![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Some outside (preferably apolitical) input would be welcomed at Talk:Irish general election, 1918#Requested move concerning how to name the article. Thanks,-- Kotniski ( talk) 16:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I am looking for some feedback on what seems to be a de-facto standard in recent years about article titles, which has not been made retroactively consistent, and has led to a variety of unilateral moves based on editor concerns re WP:DAB, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, as currently being discussed at Talk:Washington_Initiative_1029.
My view is that standard consensus recently has been for the naming convention Jurisdiction + Measure Type + Designator + (Parenthetical Year) and that this should be proposed as a multinational standard.
Whether a jurisdictoin re-uses numbers or not. The basic title format of Jursidiction + Type + Number + (Parenthetical year) provides maximal information very concisely: California Proposition 13 (1978), Oregon Ballot Measure 9 (1992), Washington Referendum 71 (2009), Washington Initiative 502 (2011), and Colorado Amendment 64 (2012). Redirects such as Proposition 13 can easily be established for famous items or from year-to-year, with those easily converted do disambiguation pages as needed should similar titles be WP:Notable. The State + Type + Number + (Parenthetical year) format is well established for many US states, if not most, and this seems to me the simplest, soundest, most comprehensive and least ambiguous solution. This article, with its previous parenthetical year number, was consistent with long-established practice across all of Wikipedia. The permanent article should include the year number, with redirects such as Initiative 502 created or changed as necessary, based on current events. One clear example where this approach has been widely adopted and useful is with 1st amendment (note capitalization) which has a WP:REDIRECT to First Amendment to the United States Constitution and also a WP:DAB page.
This project seems the most logical place for this discussion to happen, given its scope and depth, so what are editors' views on this? Rorybowman ( talk) 15:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not sure why the articles on this project don't follow the pattern I've seen almost everywhere else, which would be "XXXX Fooian type election/referendum" Number 5 7 17:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
There are 2 ways opinion polling articles (or lists) are titled, "Opinion polling in" as in, " Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2006", and "Opinion polling for" as in " Opinion polling for the New Zealand general election, 2011". Unless this is an WP:ENGVAR issue, there should only be one way to title these articles. Which is it? – H T D 14:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The Category:Papal conclaves articles which have infoboxes (20th & 21st century conclaves and 1800,1513,1492,1294) all directly code their infoboxes instead of transcluding them. this causes variances in display, and should have an infobox instead of direct coding. Can someone clean this up? -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 21:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
What is the "plan of attack" vis-a-vis the election district boundary changes after the last Census? Some districts, while sharing the district number of a previous incarnation, actually have little or nothing to do with that previous incarnation in reality (other than the number.)
California's 37th State Senate district is a good example. Before 2011, the 37th district was very different. Are the old district articles being renamed, or are all articles just going to be rewritten such that any links to the old district going to link to the new district? Int21h ( talk) 00:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Please see and comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 January 25#Template:Infobox Israeli Election. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I had asked a question a number of months ago about Elections in Sweden, but it is probably just as well asked here as it probably pertains to a number of similar election systems: Are the 310 members of the Parliament of Sweden tied to a particular electoral constituency?
To sum up what I can tell about it:
So this begs the question: Are the MPs (or seats) in any way tied to a particular constituency? So, as a generic example, assume province A gets 20 seats and province B gets 10 seats, then party X gets allocated 10 seats and party Y gets allocated 5 seats, etc. Do the seats still have a nexus to the province? If they do, does party X get its seats from province A or province B or a mix of both? Int21h ( talk) 19:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please intervene at {{ Sammarinese elections}}. Barlafus ( talk · contribs) has repeatedly (four times so far today and I am unable to revert the last removal) removed the link to Sammarinese Constitutional Assembly election, 1906, claiming that it did not happen, and has also redirected the article twice so far (although this seems to have stopped). The article is referenced to what I think can be regarded as a reliable source, although Barlafus claims it is wrong. Number 5 7 00:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Non-notable candidates are not listed on US elections pages. However, Matthew Hess, a Google search about whom finds only his personal website, is constantly being re-added to Colorado gubernatorial election, 2014. Could another user intervene here? Thanks, Tiller54 ( talk) 11:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
FYI there's now Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Article alerts which will track proposed renames and deletions. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
On what level of elections would be our minimum for notability standards? We have Police commissioner elections in the UK, same for by-elections/special elections. What would be our criteria?
– H T D 12:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Another issue is the notability of indirect elections, e.g. Samoan o le Ao o le Malo election, 2007 or Israeli presidential election, 1963. Even though I created one of those, I've come to the conclusion that they shouldn't be stand alone articles, and should perhaps be under a single list article. Number 5 7 18:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
This is an interesting discussion, although I would be nervous in reaching a conclusion that tries to match elections in one country with those in another, especially where there is active editing and creation of articles or an active national wikiProject. It seems to me there should be two tables: one for the types of election and one for the types of election article. There are
I am thinking in that list of articles which give detailed figures: there are those like New York state elections, 2010 linkedin the table, which don't do so but contain political information which is often absent from the figures-dominated articles which are often those proposed for deletion. Maybe the discussion should be which types of election should have which types of article. Sussexonian ( talk) 10:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Article is about... | Notable? | Notes | Example | AFD outcomes |
---|---|---|---|---|
Article is about national general/presidential elections | ||||
Elections of a head of state | Yes | French presidential election, 2012 | ||
General elections to a national legislature | Yes | United Kingdom general election, 2010 | ||
Article is about by-elections/special elections | ||||
Special/by-elections of a head of state | Yes | Polish presidential election, 2010 | ||
Special/by-elections to a national legislature | Yes | Mayo by-election, 2008 | ||
Special/by-elections of a first-level subdivision chief executive in a federal state | — | West Virginia gubernatorial special election, 2011 | ||
Special/by-elections to a first-level subdivision legislature in a federal state | — | ??? | ||
Special/by-elections of a first-level subdivision chief executive in a unitary state | — | ??? | ||
Special/by-elections to a first-level subdivision legislature in a unitary state | — | ??? | ||
Article is about first-level subdivision elections on one position | ||||
Elections to a national legislature of a federal state | — | Virginia's 2nd congressional district election, 2006 | ||
Elections to a national legislature of a unitary state | — | A hypothetical article about French legislative election at Paris' 2nd constituency, 2007 | ||
Elections of a chief executive in a first-level subdivision of a federal state | Yes | California gubernatorial election, 2006 | ||
General elections in a first-level subdivision of a federal state | Yes | Lower Saxony state election, 2008 | ||
Elections of a chief executive in a first-level subdivision of a unitary state | Some | Bangkok gubernatorial election, 2009 | ||
General elections in a first-level subdivision of a unitary state | Some | Scottish Parliament general election, 2007 | ||
Article is about collection of elections on many positions | ||||
Collection of elections of members of a national legislature | Kenya National Assembly elections in Baringo, 2013 | Kept | ||
Collection of elections of chief executives in a first-level subdivision of a federal state | United States gubernatorial elections, 2010 | |||
Collection of elections of chief executives in a first-level subdivision of a unitary state | Philippine gubernatorial elections, 2010 | |||
Collection of elections in a first-level subdivision of a federal state on election day | New York state elections, 2010 | |||
Collection of elections in a first-level subdivision of a unitary state on election day | Cebu local elections, 2013 | Kept | ||
Collection of elections in a second-level subdivision (or lower) of a federal state on election day | ??? | |||
Collection of elections in a second-level subdivision (or lower) of a unitary state on election day | ??? |
There had been different ways on how results are sorted once the results are known -- via the number of seats won, and via number of votes. Which should be preferred? I realize this shouldn't ( almost) be an issue to elections done via proportional representation. – H T D 19:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Nearly all systems have potential differences between votes and seats, it's not just an FPTP issue. An election is not an academic exercise to give a snapshot of the country, it is the filling of posts to do business and that should be the pre-eminent determination for listing the results. Listing by seats also avoids the problem of systems where there's more than one set of vote figures - e.g. the Additional Member System with separate seat and list votes or the Alternative Vote with primary and two party preferred results. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
In
New Zealand general elections, where votes generally do equal seats (since MMP was introduced, and subject to minimum requirements) we use two results tables - one for represented parties (plus the catch-all "Others"), and a table for those parties that failed to win representation. From election to election there is sometimes some transfer from one list to another which may require some explanatory note for gains and losses. As in the UKIP/DUP example above, there are parties with a wide geographical base failing to gain seats while other parties with less votes win representation within a smaller electorate. We take the view that the effective result of an election is representation gained while votes are the means to securing the result. While this may seem to disregard the large number of disenfranchised voters (i.e. UKIP), surely that is exactly what FPTP intends.
Fan |
talk
12:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
(See my question above. I am trying to wrap my head around this and I just chose Sweden to do research on.) So am I to understand, in Sweden, open lists are constituency specific? IOW each constituency has list cartels with candidates that are different from other constituency lists? OK, assuming yes, problem: Assume the country has 2 constituencies, constituency A has 1000 voters and constituency B has 50000 voters, and party Z gets X seats out of 100 seats nationwide.
How is it chosen which constituency gets which how many seats (so as to determine which candidates in that constituency actually get elected)? Is the seat allocation done on a constituency basis, as in party Z will get X% of seats per constituency (instead of just saying they get X of the national 100 seats)? Or is there some other mapping system that allows them to put all X seats in constituency A? Int21h ( talk) 07:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Is there a rule of thumb on how WP:CRYSTALish to be about future elections? Especially in parliamentary systems with no fixed terms, and even more particularly where the jurisdiction concerned has a mixed track record of their legislatures sitting for the maximum possible duration or not. I've looked at a couple, and am yet to find any on-topic content, or indeed a single cited source. There doesn't seem to be so many that there's any obvious sign of presumption of their being a "next election" article for every such country regardless. Any guidance anyone can offer? 84.203.34.166 ( talk) 18:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I've created a couple of projectspace pages to help identify what needs to be done on election and referendum articles:
The first is something I've been working on with Antemister for some time, but I thought it would be good to get wider input. The second was something I thought of today when I realised that the election results in the articles on the most recent two elections in Paraguay were the provision ones.
Hope this is helpful and that we can make some progress on improving the articles/templates. Cheer, Number 5 7 22:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I would welcome an opinion at Talk:Oxfordshire County Council election, 2013#Gains and holds. Thanks. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 11:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Isle of Anglesey County Council election, 2013#General comments for one of the trickier cases. Timrollpickering ( talk) 10:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone here guide me to some central discussion that formed a consensus regarding inclusion of opinion poll data for elections that have not yet taken place? My concerns are principally those of WP:NOTNEWS and a more generic appreciation that polls, and polls of polls, can be wayward even though the psephologists love them and the candidates do if the results are in their favour. More specifically, if a poll appears to be conducted by an independent body but that body acknowledges it had "technical assistance" from someone who is a recognised psephologist but who has turned to an active political role, what the heck do we do? Thanks. - Sitush ( talk) 19:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The template Template:Turkish elections seems to have been spun off into another template, Template:Turkish presidential elections. The user Number 57 claims that this is "convention," since pre-2007 constitutional amendment to the Turkish Constitution, Presidents of Turkey were elected by the legislature instead of the public. However, in a similar case, the template Template:United States Senate elections DOES list American senatorial elections before the 17th amendment, which also switched elections of senators from legislatures to the public.
I find no reason to unnecessarily diverge election templates unless they are very massive, which Template:Turkish elections is not. Articles exist for pre-2007 presidential elections by the legislature, and diverging the elections template almost eliminates their visibility.
Instead of spinning off the presidential elections, I propose that the original Template:Turkish elections be edited to include both, in a separate fashion, like this: Old revision of Template:Turkish elections
Ithinkicahn ( talk) 18:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Please see the write up at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-04-18/In the news and the comment at the bottom (transcluded talk page). -- Jeandré, 2011-04-19 t13:37z
There is a discussion in progress at Talk:United States Senate election in Nebraska, 2014 concerning the formatting of opinion-poll tables. The issue is whether a link to a source should be in the form of an external link, piped through the polling organization's name; or whether it should be presented as a formatted citation. The difference between the two formats can be seen in this diff
I'd suggest that formatted citations are more appropriate, per WP:ELPOINTS, which deprecates ELs in most situations, and whose short list of exceptions doesn't appear to apply here; and because ELs are subject to linkrot, and don't allow the reader to evaluate the source without actually following the link. Another editor maintains that ELs are not only permissible but desirable, as in keeping with the usual practice in articles about elections, and in view of this has reverted my addition of formatted footnotes.
Could we get some opinions from members of this WikiProject? Thanks. Ammodramus ( talk) 03:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:MOSICON outlines a number of reason why these flags are not required along with the following reasons
Gnevin ( talk) 11:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
In short;
In shorter: keep the flags
doktorb words deeds 20:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I won't be sad if the flags are gone; they're redundant as the name of the country/state/whatever is already on top of it, plus it wastes an entire row all by itself. If we can find another use for these flags they can be saved. – H T D 20:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Some outside (preferably apolitical) input would be welcomed at Talk:Irish general election, 1918#Requested move concerning how to name the article. Thanks,-- Kotniski ( talk) 16:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I am looking for some feedback on what seems to be a de-facto standard in recent years about article titles, which has not been made retroactively consistent, and has led to a variety of unilateral moves based on editor concerns re WP:DAB, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, as currently being discussed at Talk:Washington_Initiative_1029.
My view is that standard consensus recently has been for the naming convention Jurisdiction + Measure Type + Designator + (Parenthetical Year) and that this should be proposed as a multinational standard.
Whether a jurisdictoin re-uses numbers or not. The basic title format of Jursidiction + Type + Number + (Parenthetical year) provides maximal information very concisely: California Proposition 13 (1978), Oregon Ballot Measure 9 (1992), Washington Referendum 71 (2009), Washington Initiative 502 (2011), and Colorado Amendment 64 (2012). Redirects such as Proposition 13 can easily be established for famous items or from year-to-year, with those easily converted do disambiguation pages as needed should similar titles be WP:Notable. The State + Type + Number + (Parenthetical year) format is well established for many US states, if not most, and this seems to me the simplest, soundest, most comprehensive and least ambiguous solution. This article, with its previous parenthetical year number, was consistent with long-established practice across all of Wikipedia. The permanent article should include the year number, with redirects such as Initiative 502 created or changed as necessary, based on current events. One clear example where this approach has been widely adopted and useful is with 1st amendment (note capitalization) which has a WP:REDIRECT to First Amendment to the United States Constitution and also a WP:DAB page.
This project seems the most logical place for this discussion to happen, given its scope and depth, so what are editors' views on this? Rorybowman ( talk) 15:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not sure why the articles on this project don't follow the pattern I've seen almost everywhere else, which would be "XXXX Fooian type election/referendum" Number 5 7 17:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
There are 2 ways opinion polling articles (or lists) are titled, "Opinion polling in" as in, " Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2006", and "Opinion polling for" as in " Opinion polling for the New Zealand general election, 2011". Unless this is an WP:ENGVAR issue, there should only be one way to title these articles. Which is it? – H T D 14:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The Category:Papal conclaves articles which have infoboxes (20th & 21st century conclaves and 1800,1513,1492,1294) all directly code their infoboxes instead of transcluding them. this causes variances in display, and should have an infobox instead of direct coding. Can someone clean this up? -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 21:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
What is the "plan of attack" vis-a-vis the election district boundary changes after the last Census? Some districts, while sharing the district number of a previous incarnation, actually have little or nothing to do with that previous incarnation in reality (other than the number.)
California's 37th State Senate district is a good example. Before 2011, the 37th district was very different. Are the old district articles being renamed, or are all articles just going to be rewritten such that any links to the old district going to link to the new district? Int21h ( talk) 00:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Please see and comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 January 25#Template:Infobox Israeli Election. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I had asked a question a number of months ago about Elections in Sweden, but it is probably just as well asked here as it probably pertains to a number of similar election systems: Are the 310 members of the Parliament of Sweden tied to a particular electoral constituency?
To sum up what I can tell about it:
So this begs the question: Are the MPs (or seats) in any way tied to a particular constituency? So, as a generic example, assume province A gets 20 seats and province B gets 10 seats, then party X gets allocated 10 seats and party Y gets allocated 5 seats, etc. Do the seats still have a nexus to the province? If they do, does party X get its seats from province A or province B or a mix of both? Int21h ( talk) 19:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please intervene at {{ Sammarinese elections}}. Barlafus ( talk · contribs) has repeatedly (four times so far today and I am unable to revert the last removal) removed the link to Sammarinese Constitutional Assembly election, 1906, claiming that it did not happen, and has also redirected the article twice so far (although this seems to have stopped). The article is referenced to what I think can be regarded as a reliable source, although Barlafus claims it is wrong. Number 5 7 00:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Non-notable candidates are not listed on US elections pages. However, Matthew Hess, a Google search about whom finds only his personal website, is constantly being re-added to Colorado gubernatorial election, 2014. Could another user intervene here? Thanks, Tiller54 ( talk) 11:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
FYI there's now Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Article alerts which will track proposed renames and deletions. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
On what level of elections would be our minimum for notability standards? We have Police commissioner elections in the UK, same for by-elections/special elections. What would be our criteria?
– H T D 12:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Another issue is the notability of indirect elections, e.g. Samoan o le Ao o le Malo election, 2007 or Israeli presidential election, 1963. Even though I created one of those, I've come to the conclusion that they shouldn't be stand alone articles, and should perhaps be under a single list article. Number 5 7 18:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
This is an interesting discussion, although I would be nervous in reaching a conclusion that tries to match elections in one country with those in another, especially where there is active editing and creation of articles or an active national wikiProject. It seems to me there should be two tables: one for the types of election and one for the types of election article. There are
I am thinking in that list of articles which give detailed figures: there are those like New York state elections, 2010 linkedin the table, which don't do so but contain political information which is often absent from the figures-dominated articles which are often those proposed for deletion. Maybe the discussion should be which types of election should have which types of article. Sussexonian ( talk) 10:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Article is about... | Notable? | Notes | Example | AFD outcomes |
---|---|---|---|---|
Article is about national general/presidential elections | ||||
Elections of a head of state | Yes | French presidential election, 2012 | ||
General elections to a national legislature | Yes | United Kingdom general election, 2010 | ||
Article is about by-elections/special elections | ||||
Special/by-elections of a head of state | Yes | Polish presidential election, 2010 | ||
Special/by-elections to a national legislature | Yes | Mayo by-election, 2008 | ||
Special/by-elections of a first-level subdivision chief executive in a federal state | — | West Virginia gubernatorial special election, 2011 | ||
Special/by-elections to a first-level subdivision legislature in a federal state | — | ??? | ||
Special/by-elections of a first-level subdivision chief executive in a unitary state | — | ??? | ||
Special/by-elections to a first-level subdivision legislature in a unitary state | — | ??? | ||
Article is about first-level subdivision elections on one position | ||||
Elections to a national legislature of a federal state | — | Virginia's 2nd congressional district election, 2006 | ||
Elections to a national legislature of a unitary state | — | A hypothetical article about French legislative election at Paris' 2nd constituency, 2007 | ||
Elections of a chief executive in a first-level subdivision of a federal state | Yes | California gubernatorial election, 2006 | ||
General elections in a first-level subdivision of a federal state | Yes | Lower Saxony state election, 2008 | ||
Elections of a chief executive in a first-level subdivision of a unitary state | Some | Bangkok gubernatorial election, 2009 | ||
General elections in a first-level subdivision of a unitary state | Some | Scottish Parliament general election, 2007 | ||
Article is about collection of elections on many positions | ||||
Collection of elections of members of a national legislature | Kenya National Assembly elections in Baringo, 2013 | Kept | ||
Collection of elections of chief executives in a first-level subdivision of a federal state | United States gubernatorial elections, 2010 | |||
Collection of elections of chief executives in a first-level subdivision of a unitary state | Philippine gubernatorial elections, 2010 | |||
Collection of elections in a first-level subdivision of a federal state on election day | New York state elections, 2010 | |||
Collection of elections in a first-level subdivision of a unitary state on election day | Cebu local elections, 2013 | Kept | ||
Collection of elections in a second-level subdivision (or lower) of a federal state on election day | ??? | |||
Collection of elections in a second-level subdivision (or lower) of a unitary state on election day | ??? |
There had been different ways on how results are sorted once the results are known -- via the number of seats won, and via number of votes. Which should be preferred? I realize this shouldn't ( almost) be an issue to elections done via proportional representation. – H T D 19:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Nearly all systems have potential differences between votes and seats, it's not just an FPTP issue. An election is not an academic exercise to give a snapshot of the country, it is the filling of posts to do business and that should be the pre-eminent determination for listing the results. Listing by seats also avoids the problem of systems where there's more than one set of vote figures - e.g. the Additional Member System with separate seat and list votes or the Alternative Vote with primary and two party preferred results. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
In
New Zealand general elections, where votes generally do equal seats (since MMP was introduced, and subject to minimum requirements) we use two results tables - one for represented parties (plus the catch-all "Others"), and a table for those parties that failed to win representation. From election to election there is sometimes some transfer from one list to another which may require some explanatory note for gains and losses. As in the UKIP/DUP example above, there are parties with a wide geographical base failing to gain seats while other parties with less votes win representation within a smaller electorate. We take the view that the effective result of an election is representation gained while votes are the means to securing the result. While this may seem to disregard the large number of disenfranchised voters (i.e. UKIP), surely that is exactly what FPTP intends.
Fan |
talk
12:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
(See my question above. I am trying to wrap my head around this and I just chose Sweden to do research on.) So am I to understand, in Sweden, open lists are constituency specific? IOW each constituency has list cartels with candidates that are different from other constituency lists? OK, assuming yes, problem: Assume the country has 2 constituencies, constituency A has 1000 voters and constituency B has 50000 voters, and party Z gets X seats out of 100 seats nationwide.
How is it chosen which constituency gets which how many seats (so as to determine which candidates in that constituency actually get elected)? Is the seat allocation done on a constituency basis, as in party Z will get X% of seats per constituency (instead of just saying they get X of the national 100 seats)? Or is there some other mapping system that allows them to put all X seats in constituency A? Int21h ( talk) 07:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Is there a rule of thumb on how WP:CRYSTALish to be about future elections? Especially in parliamentary systems with no fixed terms, and even more particularly where the jurisdiction concerned has a mixed track record of their legislatures sitting for the maximum possible duration or not. I've looked at a couple, and am yet to find any on-topic content, or indeed a single cited source. There doesn't seem to be so many that there's any obvious sign of presumption of their being a "next election" article for every such country regardless. Any guidance anyone can offer? 84.203.34.166 ( talk) 18:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I've created a couple of projectspace pages to help identify what needs to be done on election and referendum articles:
The first is something I've been working on with Antemister for some time, but I thought it would be good to get wider input. The second was something I thought of today when I realised that the election results in the articles on the most recent two elections in Paraguay were the provision ones.
Hope this is helpful and that we can make some progress on improving the articles/templates. Cheer, Number 5 7 22:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I would welcome an opinion at Talk:Oxfordshire County Council election, 2013#Gains and holds. Thanks. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 11:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Isle of Anglesey County Council election, 2013#General comments for one of the trickier cases. Timrollpickering ( talk) 10:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone here guide me to some central discussion that formed a consensus regarding inclusion of opinion poll data for elections that have not yet taken place? My concerns are principally those of WP:NOTNEWS and a more generic appreciation that polls, and polls of polls, can be wayward even though the psephologists love them and the candidates do if the results are in their favour. More specifically, if a poll appears to be conducted by an independent body but that body acknowledges it had "technical assistance" from someone who is a recognised psephologist but who has turned to an active political role, what the heck do we do? Thanks. - Sitush ( talk) 19:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The template Template:Turkish elections seems to have been spun off into another template, Template:Turkish presidential elections. The user Number 57 claims that this is "convention," since pre-2007 constitutional amendment to the Turkish Constitution, Presidents of Turkey were elected by the legislature instead of the public. However, in a similar case, the template Template:United States Senate elections DOES list American senatorial elections before the 17th amendment, which also switched elections of senators from legislatures to the public.
I find no reason to unnecessarily diverge election templates unless they are very massive, which Template:Turkish elections is not. Articles exist for pre-2007 presidential elections by the legislature, and diverging the elections template almost eliminates their visibility.
Instead of spinning off the presidential elections, I propose that the original Template:Turkish elections be edited to include both, in a separate fashion, like this: Old revision of Template:Turkish elections
Ithinkicahn ( talk) 18:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Please see the write up at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-04-18/In the news and the comment at the bottom (transcluded talk page). -- Jeandré, 2011-04-19 t13:37z
There is a discussion in progress at Talk:United States Senate election in Nebraska, 2014 concerning the formatting of opinion-poll tables. The issue is whether a link to a source should be in the form of an external link, piped through the polling organization's name; or whether it should be presented as a formatted citation. The difference between the two formats can be seen in this diff
I'd suggest that formatted citations are more appropriate, per WP:ELPOINTS, which deprecates ELs in most situations, and whose short list of exceptions doesn't appear to apply here; and because ELs are subject to linkrot, and don't allow the reader to evaluate the source without actually following the link. Another editor maintains that ELs are not only permissible but desirable, as in keeping with the usual practice in articles about elections, and in view of this has reverted my addition of formatted footnotes.
Could we get some opinions from members of this WikiProject? Thanks. Ammodramus ( talk) 03:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:MOSICON outlines a number of reason why these flags are not required along with the following reasons
Gnevin ( talk) 11:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
In short;
In shorter: keep the flags
doktorb words deeds 20:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I won't be sad if the flags are gone; they're redundant as the name of the country/state/whatever is already on top of it, plus it wastes an entire row all by itself. If we can find another use for these flags they can be saved. – H T D 20:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)