congressional elections, the images are of a visibly horrendous quality, likely screengrabbed from YouTube videos. This image in particular is clearly awful and lacks any real encyclopedic value, as is this one currently being used on 2022 United States Senate election in Arkansas. It boggles the mind how anyone could find value in these.
Moreover, most of these galleries are now accompanied with an obnoxious disclaimer:
The images in this gallery are in the public domain or are otherwise free to use. This gallery should not be construed as a list of major or noteworthy candidates. If a candidate is not included in this gallery, it is only because there are no high-quality, copyright-free photographs of them available on the Internet.
This is, of course, a patently ridiculous and unprovable claim; you cannot, in fact, claim that there are no free-use images on the entire internet. This is an inherently unprovable claim, and putting this ridiculous claim in Wikipedia's voice is clearly not acceptable. Moreover, giving images to some candidates but not others does inherently provide credibility to some candidates but not others, and that's before getting into inherent concerns over clutter and accessibility. Simply put - there's a lot of issues with these galleries and tables.
While it's clear that some editors do want these galleries, there's no project-wide consensus on the matter. I highly recommend we come to some sort of recommendation on to how these galleries are to operate, if we even keep them to begin with. I'm of the frame of mind that they should be removed entirely from all articles except for Presidential elections, per longstanding WP:EDITCON. At minimum, the use of the galleries should not include the claim that there are no free images of anyone else on the internet. Toa Nidhiki05 13:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
giving images to some candidates but not others inherently provide credibility to some candidates but not othershave apparently led to editors scraping the bottom of the barrel to find any images of any primary candidates. You note images
of a visibly horrendous quality, likely screengrabbed from YouTube videosbut this also leads to many, many uploads of campaign photos with dubious claims of a free license, such as the election in Vermont that you linked to. It's gotten really tiresome and I think editors should redirect their time to adding encyclopedic prose instead, which is considerably lacking compared to election articles in other countries. — twotwofourtysix( talk || edits) 14:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Since there seems to be more or less broad agreement about these, is there anything we can do to either remove these galleries or make them less bad? Toa Nidhiki05 15:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I wish we could have a civil discussion about this. Unfortunately, some editors have to act like the world is coming to an end because a Wikipedia page has a picture they don't like. Most of these pictures are very small on the page and you can't even tell that they're a bit low quality, so I don't get the idea that we're destroying Wikipedia's reputation by including them. Some of the arguments here are reasonable but others are just absurd, like the overly dramatic rant about how the disclaimer says "there are no high-quality, copyright-free photographs of them available on the Internet" instead of "there are no known high-quality, copyright-free photographs of them available on the Internet" (which, by the way, would be a reason to edit the disclaimer, not remove the entire gallery). I also don't get the reasoning of "some people add copyrighted pictures, therefore there should be no pictures." This should be a simple discussion about a visual element on a webpage but I know I'm inevitably going to get screamed at about how photo galleries are literally ruining Wikipedia. And that's not even mentioning how Toa absurdly declared that there was "broad agreement" that the galleries are bad even though a grand total of *3 people* participated in their discussion, out of the thousands who edit these pages. If nobody joins your discussion, that doesn't mean everyone agrees with you, it means nobody cares. By your own admission, there are numerous people working on and adding to the galleries. Why don't they count? By your own logic, if I got 4 friends to make Wikipedia accounts and say they love photo galleries, there would be "broad consensus" to keep them. There was an actual discussion about this earlier than ended inconclusively, so you have no right to just nuke every gallery off the face of the planet. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 23:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment: WP:GALLERY says "Generally, a gallery or cluster of images should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text. A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made." So first, I agree that the caption for galleries needs to be rewritten. Second, I think that for articles with small galleries (1 or two candidate) we can incorporate them into the article similar to 2022 Oklahoma gubernatorial election#Democratic primary since "a gallery or cluster of images should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text." Large galleries in races with multiple candidates I think are harder. I think part of the question is how do the galleries add to the article and why shouldn't they be moved to Wikimedia Commons photo galleries. -- TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 00:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment: I generally find the photo galleries to be useful for displaying candidates running. I like it and think it's good for improving reader's understanding. Pennsylvania2 ( talk) 02:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment: Photo galleries with candidates are good, even if the quality on some photo isn't the best. The good certainly outweighs the bad here. GeorgeBailey ( talk) 15:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
What is the general feeling on the use of {{ Election box}} in electoral history sections (in bios)? Useful purveyors of information or clunky wastes of space? I go back and forth, and can't decide. Curbon7 ( talk) 09:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I prefer compact tables like at Patty Murray. Reywas92 Talk 07:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
... the same 5% as for the US? — Guarapiranga ☎ 03:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Context
A bit of an edit war ensuing at the
2022 Brazilian general election article over which photo to use for
Lula, the leading candidate.
Alternatives
Discussion
(2) seems most accurate, but surely can't be the only deciding factor: it needs to be a photo of the face, of the whole face, of not much else than the face, identifiable, good quality, etc. (1) adds consistency across articles, and prevents edit wars as the one in context. (3) seems the least desirable (and perhaps the status quo). —
Guarapiranga
☎
00:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:UGC policy exists as "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable". I understand this very valid policy and how it protects user-generated opinions from becoming fact in articles about certain topics. Recently, candidate endorsements that source user-generated content have been getting removed and tagged with the UGC marker. I believe that an endorsement, coming from a source that is verified, should not removed under the guise of UGC. If an endorsement is coming from a person or organization that meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and the entity in question communicates from a verified account, that counts as a reliable source solely for endorsement listing purposes. What do you all think? GeorgeBailey ( talk) 00:08, 27 August 2022 (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 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
I don't know when the parameter or whatever was added. But the election infoboxes look great, with the addition of flags. GoodDay ( talk) 03:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I noticed somebody removed the flag from the 2024 US presidential election article's infobox. But the flag is in all the Year US presidential election articles infoboxes. Indeed the flags are in all the Year Place election articles infoboxes across Wikipedia. GoodDay ( talk) 20:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I also note that using flags for sub-national regions is an even more egregious violation of MOS:FLAG as per MOS:SOVEREIGNFLAG. If we can't get a general agreement, I hope we could at least agree not to use flags for elections not at a national level. Bondegezou ( talk) 21:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I suppose the flag identifies which country or even subdivision the election is being held at. I suppose it's better if this is transformed into a "countryname" parameter just like 99% of other infoboxes out there.
This also identifies in which body the election is being held under. For example, special elections (sorry, by-elections) can be unclear on which political entity it is being held at. A US flag means it's for one of the houses of Congress, a state flag means it is for a state legislature. Again, transforming this to a countryname parameter would make this better. 13:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
There is an RfC that is perhaps of general interest at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_2022_Australian_federal_election#RfC_on_commentary_rows around whether opinion polling tables should have rows providing commentary on the events of the day. Input welcomed. Bondegezou ( talk) 12:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
As I was reading through an article, I noticed that it lacked an Infobox. I went to the talk page, but noticed that the WikiProject banner template is fairly minimalistic. I am wondering if there should be a new parameter added to the banner that should be used on articles that lack infoboxes. This parameter can be found on WikiProject Sweden, architecture, and molecular biology. Compare the article on the 2021 Gibraltar abortion referendum (does not have an infobox) to the article on the 2021 Mexican corruption trial referendum (has an infobox). — Painting17 ( talk) 20:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
how do we get members to help focus on a particular article? Thanks a bunch. Quiet2 ( talk) 09:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Without looking, can you tell the difference between Durham (electoral district) and Electoral district of Durham? Maybe WP:AUSPOL mandates "Electoral district of Foo" whereas WP:CANADA (or the inactive subproject WP:CANELEC) uses "Foo (electoral district)". Perhaps some other country's Wikproject has decided on a third pattern. Until I edited the articles listed at Durham (disambiguation)#Electoral_districts, they generally had hatnotes for articles about other districts in the same country, but not those abroad. To avoid confusing unwary readers, it seems to me that electoral-district articles need either (a) more cross-national hatnotes or (b) a cross-national disambiguator convention — in this case, maybe "Foo (Barian electoral district)" or "Electoral district of Foo (Barland)". jnestorius( talk) 06:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Template talk:Croatian elections#2022 redux regarding the layout of the template. Views would be welcomed. Cheers, Number 5 7 20:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:2022_Uttar_Pradesh_Legislative_Assembly_election#Adding_Opinion_Polls about what polling is reliable and should be included in the article. I don't know what the right answer is, but I think some additional input is needed to stop a cycle of reverting. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I've just cut this:
↓ | |||||||||
160 | 119 | 32 | 25 | 2 | |||||
Liberal | Conservative | BQ | NDP | G |
from 2021 Canadian federal election. These kinds of bars display incorrectly on some devices with smaller screens (and that's how most people read Wikipedia). The bars for each party can be the wrong size, because the bar always remains large enough to display the text in it. (Try minimising your browser window while looking at the Green Party bar.) The majority point arrow can go all over the place. In other words, we have an articles that 'say' the wrong thing because the graphic doesn't work. We have previously agreed that we should therefore never use these and a bunch were deleted from articles. But they keep turning up again! Can I ask for a more concerted push from WikiProject members to get rid of these (or replace with a graphic that displays reliably)? Bondegezou ( talk) 09:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I suspect if one were to go through many of the older Canadian federal/provincial/territorial election articles. They'll find many out-dated graphics. GoodDay ( talk) 20:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I have proposed a cleanup/rescoping of the categories Category:Redistricting, Category:Electoral redistributions and category:Redistricting in the United States. You are invited to the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 17#Redistricting. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Redistricting and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 15#Redistricting until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Thryduulf (
talk)
12:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1891 Cisleithanian legislative election#Requested move 22 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1897 Cisleithanian legislative election#Requested move 22 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1907 Cisleithanian legislative election#Requested move 22 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1907 Cisleithanian legislative election in the Kingdom of Dalmatia#Requested move 22 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1911 Cisleithanian legislative election#Requested move 22 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1911 Cisleithanian legislative election in the Kingdom of Dalmatia#Requested move 22 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1900–1901 Cisleithanian legislative election#Requested move 22 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --- CX Zoom(he/him) ( let's talk| contribs) 21:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to see if any of you thinks that interactive maps should be inserted into articles on congressional districts or lists of them (eg. Illinois's congressional districts). I believe this is a positive since this removes the hassle of making maps in the form of images one by one and readers can click around and zoom into the maps. This would look a lot like the map I added in User:Twotwofourtysix/sandbox#Heading 1. I appreciate any feedbacks. (Courtesy ping to CX Zoom) — twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 04:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I've now added these maps in the individual congressional district articles of Montana, Utah, Massachusetts, Iowa's 3rd and 4th, and I'm now working on Illinois. The problem I've come across now is, other than the uncertain nature of maps in litigation, that some districts switch numbering. For example, Tucson-based AZ-2 became AZ-6, Flint-based MI-5 became MI-8, and IA-1 & IA-2 switched places for some reason, just to name a few. This is a problem because I'm using switchers to switch between the old and new district lines. Are there any suggestions for this? — twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 09:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for having to bother you all again, but which of these interactive maps are better: the one currently at Minnesota's 1st congressional district with the switcher template, or this one which depicts district changes directly (losses from district in red, gain in lime green):
— twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 10:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:European Parliament constituencies in the Republic of Ireland#Requested move 14 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 20:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I've done a fair bit of work organising 2022 Coventry City Council election, but I'm having some difficulty with one of the templates (the one which makes party colours automatically insert). I've explained my problem in the talk page for the article, if someone has 5 minutes to spare could they help out with that? Cheers! 5.68.219.54 ( talk) 15:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I've noticed that a huge number of election articles contain As of {{CURRENTYEAR}}
, usually in a sentence such as As of {{CURRENTYEAR}}, this is the last time
. This use of the "CURRENT" magic words should be avoided when dating statements, as it implies that the article has been verified more recently and is more up to date than it really is (and I've found examples where the statement it referred to was out of date). Although these articles don't use the {{
as of}} template, the advice at
Template:As_of/doc#Usage_guidelines still stands that Using this template with values such as
I am going through and fixing these in batches, usually just replacing the year with the current year (except in cases where there is a clearly defined year that should be used instead), but I wanted to give this WikiProject a heads up. --
Ahecht (
TALK{{
As of|now}}
or variables such as {{
As of|{{CURRENTYEAR}}}}
is a
relative time reference and the equivalent to using "currently", which is generally against the
precise language guideline.
PAGE)
14:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Following up on the earlier discussion about this, I think it's become abundantly clear we need an actual solution on the matter. Since the RfC - where reactions were mixed at best - these large image galleries have continued to proliferate in election articles - even in elections with only a single candidate in each primary, like 2022_United_States_Senate_election_in_Vermont. In many articles, like the 2022 Rhode Island Congressional elections, the images are of a visibly horrendous quality, likely screengrabbed from YouTube videos. This image in particular is clearly awful and lacks any real encyclopedic value, as is this one currently being used on 2022 United States Senate election in Arkansas. It boggles the mind how anyone could find value in these.
Moreover, most of these galleries are now accompanied with an obnoxious disclaimer that:
The images in this gallery are in the public domain or are otherwise free to use. This gallery should not be construed as a list of major or noteworthy candidates. If a candidate is not included in this gallery, it is only because there are no high-quality, copyright-free photographs of them available on the Internet.
This is, of course, a patently ridiculous and unprovable claim; you cannot, in fact, claim that there are no free-use images on the entire internet. This is an inherently unprovable claim, and putting this ridiculous claim in Wikipedia's voice is clearly not acceptable. Moreover, giving images to some candidates but not others does inherently provide credibility to some candidates but not others, and that's before getting into inherent concerns over clutter and accessibility. Simply put - there's a lot of issues with these galleries and tables.
While it's clear that some editors do want these galleries, there's no project-wide consensus on the matter. I highly recommend we come to some sort of recommendation on to how these galleries are to operate, if we even keep them to begin with. I'm of the frame of mind that they should be removed entirely from all articles except for Presidential elections, per longstanding WP:EDITCON. Toa Nidhiki05 14:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Agree that the footnote is unnecessary. The nominees’ pictures will go in the infobox. Reywas92 Talk 01:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Template talk:Infobox election § Should an election's official logo be included in the infobox?.
Chlod (
say hi!)
00:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I think that UK parliamentary by-elections, for example: /info/en/?search=2022_Birmingham_Erdington_by-election should have as the link to "last" not as the link to the last general election but instead to the last election for that constituency, for the previous example, that would be: /info/en/?search=Birmingham_Erdington_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s. Has this already been answered and if not, do people agree or disagree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18egr ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I see the title of a lot of articles (all?) on election and referendum polls in enwiki start with Opinion polling for.... That strikes me as wrong; strictly speaking, voting surveys are not opinion polls. An opinion is what someone thinks of something, not something she intends to do. That's why
RealClearPolitics calls them election polls, and
YouGov calls them voting intention surveys. An "election opinion poll" would ask people who they think will win, not who they intend to vote for.
I could
boldly start renaming the pages in the best spirit of
WP:CYCLE, but I'm sure someone will click-revert it without even asking simply bc that's the current norm. So I thought I'd raise the issue here first. —
Guarapiranga
☎
04:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't see support for your suggestion of "voting survey" or "voting/er intention survey".
After spending the last days following the very interesting NI elections, I've just fallen on 2017 Clackmannanshire Council election, which (as of the time of writing, I'm going to correct this in a moment) contains some obviously fictitious results (which, on top of that, did not have a proper source to support them until I added one just now). Now, the user who seems to have contributed these doesn't seem to have been particularly active ( Special:Contributions/Scottishbanter93); but I wouldn't be writing this here if I didn't doubt that its possible similar fictional numbers also exist elsewhere ( 2017 Stirling Council election has other obvious examples, but I'd bet it's not the only one). If anybody has some patience, a wee bit of common sense about how STV works, and some know how in finding acceptable sources ( this seems somewhat borderline, but its probably accurate and much better than nothing), extending the exercise to other pages might be worthwhile. Cheers, RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 03:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Philippines political party results tables were wholesale changed -- in the middle of an election! -- then conveniently a "discussion" was started justifying(?) the change. This changed the look of the tables from the rest of the world. I would agree changes were needed, but a discussion first has to be done, then do the changes next, instead of the reverse.
We'd also be needing templates for tables such as this if ever the project wants a consistent "look" for tables such as this. Howard the Duck ( talk) 22:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Is there a template or a recommended way to include county-level results when we're adding the results from Gubernatorial/Senate elections in the United States? I've come into possession of a copy of Dubin's book of results from 1776-1860, so I have the data, but I'm unsure what the best way would be to add it to articles. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they) Talk to Me! 15:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi all. I recently discovered this known inconsistency, with cumulative voting claiming to be a type of cardinal voting, but cardinal voting strongly implying that it excludes cumulative voting! Who's right? There are threads on both the cardinal talk page and the cumulative talk page with existing discussion on the matter. Grateful to anyone who can help clear it up! DougInAMug talk 22:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Discussion about Australian election tables showing full results in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#Election results if you want to comment.
-- Yilku1 ( talk) 17:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Since OurCampaigns is now listed at WP:RSP as "generally unreliable," I've been slowly replacing OurCampaigns references with better sourcing, such as academic texts or official election results - I know books are less verifiable because of access issues, but especially for older or more obscure elections, they're the only place results are available. I'm wondering if people have any strong feelings about OurCampaigns links in the external links section of articles. I know it's not unusual to link to UGC there (for example, IMDB links on relevant articles), so I haven't been removing them. Any thoughts on this? ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they) Talk to Me! 17:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi all, is there a policy/guideline page which mentions the outcome of this RfC? I need to cite it when reverting an edit in my watchlist. Thanks! — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 13:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Recent UK by-elections articles, like 2022 Wakefield by-election and 2022 Tiverton and Honiton by-election, now show the same results in four different formats: there's the main Results section with a table of the results; the same results are tabulated in the infobox (excluding candidates on less than 5%); the infobox also has a two-part bar chart (the first showing the results and the previous results; the second showing change) for several but not all candidates (cut-off unclear but not the same 5% cut-off); and there is also a pie chart of the results in the Results section.
This is silly. I've never seen a real encyclopaedia article give the same results four times over. I've not see any online coverage give the same results four times over.
I suggest 2 things: (1) Dump the pie chart. Pie charts are a poor way of showing data. To quote the
pie chart article:
Statisticians generally regard pie charts as a poor method of displaying information, and they are uncommon in scientific literature.
(2) Move the bar charts to the Results section. Infoboxes are meant to be compact things according to the MOS. Repeating the same results twice in an infobox is unnecessary. The bar charts are too shrunken to be clear when in the infobox. So move them somewhere more sensible.
I started a discussion at Talk:2022_Wakefield_by-election#No_pies, but I think this needs Project consensus. I will also seek input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. Bondegezou ( talk) 21:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for everyone's input so far. I think it's currently 5:1 against the pie charts, and there's also a clear majority in favour of moving the bar charts out of the infobox. There are also several issues that have been raised about the details of the bar chart: I'm tagging 沁水湾, who did those charts. Further input is welcome. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I noticed today that articles about Israeli elections all misused bold face. For example, in 1983 Israeli municipal elections, the opening sentence appeared as:
It doesn't make any sense to bold-face text that doesn't correspond at all to the article title. MOS:TITLEABSENTBOLD says "In general, if the article's title (or a significant alternative title) is absent from the first sentence, do not apply the bold style to related text that does appear", and it uses 1999 Nepalese general election as an example, pointing out that bold-facing "General elections" in the opening sentence would be wrong.
When I noticed the problem with Israeli election articles, I assumed that one person with an interest in Israeli elections had not read the manual of style and had thus introduced the error. However, as I look into it, I see that the problems goes far beyond Israel, and in fact appears to affect the overwhelming majority of all election articles. For instance, except for the one article specifically highlighted in the MOS, all articles about general elections in Nepal currently misuse bold face in their opening sentences.
So, the problem must lie with editors of election articles in general. So I would like to ask here: why do the overwhelming majority of election articles use bold face incorrectly? 164.134.2.50 ( talk) 11:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Many articles on state congressional districts are still outdated and do not reflect how those districts have been redrawn after the 2020 census. I think we need an organized effort focused on updating those articles and the maps of districts used therein to reflect these changes. If such an effort already exists I am not aware of it but would very much appreciate anyone bringing it to my attention. IntoThinAir ( talk) 16:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
The bottom of the 2021 California gubernatorial recall election infobox, should read Governor before recall & Governor after recall. As Newsom was not recalled & thus nullified any election result. GoodDay ( talk) 01:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Are the decrease and increase templates used in results tables? Do they have to be removed? Yilku1 ( talk) 22:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Following up on the earlier discussion about this, I think it's become abundantly clear we need an actual solution on the matter. Since the RfC - where reactions were mixed at best - these large image galleries have continued to proliferate in election articles - even in elections with only a single candidate in each primary, like 2022_United_States_Senate_election_in_Vermont. In many articles, like the 2022 Rhode Island Congressional elections, the images are of a visibly horrendous quality, likely screengrabbed from YouTube videos. This image in particular is clearly awful and lacks any real encyclopedic value, as is this one currently being used on 2022 United States Senate election in Arkansas. It boggles the mind how anyone could find value in these.
Moreover, most of these galleries are now accompanied with an obnoxious disclaimer:
The images in this gallery are in the public domain or are otherwise free to use. This gallery should not be construed as a list of major or noteworthy candidates. If a candidate is not included in this gallery, it is only because there are no high-quality, copyright-free photographs of them available on the Internet.
This is, of course, a patently ridiculous and unprovable claim; you cannot, in fact, claim that there are no free-use images on the entire internet. This is an inherently unprovable claim, and putting this ridiculous claim in Wikipedia's voice is clearly not acceptable. Moreover, giving images to some candidates but not others does inherently provide credibility to some candidates but not others, and that's before getting into inherent concerns over clutter and accessibility. Simply put - there's a lot of issues with these galleries and tables.
While it's clear that some editors do want these galleries, there's no project-wide consensus on the matter. I highly recommend we come to some sort of recommendation on to how these galleries are to operate, if we even keep them to begin with. I'm of the frame of mind that they should be removed entirely from all articles except for Presidential elections, per longstanding WP:EDITCON. At minimum, the use of the galleries should not include the claim that there are no free images of anyone else on the internet. Toa Nidhiki05 13:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
giving images to some candidates but not others inherently provide credibility to some candidates but not othershave apparently led to editors scraping the bottom of the barrel to find any images of any primary candidates. You note images
of a visibly horrendous quality, likely screengrabbed from YouTube videosbut this also leads to many, many uploads of campaign photos with dubious claims of a free license, such as the election in Vermont that you linked to. It's gotten really tiresome and I think editors should redirect their time to adding encyclopedic prose instead, which is considerably lacking compared to election articles in other countries. — twotwofourtysix( talk || edits) 14:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Since there seems to be more or less broad agreement about these, is there anything we can do to either remove these galleries or make them less bad? Toa Nidhiki05 15:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I wish we could have a civil discussion about this. Unfortunately, some editors have to act like the world is coming to an end because a Wikipedia page has a picture they don't like. Most of these pictures are very small on the page and you can't even tell that they're a bit low quality, so I don't get the idea that we're destroying Wikipedia's reputation by including them. Some of the arguments here are reasonable but others are just absurd, like the overly dramatic rant about how the disclaimer says "there are no high-quality, copyright-free photographs of them available on the Internet" instead of "there are no known high-quality, copyright-free photographs of them available on the Internet" (which, by the way, would be a reason to edit the disclaimer, not remove the entire gallery). I also don't get the reasoning of "some people add copyrighted pictures, therefore there should be no pictures." This should be a simple discussion about a visual element on a webpage but I know I'm inevitably going to get screamed at about how photo galleries are literally ruining Wikipedia. And that's not even mentioning how Toa absurdly declared that there was "broad agreement" that the galleries are bad even though a grand total of *3 people* participated in their discussion, out of the thousands who edit these pages. If nobody joins your discussion, that doesn't mean everyone agrees with you, it means nobody cares. By your own admission, there are numerous people working on and adding to the galleries. Why don't they count? By your own logic, if I got 4 friends to make Wikipedia accounts and say they love photo galleries, there would be "broad consensus" to keep them. There was an actual discussion about this earlier than ended inconclusively, so you have no right to just nuke every gallery off the face of the planet. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 23:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment: WP:GALLERY says "Generally, a gallery or cluster of images should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text. A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made." So first, I agree that the caption for galleries needs to be rewritten. Second, I think that for articles with small galleries (1 or two candidate) we can incorporate them into the article similar to 2022 Oklahoma gubernatorial election#Democratic primary since "a gallery or cluster of images should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text." Large galleries in races with multiple candidates I think are harder. I think part of the question is how do the galleries add to the article and why shouldn't they be moved to Wikimedia Commons photo galleries. -- TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 00:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment: I generally find the photo galleries to be useful for displaying candidates running. I like it and think it's good for improving reader's understanding. Pennsylvania2 ( talk) 02:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment: Photo galleries with candidates are good, even if the quality on some photo isn't the best. The good certainly outweighs the bad here. GeorgeBailey ( talk) 15:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
What is the general feeling on the use of {{ Election box}} in electoral history sections (in bios)? Useful purveyors of information or clunky wastes of space? I go back and forth, and can't decide. Curbon7 ( talk) 09:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I prefer compact tables like at Patty Murray. Reywas92 Talk 07:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
... the same 5% as for the US? — Guarapiranga ☎ 03:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Context
A bit of an edit war ensuing at the
2022 Brazilian general election article over which photo to use for
Lula, the leading candidate.
Alternatives
Discussion
(2) seems most accurate, but surely can't be the only deciding factor: it needs to be a photo of the face, of the whole face, of not much else than the face, identifiable, good quality, etc. (1) adds consistency across articles, and prevents edit wars as the one in context. (3) seems the least desirable (and perhaps the status quo). —
Guarapiranga
☎
00:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:UGC policy exists as "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable". I understand this very valid policy and how it protects user-generated opinions from becoming fact in articles about certain topics. Recently, candidate endorsements that source user-generated content have been getting removed and tagged with the UGC marker. I believe that an endorsement, coming from a source that is verified, should not removed under the guise of UGC. If an endorsement is coming from a person or organization that meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and the entity in question communicates from a verified account, that counts as a reliable source solely for endorsement listing purposes. What do you all think? GeorgeBailey ( talk) 00:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)