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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
Is it legal to copy the results of opinion polls conducted by private companies (published on their copyrighted sites or on the copyrighted site of the commissioner), and then to paste all these copyrighted data into the table of the Wikipedia entry? All regular? Just an example: in the table of Opinion polling for the 2022 Italian general election I see the results of the 8-11 August opinion poll made by "Tecnè srl" (whose site says "Copyright @ 2022 Tecnè Italia. All rights reserved") on behalf of the commissioner " RTI spa" - Mediaset (whose site used as the source of the poll expressly states: "Copyright © 1999-2022 RTI S.p.A. - All rights reserved"). How "copyrighted data" can be compatible with the free licence used by wikipedia? Holapaco77 ( talk) 11:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2022 Chuukese independence referendum#Requested move 20 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky ( talk) 03:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi everyone, there is an ongoing discussion ( here) on how the pages about the Italian regional elections should be set up. Anyone interested in the matter is welcome. Scia Della Cometa ( talk) 14:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
There have been some reverts for 2022 Los Angeles mayoral election with some users saying to add political parties in it even though elections in Los Angeles are nonpartisan. Unregistered User:2603:8001:2902:64F4:103D:EE4E:1D:193E saying in their edits "even though California elections are non-partisan from the governor's race to mayoral race political parties can be added as the state write political parties" (they wrote this for the previous two LA mayoral elections as well). I'm wondering if there is any consensus about the addition of political parties in these types of races. reppop talk 03:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Over the last year, users have begun adding image galleries to the primary section of non-Presidential United States election articles. These galleries feature a note 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." These galleries have proven contentious and led to
multiple prior discussions, none of which has yielded a consensus for or against.
Currently, there is no project-wide consensus on the use of these galleries or guidance on how they should be made. This RfC will be on two topics.
While discussion on 1) is underway, users can discuss the second plank in a separate section. If consensus is achieved for usage on 1), the ideas in 2) will be voted upon as well. Toa Nidhiki05 00:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Pinging the previous discussion participants: twotwofourtysix, GoodDay, CX Zoom, BottleOfChocolateMilk, Tartan357, Elli, Reywas92, Snow Rise, Gazamp, Curbon7, Number 57, 67.173.23.66, TulsaPoliticsFan Toa Nidhiki05 00:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Toa Nidhiki05 00:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
If option #2 is adopted. May we please have the images downsized to reasonable dimensions? GoodDay ( talk) 08:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Would be best to seek closure at Wikipedia:Closure requests, where an uninvolved editor would be summoned to do the task. GoodDay ( talk) 21:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm imagining there are two classes of thought regarding when to update election ratings like Cook Political Report, FiveThirtyEight, Sabato's Crystal Ball, etc.
where basically School of Thought 1 would say that you leave the rating's "As of" until it changes ratings. It doesn't matter if the rating agency is updating other races, it only matters when the rating changes for this specific race. And School of Thought 2 would say that you change the "As of" whenever the rating agency changes a rating for any race, regardless of if they change the race's rating.
Has there already been a standard set for something like this or is this something that would be worth discussing in this project? Grenvilledodge ( talk) 16:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I noticed the coloring on the maps for 2022 United States attorney general elections and 2022 United States secretary of state elections are in need of updates regarding defeated/retiring incumbents, but I have no idea how to edit Wikipedia map files. Would someone more familiar with Inkscape be willing to help? Hotpotato1234567890 ( talk) 03:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
These maps are svg files. There is a free web-based editor called svg-edit if you want to try. Message me if you need a hand. Newystats ( talk) 08:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2020 Sint Eustatius general election#Requested move 4 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Raising this here, since it affects multiple pages and I can see it being contested if I were to act boldly…
Recently I've noticed that more and more Canadian leadership election articles have a "riding" field in the infobox (eg: 2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election; 2020 Ontario Liberal Party leadership election; 2020 Green Party of British Columbia leadership election; 2018 Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership election). I think these should all be removed, for these pages and all future pages too.
For one, what riding a candidate represents does not play a role in the leadership election process. There's no requirement for a candidate to be a caucus member (indeed, many candidates aren't) and unlike a general election, it's not as if they're incumbents in a seat or with a requirement that they need to win there. So it's essentially just functioning as a biographical detail… not really what the infobox should be doing.
Second, because because there are inevitably candidates from outside caucus, editors like to add explanatory footnotes to explain where they have run and lost before, or where they live, or whatever. This really just adds clutter and unnecessary complexity to the infobox.
Third, as best I can tell, this is not standard practice; historical elections never have this field ( example one, example two), and nor do I see it on other countries' leadership elections ( UK Tories, UK Labour, Australian Labor, NZ Labour). So I'm not really sure why this convention has begun to develop in Canada, but I think it should be snuffed out.
Does anybody have any thoughts? — Kawnhr ( talk) 23:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I've added the basics, and sources, for 8 missing by-elections at Lancaster_City_Council_elections#2019–2023 (UK) - someone from this project who enjoys making election boxes might like to do so here? Pam D 15:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
MOS:HEAD makes this very clear:
For technical reasons, section headings should:
- Be unique within a page, so that section links lead to the right place.
Most election articles I've dealt with have willfully violated this for many years.
I passed on participating in the RFC on image galleries because galleries were a very recent phenomenon initiated by a few bad actors. Starting an RFC was simply one editor's attempt to shove their "I don't like it" complex down everyone's throats. It shows how out of touch some of you are to play along with that while ignoring an issue like this which has been festering for at least a decade, maybe more. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I am planning to edit infoboxes of Swiss politicians to include these changes per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE unless there is opposition:
Julio974◆ ( Talk- Contribs) 13:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
1995 Quebec referendum has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 ( talk) 23:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Is there explicit guidance somewhere saying that primary sources are acceptable for citing election results? An article I just published, List of Florida ballot measures, was marked with the primary sources template by NPP and I'm not sure how to respond, although I'm tempted to just remove it. I can't imagine there's an expectation that we find secondary sourcing for individual results, right? Especially for elections going back more than ten years? Other thoughts here would be appreciated. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 19:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
"A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."Election results, as well as summary descriptions of a ballot propositions, would certainly seem to fall under this acceptable use. What a primary source should not be used for is interpreting said election results. And Wikipedia articles should be more than simply a collection of facts. But for just reporting facts like election results, primary sources are perfectly acceptable... In this particular case, I believe a talk page discussion should be opened – in general, tags like this are best left when the tagger explains their rationale on the talk page. Otherwise it's arguably "drive-by tagging". For a simple "list" article like this one, it's maybe questionable that the tag used is appropriate. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 20:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I can't remember whether we've discussed this here before or in some other WikiProject, but there's been a recent trend to include detailed maps of voting results in election infoboxes. Such maps are lovely, but in some recent discussions, we've agreed to move these maps into Results sections. This is on the grounds of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE (which says infoboxes should be compact and that they shouldn't contain material not in the article). The matter has now arisen at Talk:2022_Danish_general_election#Maps_in_main_article_or_infobox. I thought it would be useful to involve the WikiProject in discussion, either there or, on more general points, here. Bondegezou ( talk) 13:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
We use maps in the infoboxes of Canadian federal elections. So far though, we haven't decided on which 'type' of map to use. GoodDay ( talk) 01:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Y’all are a little behind updating some of the midterm pages. 98.113.8.17 ( talk) 21:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
See this discussion that I began at Village Pump (proposals) with this edit SecretName101 ( talk) 17:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The article of this title includes correct political information for the former district 13, now district 12. The people within the map have never been, and are not now, represented by those representatives. With the correct map, this article would be fine for district 12, with the note that its number changes as of 2023, as do its boundaries (slightly). The map of the district is of the new district 13, which includes parts of former districts 16 and 21 and not a bit of former district 13. I have no idea how the article on the representational history of the new district should be written, since it's drawn from two former districts (I've occasionally corrected a typo, but I've never done serious work in wikipedia). Perhaps there should be new articles for districts that have changed drastically? 23.93.103.236 ( talk) 00:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Hérisson grognon ( talk) 19:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Is there anywhere to point to about the use of "nonpartisan" within nonpartisan elections (such as Los Angeles elections)? An unregistered user has been removing them saying that since California elections are nonpartisan, no colors should be added (they have done so with multiple IP addresses throughout multiple months), but I've seen cities like Seattle, Cleveland, and Honolulu that are also nonpartisan and have "nonpartisan" in their infoboxes and election boxes. reppop talk 17:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
party
field when everyone in the election has the same affiliation (be that in a non-partisan election, where nobody has any affiliation; or in a party leadership election, where everybody belongs to the same party) because it's redundant. However, giving the different candidates different colours seems fair game to me (as long as it's not just giving them de facto party/faction labels), because colours will get used in result maps and polling graphs, so it's reasonable to use those same colours in the infobox for consistency. —
Kawnhr (
talk) 19:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I think so. There's Template:Election box candidate no party no change which looks like this:
Candidate | Votes | % | |
---|---|---|---|
John Doe | 50 | 50.00 | |
John Smith | 50 | 50.00 | |
Total votes | 100 | 100.00 |
reppop talk 21:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Right now for Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/USA legend colors, we have Presidential & Downballot colors for elections. I want to propose that we get rid of the Downballot colors and use Presidential colors for everything. I belive the downballot colors are harder to look at (the 50-60 % 60-70% colors look REALLY similar and make things confusing), and I also think that it would make the colors more consistent. Could we use only the Presidential colors for stuff from now on? WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 20:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful to start building a library of Article templates as seen here: Template:Article templates. They provide a skeleton for articles, which could be used for future referendums and elections and help automate the process of creating pages. Having a template would make it easier for new editors, provide suggestions for things to include, and make future articles more internally consistent. Bluealbion ( talk) 00:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Hey there! I'm a U.S. Postal Service employee looking for help improving the Postal voting in the 2020 United States elections article. I recently proposed a redraft of the article's Postal service crisis section, which appears not to have been updated much since 2020, when it was describing ongoing events. I rewrote a handful of sentences so that they're now in past tense, cleaned up a few citation templates, and added some information on how the Postal Service eventually performed in the 2020 election. You can read my full edit request on the Postal Voting in 2020 Talk page, and the section draft is accessible on my user page.
As a USPS employee, I know that I can't edit pages agency-related directly, and that I should rely on independent editors to evaluate the merits of any suggestions I make. That's why I'm stopping by here. I would deeply appreciate it if someone from this WikiProject could review my section draft. Thanks! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service ( talk) 01:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi all. I've proposed removing the Leader since parameter from {{ Infobox election}}. I started a discussion at the talk page a while ago, and while there was no opposition, I thought it best to get wider input before proceeding. Cheers, Number 5 7 12:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
As there were no objections (and five editors in favour), I have made the change. Cheers, Number 5 7 13:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to share your input at Talk:2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election#Second/latest round votes. Thanks! — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 20:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Similar to the above, I would also like to propose that we remove the 'Leader's seat' parameter from the infobox. Like the 'leader since' parameter, it is almost always a MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE violation, as the details of the seats held by party leaders are rarely (if ever) detailed in the articles. And in most cases it is not an important detail (many (possibly most) countries have multi-member constituencies, which makes this parameter pointless). The only occasion on which I think a leader's constituency seat may be worth mentioning is when they lose it in the election, but I would expect this to be covered in the introduction of an article where it happens. Cheers, Number 5 7 15:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
This was something that came to mind during a dispute over the 2022 US House Elections New York, but the problems are broad enough that I wanted to ask here.
In a few states in the US, multiple parties are allowed to nominate the same candidate in a process known as electoral fusion. Note there are two varieties, known as aggregated fusion, where a candidate will simply be listed with multiple party labels (Vermont, for instance), and disaggregated fusion, where a candidate is listed multiple times on the ballot, once for each party that nominated them. My concerns only focus on the latter. The latter is prominent in New York especially, where almost every major election will have fusion nominations. This creates some inconsistencies when it comes to how the results are reported on the results pages.
In New York, the results in the detailed summary for each race are almost always reported first by each party nominating a candidate, followed by the total votes that candidate received across all parties. See the 2020 House Elections in New York for an example, where district one lists Zeldin 4 times and Goroff 3 times according to this convention. As far as I can tell, this observation of NY Fusion on Wikipedia dates back at least to a 2010 thread on this wikiproject, although its observance in individual pages varies. The 2010 elections, for instance, first reflected it in 2014, but since then it has become commonplace in the detailed summaries.
In the main summaries, it is inconsistent from article to article, and even within the same article. Take the 2020 house elections from before: In the infobox, the Democratic Party received around 62% of the vote, and a similar amount is given in the district by district table. In the Overview table however, the Democrats only have 57.6%. The republicans similarly have a discrepancy between the tables (36.3% vs 32.8%). This is entirely representative of the fact that the infobox counts votes cast for the members of the two parties, and the summary table counts votes cast on the parties' ballot lines, and those of course are two different totals. All the recent overview tables keep the ballot lines totals, but older ones still use the membership totals, which appears inconsistent with the individual race summaries. Gains and losses are reported only by the membership (which makes sense, I suppose). The district by district table always appears to count the membership, and in statewide the county-by-county box usually counts the membership as well, although not in the 2020 presidential election article.
None of this is observed to other states with disaggregated fusion, such as Connecticut. In the 2020 CT-1 race for instance, The Democratic Candidate was also nominated by the Working Families Party, and although that is reported in the original source, it is not reported in the Wikipedia election box, where all their votes are listed under the Democratic Party. I don't believe that this is meant to misrepresent the source, but it also is not reporting the straight data according to the source. I think that all of this is due to the fact that the conventions around fusion are not standardized, and thus change from state to state and race to race, and thus when people create the articles for these elections old discrepancies are exacerbated.
Now perhaps I am wrong and there is a standardized convention that I did not see, but the articles seem to inconsistent for that to be the case. If we go about establishing conventions therefore, there are a few different options. First, we could only report party of membership, but this would make certain elections harder to understand, such as the 2014 NY gubernatorial election, when both major candidates founded additional parties on the side. By not observing these fusion parties, the story of the election would not be complete, but it might be easier to understand. Secondly, we could report only the ballot lines. This would standardize the current practice in many election boxes for individual races, but it would make certain races difficult to understand, due to the fact that certain third parties have nominated candidates from both major parties in the same election. Thirdly, we could list the vote totals for all the different alliances, but this would make the overview boxes at the top way too cluttered for it to be easily understood. Fourthly, we could create two summary boxes, one only featuring ballot lines, and one only featuring members. I attempted to do a version of this with the NY bar charts in the 2018 house elections, and others have added similar charts to other years. Any alternative suggestion are also welcome.
I also want to know how this should be noted in the nationwide articles. Currently, the totals cast on fusion lines are not included in the vote totals for nationwide elections, which sort of makes sense. I imagine we have conventions for elections where different voting systems are used in different places, but if so the methodology needs to be clearly noted in the national articles, as it currently is not. What should be done here?
MCUSRAP ( talk) 19:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I am planning to edit infoboxes of Swiss politicians to include these changes per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE unless there is opposition:
Julio974◆ ( Talk- Contribs) 13:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Apologies for bringing this up again, but since the IP editor is keen on removing everything relating to the word "nonpartisan" from all Calfiornia (and other nonpartisan) elections in the infoboxes and election boxes, and has not done anything to try to gain consensus on these changes, I've decided to try to get at least something. The last time had some people going for removing the "party" line but including colors in the infoboxes, but also using the election box candidate no party template, I don't really feel like anything has happened (and, as I said, the IP is still removing things).
I've compiled a list of options for both the election infoboxes and election boxes templates:
Options
|
---|
For the election infoboxes:
For the election boxes:
|
reppop talk 20:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
On the 2023 Chicago mayoral election's talk page at Talk:2023 Chicago mayoral election#M3 Strategies Reliability?, there's a conversation about whether a new polling company (launched in December 2022) should be regarded as sufficiently reliable to include their polling results in the article. Has the pollster reliability question been talked through by this community and if so, can I get a pointer to where the conversation might be? Thanks much. Novellasyes ( talk) 14:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
39th Canadian Parliament has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 14:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
The above article has been nominated for deletion by myself. Your comments are welcome here. Obi2canibe ( talk) 15:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
So it looks like Country elections templates are for direct elections only. The Argentine Senate was directly elected in 1951, 1954, 1973 and ever since 2001, the rest of the time it was elected by the provincial legislatures, EXCEPT in Buenos Aires City, where it was elected by a directly elected electoral college between 1882 and 1995. How should the template be changed? Yilku1 ( talk) 01:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Following the 2022 cycle, many news articles were written noting that polling averages had been polluted by bad polls sponsored by campaigns and polls conducted by new/non-reputable polling firms.
Wikipedia's presentation of polls should be adjusted in response to this phenomenon to prevent it from degrading the value that poll tables and graphs on Wikipedia have at providing readers with an informative snapshot of election rraces.
I have three ideas that I have implemented at 2023 Chicago mayoral election. I believe I might make formal proposals to adopt this practice across the project. But I'd like to have your input first.
Here are the measures I took:
Input is appreciated. Your thoughts? SecretName101 ( talk) 19:46, 8 February 2023 (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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
Is it legal to copy the results of opinion polls conducted by private companies (published on their copyrighted sites or on the copyrighted site of the commissioner), and then to paste all these copyrighted data into the table of the Wikipedia entry? All regular? Just an example: in the table of Opinion polling for the 2022 Italian general election I see the results of the 8-11 August opinion poll made by "Tecnè srl" (whose site says "Copyright @ 2022 Tecnè Italia. All rights reserved") on behalf of the commissioner " RTI spa" - Mediaset (whose site used as the source of the poll expressly states: "Copyright © 1999-2022 RTI S.p.A. - All rights reserved"). How "copyrighted data" can be compatible with the free licence used by wikipedia? Holapaco77 ( talk) 11:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2022 Chuukese independence referendum#Requested move 20 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky ( talk) 03:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi everyone, there is an ongoing discussion ( here) on how the pages about the Italian regional elections should be set up. Anyone interested in the matter is welcome. Scia Della Cometa ( talk) 14:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
There have been some reverts for 2022 Los Angeles mayoral election with some users saying to add political parties in it even though elections in Los Angeles are nonpartisan. Unregistered User:2603:8001:2902:64F4:103D:EE4E:1D:193E saying in their edits "even though California elections are non-partisan from the governor's race to mayoral race political parties can be added as the state write political parties" (they wrote this for the previous two LA mayoral elections as well). I'm wondering if there is any consensus about the addition of political parties in these types of races. reppop talk 03:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Over the last year, users have begun adding image galleries to the primary section of non-Presidential United States election articles. These galleries feature a note 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." These galleries have proven contentious and led to
multiple prior discussions, none of which has yielded a consensus for or against.
Currently, there is no project-wide consensus on the use of these galleries or guidance on how they should be made. This RfC will be on two topics.
While discussion on 1) is underway, users can discuss the second plank in a separate section. If consensus is achieved for usage on 1), the ideas in 2) will be voted upon as well. Toa Nidhiki05 00:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Pinging the previous discussion participants: twotwofourtysix, GoodDay, CX Zoom, BottleOfChocolateMilk, Tartan357, Elli, Reywas92, Snow Rise, Gazamp, Curbon7, Number 57, 67.173.23.66, TulsaPoliticsFan Toa Nidhiki05 00:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Toa Nidhiki05 00:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
If option #2 is adopted. May we please have the images downsized to reasonable dimensions? GoodDay ( talk) 08:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Would be best to seek closure at Wikipedia:Closure requests, where an uninvolved editor would be summoned to do the task. GoodDay ( talk) 21:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm imagining there are two classes of thought regarding when to update election ratings like Cook Political Report, FiveThirtyEight, Sabato's Crystal Ball, etc.
where basically School of Thought 1 would say that you leave the rating's "As of" until it changes ratings. It doesn't matter if the rating agency is updating other races, it only matters when the rating changes for this specific race. And School of Thought 2 would say that you change the "As of" whenever the rating agency changes a rating for any race, regardless of if they change the race's rating.
Has there already been a standard set for something like this or is this something that would be worth discussing in this project? Grenvilledodge ( talk) 16:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I noticed the coloring on the maps for 2022 United States attorney general elections and 2022 United States secretary of state elections are in need of updates regarding defeated/retiring incumbents, but I have no idea how to edit Wikipedia map files. Would someone more familiar with Inkscape be willing to help? Hotpotato1234567890 ( talk) 03:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
These maps are svg files. There is a free web-based editor called svg-edit if you want to try. Message me if you need a hand. Newystats ( talk) 08:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2020 Sint Eustatius general election#Requested move 4 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Raising this here, since it affects multiple pages and I can see it being contested if I were to act boldly…
Recently I've noticed that more and more Canadian leadership election articles have a "riding" field in the infobox (eg: 2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election; 2020 Ontario Liberal Party leadership election; 2020 Green Party of British Columbia leadership election; 2018 Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership election). I think these should all be removed, for these pages and all future pages too.
For one, what riding a candidate represents does not play a role in the leadership election process. There's no requirement for a candidate to be a caucus member (indeed, many candidates aren't) and unlike a general election, it's not as if they're incumbents in a seat or with a requirement that they need to win there. So it's essentially just functioning as a biographical detail… not really what the infobox should be doing.
Second, because because there are inevitably candidates from outside caucus, editors like to add explanatory footnotes to explain where they have run and lost before, or where they live, or whatever. This really just adds clutter and unnecessary complexity to the infobox.
Third, as best I can tell, this is not standard practice; historical elections never have this field ( example one, example two), and nor do I see it on other countries' leadership elections ( UK Tories, UK Labour, Australian Labor, NZ Labour). So I'm not really sure why this convention has begun to develop in Canada, but I think it should be snuffed out.
Does anybody have any thoughts? — Kawnhr ( talk) 23:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I've added the basics, and sources, for 8 missing by-elections at Lancaster_City_Council_elections#2019–2023 (UK) - someone from this project who enjoys making election boxes might like to do so here? Pam D 15:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
MOS:HEAD makes this very clear:
For technical reasons, section headings should:
- Be unique within a page, so that section links lead to the right place.
Most election articles I've dealt with have willfully violated this for many years.
I passed on participating in the RFC on image galleries because galleries were a very recent phenomenon initiated by a few bad actors. Starting an RFC was simply one editor's attempt to shove their "I don't like it" complex down everyone's throats. It shows how out of touch some of you are to play along with that while ignoring an issue like this which has been festering for at least a decade, maybe more. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I am planning to edit infoboxes of Swiss politicians to include these changes per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE unless there is opposition:
Julio974◆ ( Talk- Contribs) 13:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
1995 Quebec referendum has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 ( talk) 23:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Is there explicit guidance somewhere saying that primary sources are acceptable for citing election results? An article I just published, List of Florida ballot measures, was marked with the primary sources template by NPP and I'm not sure how to respond, although I'm tempted to just remove it. I can't imagine there's an expectation that we find secondary sourcing for individual results, right? Especially for elections going back more than ten years? Other thoughts here would be appreciated. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 19:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
"A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."Election results, as well as summary descriptions of a ballot propositions, would certainly seem to fall under this acceptable use. What a primary source should not be used for is interpreting said election results. And Wikipedia articles should be more than simply a collection of facts. But for just reporting facts like election results, primary sources are perfectly acceptable... In this particular case, I believe a talk page discussion should be opened – in general, tags like this are best left when the tagger explains their rationale on the talk page. Otherwise it's arguably "drive-by tagging". For a simple "list" article like this one, it's maybe questionable that the tag used is appropriate. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 20:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I can't remember whether we've discussed this here before or in some other WikiProject, but there's been a recent trend to include detailed maps of voting results in election infoboxes. Such maps are lovely, but in some recent discussions, we've agreed to move these maps into Results sections. This is on the grounds of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE (which says infoboxes should be compact and that they shouldn't contain material not in the article). The matter has now arisen at Talk:2022_Danish_general_election#Maps_in_main_article_or_infobox. I thought it would be useful to involve the WikiProject in discussion, either there or, on more general points, here. Bondegezou ( talk) 13:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
We use maps in the infoboxes of Canadian federal elections. So far though, we haven't decided on which 'type' of map to use. GoodDay ( talk) 01:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Y’all are a little behind updating some of the midterm pages. 98.113.8.17 ( talk) 21:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
See this discussion that I began at Village Pump (proposals) with this edit SecretName101 ( talk) 17:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The article of this title includes correct political information for the former district 13, now district 12. The people within the map have never been, and are not now, represented by those representatives. With the correct map, this article would be fine for district 12, with the note that its number changes as of 2023, as do its boundaries (slightly). The map of the district is of the new district 13, which includes parts of former districts 16 and 21 and not a bit of former district 13. I have no idea how the article on the representational history of the new district should be written, since it's drawn from two former districts (I've occasionally corrected a typo, but I've never done serious work in wikipedia). Perhaps there should be new articles for districts that have changed drastically? 23.93.103.236 ( talk) 00:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Hérisson grognon ( talk) 19:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Is there anywhere to point to about the use of "nonpartisan" within nonpartisan elections (such as Los Angeles elections)? An unregistered user has been removing them saying that since California elections are nonpartisan, no colors should be added (they have done so with multiple IP addresses throughout multiple months), but I've seen cities like Seattle, Cleveland, and Honolulu that are also nonpartisan and have "nonpartisan" in their infoboxes and election boxes. reppop talk 17:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
party
field when everyone in the election has the same affiliation (be that in a non-partisan election, where nobody has any affiliation; or in a party leadership election, where everybody belongs to the same party) because it's redundant. However, giving the different candidates different colours seems fair game to me (as long as it's not just giving them de facto party/faction labels), because colours will get used in result maps and polling graphs, so it's reasonable to use those same colours in the infobox for consistency. —
Kawnhr (
talk) 19:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I think so. There's Template:Election box candidate no party no change which looks like this:
Candidate | Votes | % | |
---|---|---|---|
John Doe | 50 | 50.00 | |
John Smith | 50 | 50.00 | |
Total votes | 100 | 100.00 |
reppop talk 21:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Right now for Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/USA legend colors, we have Presidential & Downballot colors for elections. I want to propose that we get rid of the Downballot colors and use Presidential colors for everything. I belive the downballot colors are harder to look at (the 50-60 % 60-70% colors look REALLY similar and make things confusing), and I also think that it would make the colors more consistent. Could we use only the Presidential colors for stuff from now on? WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 20:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful to start building a library of Article templates as seen here: Template:Article templates. They provide a skeleton for articles, which could be used for future referendums and elections and help automate the process of creating pages. Having a template would make it easier for new editors, provide suggestions for things to include, and make future articles more internally consistent. Bluealbion ( talk) 00:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Hey there! I'm a U.S. Postal Service employee looking for help improving the Postal voting in the 2020 United States elections article. I recently proposed a redraft of the article's Postal service crisis section, which appears not to have been updated much since 2020, when it was describing ongoing events. I rewrote a handful of sentences so that they're now in past tense, cleaned up a few citation templates, and added some information on how the Postal Service eventually performed in the 2020 election. You can read my full edit request on the Postal Voting in 2020 Talk page, and the section draft is accessible on my user page.
As a USPS employee, I know that I can't edit pages agency-related directly, and that I should rely on independent editors to evaluate the merits of any suggestions I make. That's why I'm stopping by here. I would deeply appreciate it if someone from this WikiProject could review my section draft. Thanks! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service ( talk) 01:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi all. I've proposed removing the Leader since parameter from {{ Infobox election}}. I started a discussion at the talk page a while ago, and while there was no opposition, I thought it best to get wider input before proceeding. Cheers, Number 5 7 12:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
As there were no objections (and five editors in favour), I have made the change. Cheers, Number 5 7 13:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to share your input at Talk:2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election#Second/latest round votes. Thanks! — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 20:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Similar to the above, I would also like to propose that we remove the 'Leader's seat' parameter from the infobox. Like the 'leader since' parameter, it is almost always a MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE violation, as the details of the seats held by party leaders are rarely (if ever) detailed in the articles. And in most cases it is not an important detail (many (possibly most) countries have multi-member constituencies, which makes this parameter pointless). The only occasion on which I think a leader's constituency seat may be worth mentioning is when they lose it in the election, but I would expect this to be covered in the introduction of an article where it happens. Cheers, Number 5 7 15:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
This was something that came to mind during a dispute over the 2022 US House Elections New York, but the problems are broad enough that I wanted to ask here.
In a few states in the US, multiple parties are allowed to nominate the same candidate in a process known as electoral fusion. Note there are two varieties, known as aggregated fusion, where a candidate will simply be listed with multiple party labels (Vermont, for instance), and disaggregated fusion, where a candidate is listed multiple times on the ballot, once for each party that nominated them. My concerns only focus on the latter. The latter is prominent in New York especially, where almost every major election will have fusion nominations. This creates some inconsistencies when it comes to how the results are reported on the results pages.
In New York, the results in the detailed summary for each race are almost always reported first by each party nominating a candidate, followed by the total votes that candidate received across all parties. See the 2020 House Elections in New York for an example, where district one lists Zeldin 4 times and Goroff 3 times according to this convention. As far as I can tell, this observation of NY Fusion on Wikipedia dates back at least to a 2010 thread on this wikiproject, although its observance in individual pages varies. The 2010 elections, for instance, first reflected it in 2014, but since then it has become commonplace in the detailed summaries.
In the main summaries, it is inconsistent from article to article, and even within the same article. Take the 2020 house elections from before: In the infobox, the Democratic Party received around 62% of the vote, and a similar amount is given in the district by district table. In the Overview table however, the Democrats only have 57.6%. The republicans similarly have a discrepancy between the tables (36.3% vs 32.8%). This is entirely representative of the fact that the infobox counts votes cast for the members of the two parties, and the summary table counts votes cast on the parties' ballot lines, and those of course are two different totals. All the recent overview tables keep the ballot lines totals, but older ones still use the membership totals, which appears inconsistent with the individual race summaries. Gains and losses are reported only by the membership (which makes sense, I suppose). The district by district table always appears to count the membership, and in statewide the county-by-county box usually counts the membership as well, although not in the 2020 presidential election article.
None of this is observed to other states with disaggregated fusion, such as Connecticut. In the 2020 CT-1 race for instance, The Democratic Candidate was also nominated by the Working Families Party, and although that is reported in the original source, it is not reported in the Wikipedia election box, where all their votes are listed under the Democratic Party. I don't believe that this is meant to misrepresent the source, but it also is not reporting the straight data according to the source. I think that all of this is due to the fact that the conventions around fusion are not standardized, and thus change from state to state and race to race, and thus when people create the articles for these elections old discrepancies are exacerbated.
Now perhaps I am wrong and there is a standardized convention that I did not see, but the articles seem to inconsistent for that to be the case. If we go about establishing conventions therefore, there are a few different options. First, we could only report party of membership, but this would make certain elections harder to understand, such as the 2014 NY gubernatorial election, when both major candidates founded additional parties on the side. By not observing these fusion parties, the story of the election would not be complete, but it might be easier to understand. Secondly, we could report only the ballot lines. This would standardize the current practice in many election boxes for individual races, but it would make certain races difficult to understand, due to the fact that certain third parties have nominated candidates from both major parties in the same election. Thirdly, we could list the vote totals for all the different alliances, but this would make the overview boxes at the top way too cluttered for it to be easily understood. Fourthly, we could create two summary boxes, one only featuring ballot lines, and one only featuring members. I attempted to do a version of this with the NY bar charts in the 2018 house elections, and others have added similar charts to other years. Any alternative suggestion are also welcome.
I also want to know how this should be noted in the nationwide articles. Currently, the totals cast on fusion lines are not included in the vote totals for nationwide elections, which sort of makes sense. I imagine we have conventions for elections where different voting systems are used in different places, but if so the methodology needs to be clearly noted in the national articles, as it currently is not. What should be done here?
MCUSRAP ( talk) 19:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I am planning to edit infoboxes of Swiss politicians to include these changes per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE unless there is opposition:
Julio974◆ ( Talk- Contribs) 13:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Apologies for bringing this up again, but since the IP editor is keen on removing everything relating to the word "nonpartisan" from all Calfiornia (and other nonpartisan) elections in the infoboxes and election boxes, and has not done anything to try to gain consensus on these changes, I've decided to try to get at least something. The last time had some people going for removing the "party" line but including colors in the infoboxes, but also using the election box candidate no party template, I don't really feel like anything has happened (and, as I said, the IP is still removing things).
I've compiled a list of options for both the election infoboxes and election boxes templates:
Options
|
---|
For the election infoboxes:
For the election boxes:
|
reppop talk 20:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
On the 2023 Chicago mayoral election's talk page at Talk:2023 Chicago mayoral election#M3 Strategies Reliability?, there's a conversation about whether a new polling company (launched in December 2022) should be regarded as sufficiently reliable to include their polling results in the article. Has the pollster reliability question been talked through by this community and if so, can I get a pointer to where the conversation might be? Thanks much. Novellasyes ( talk) 14:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
39th Canadian Parliament has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 14:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
The above article has been nominated for deletion by myself. Your comments are welcome here. Obi2canibe ( talk) 15:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
So it looks like Country elections templates are for direct elections only. The Argentine Senate was directly elected in 1951, 1954, 1973 and ever since 2001, the rest of the time it was elected by the provincial legislatures, EXCEPT in Buenos Aires City, where it was elected by a directly elected electoral college between 1882 and 1995. How should the template be changed? Yilku1 ( talk) 01:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Following the 2022 cycle, many news articles were written noting that polling averages had been polluted by bad polls sponsored by campaigns and polls conducted by new/non-reputable polling firms.
Wikipedia's presentation of polls should be adjusted in response to this phenomenon to prevent it from degrading the value that poll tables and graphs on Wikipedia have at providing readers with an informative snapshot of election rraces.
I have three ideas that I have implemented at 2023 Chicago mayoral election. I believe I might make formal proposals to adopt this practice across the project. But I'd like to have your input first.
Here are the measures I took:
Input is appreciated. Your thoughts? SecretName101 ( talk) 19:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)