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 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
Category:Leadership elections and 36 of its sub-categories, all of which are within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Political party leadership elections. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Just wondering whether anybody has been working on an article for VotingWorks, a company that supplies voting machines for use across a number of US states. I've not seen anything in the draft articles category, but not everything appears there. Wouldn't want to begin work on it if somebody's already putting the effort in! Domeditrix ( talk) 16:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Several imagemap templates are including states that are supposed to be included.
List of templates that are having issues:
This could be user error or some other issue, I'm not sure. It seems like these templates are defaulting to the original "Gov" templates they're based off of, plus the "extra-states", but they're ignoring the "excluded-states".
For Template:2019 United States attorney general elections imagemap and Template:2015 United States attorney general elections imagemap, the templates function as intended, most likely because the gubernatorial and attorney general maps for those years have identical states.
MrOinkingPig ( talk) 20:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
require
to mw.loadData
in loading the data module, which broke excluded-states
in some cases. I've switched this back, thanks for letting me know.I think it's time to change the color scheme for german parties before 1933. I've been working on a series of election maps for Germany, and the colors between the english-language and german-language wikipedias differ, sometimes they are not even coherent within a wp (for example, parliament diagrams use colors from the spanish-language wp). I think it's time to reboot it and review the whole scheme. I've spent quite some time a few months ago (sorry for making you wait so long) looking at maps and diagrams from several sources and using them to propose a "somewhat-consensus" color scheme. I've left a few colors with question marks along with some room in the talk page to discuss individual colors and not all proposals are definitive, but apart from that most of the work is done. This proposal would only imply changing the /meta/color templates.
What about the existing parliament diagrams? Well, they aren't in phase with the current enwp colors anyway so they'll have to be changed. I have worked on a script to generate them from the results for all national and state elections between 1848 and 1933, so they will be ready to be uploaded once the changes are approved (if they are). What about the existing maps? Well, most them are based on the german-language wp color scheme, which this proposal is closer to (just look at the FKP/DRP color).
Anyway, the entire proposal (along with its talk page) is on User:Julio974fr/sandbox/2. Julio974◆ ( Talk- Contribs) 08:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Why are infoboxes for elections a long time ago such as 1790 United States elections so weird compared to e.g. 2020 United States elections? There isn't a ton that's different; shouldn't they be formatted more similarly for consistent navigation? Stuff like links to the previous elections is missing for some reason. DemonDays64 ( talk) 04:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I have always enjoyed reading WikiProject interviews on the signpost and want to try and revive that section by conducting interviews, but I need some interviewees and I can see this project hasn't been featured yet (I think!) Would anyone be interested in participating in an interview? It would be similar to this one ( Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-06-27/WikiProject report) and would be open to anyone who wants to answer any questions they would like to. It's a good way to draw attention to your project and the work you conduct here :). Cheers Tom (LT) ( talk) 01:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
2008 Virginia elections article is really weirdly organized and stuff, would love if someone could rewrite it. Thanks! DemonDays64 ( talk) 03:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I added the table to
2006 United States Senate election in Nebraska#Results by county just now but I don't know how to efficiently color the county names. I have
a Google Sheet with them, is there a good way to add {{party shading/Republican}}
and {{party shading/Democratic}}
conditionally in a way where I can paste it back in? Also is there a way I can paste bold formatting from a sheets/excel into the Visual Editor?
DemonDays64 (
talk) 01:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
{{template name|D=|R=}}
, where D=no. of votes received by Democrat, and R=by Republican. Though, one can make an app to do this automatically from an Excel/GSheet file, its highly unlikely that someone will. Also, I've no idea about app development or I would've done it.="{{template name |D="&A1&" |R="&B1&" }}"
into cell C1. Assume that the two values are 12345 and 54321, cell C1 will now display {{template name |D=12345 |R=54321 }}
. Now fill in the data for the first two columns for as many rows as are required, let's say down to row 24. Select cell C1, extend your selection down to cell C24, press Ctrl+D to copy the formula from the top cell down to all the others, then Ctrl+C to copy the same cells to the clipboard. If you now go to your Wikipedia article and edit the appropriate section, you can paste in the clipboard contents and it will show that the cell references (A1, B1, A2, B2 etc.) have been replaced by the appropriate cell values. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 10:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
original section "Consistency in statewide maps"
|
---|
Hi. Are there any different standards for different kinds of statewide election maps (by county)? Like for example is there any reason that ideally
File:2020CaliforniaProposition13.svg and other proposition maps shouldn't just use the same map as
File:California Presidential Election Results 2020.svg with different colors?
DemonDays64 (
talk) 22:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC) (please
ping on reply)
|
I noticed we have an extremely large number of very colorblind-unfriendly maps of ballot referendums, particularly almost all of the California ones such as 2016 and 2020; other states listed in c:Category:United States ballot measure maps by state have some red-green maps too.
These need to be changed to the colors listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/USA Legend Colors#Proposal support levels. Some are PNG too so those will need to be completely remade.
Also it would make sense to have more of a consistent format -- many use the extremely simplified presidential style with the legend on the map and rotated differently while others use more complicated lines with no legend like this and others are exactly like the presidential maps. Which one should be used optimally? The presidential lines would be consistent but I don't see why we use such oversimplified lines when the SVGs are still not huge and the PNGs aren't much different in size from the more complicated ones (e.g. compare complicated and simple). We should make sure we have consensus on this written down somewhere I would think. DemonDays64 ( talk) 07:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
In a previous RfC, a 5% vote threshold was established for inclusion of candidates in infoboxes of U.S. election articles. I often see this standard applied to non-U.S. election infoboxes, yet I haven't been able to find a broader consensus. Should 5% be the standard infobox inclusion threshold for all elections, including the previously-established caveat that infoboxes should have at least two candidates if only one candidate in a contested election gets above 5%? ― Tartan357 Talk 19:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Currently, lead sentences in articles about US presidential primaries look like this:
The 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries and caucuses were a series of electoral contests that took place within all 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories between February 1 and June 7, 2016.
The sentences are tautological: they say the same things twice just so that boldface could fit in. That, of course, is against MOS:AVOIDBOLD and MOS:REDUNDANCY as well as a great disservice to readers because links to essential topics are sacrificed. Links to Presidential primaries and Republican Party (United States) or Democratic Party (United States) are vital and should be provided as soon as the terms are introduced. They should not be relegated to the middle of the section or, as is usually the case, be completely absent. Therefore I suggest this or a similar format:
Presidential primaries and caucuses of the Republican Party took place within all 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories between February 1 and June 7, 2016.
Comments and suggestions are welcome! Surtsicna ( talk) 19:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Since there appears to be no opposition here, I will implement the edits and link to this discussion. At the very least it might trigger input here. Surtsicna ( talk) 10:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello. There's an RfC on whether results from constituencies where voting was postponed until some time after the election (specifically the 2019 Indian general election) should be included in the main results table. I'm sure some project members may have a view on what we should do, so please do comment. Cheers, Number 5 7 16:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Discussion regarding the format used for listing Special elections to the United States House of Representatives, and for settling on an article naming convention for the same. Detailed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#RfC: Convention for House of Representatives special elections in the United States. --- CX Zoom(he/him) ( let's talk| contribs) 15:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
BACKGROUND & ISSUES: Hi everyone. As some of us would already know, most countries have a article which lists all special/ by-elections held to that country's legislature. For example, List of United Kingdom by-elections (2010–present) & List of federal by-elections in Canada among others. As one would notice the by-elections held are categorised by the term of the Parliament which is also chronologically consistent, as they do NOT conduct simultaneous elections to multiple parliamentary terms. They elect the next parliament upon the dissolution of the current one.
US is currently the only country to have year-specific articles listing all House of Representatives special elections held that year, despite having a list of all special elections ever held, just like any other country ( List of special elections to the United States House of Representatives). However, the former part has a problem, special elections held in odd years have their own articles with infoboxes and a short summary of each race, for example, 2019 United States House of Representatives elections, whereas special elections held in even years despite having equivalent encyclopedic content & coverage are just a small subsection of general election articles without even a summary, for example, 2020 United States House of Representatives elections#Special elections.
Furthermore, unlike the countries mentioned above, in US elections to the next Congress can be held simultaneously with special elections to the current Congress, and in some instances of 18th & 19th centuries (prior to 1880), even before special elections to the current Congress are held.
And, if the 2019 United States House of Representatives elections article is ONLY for special elections, why the title doesn't reflect the same, like individual races do, for example 2019 North Carolina's 3rd congressional district special election.
PROPOSALS:
Thanks! --- CX Zoom(he/him) ( let's talk| contribs) 15:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I would personally support grouping the special elections by congress instead of by year, as for most countries (while keeping individual articles for individual special elections when necessary). Mostly like proposal 2, but without the years detailed. Julio974◆ ( Talk- Contribs)
It seems like articles such as 2020 United States House of Representatives elections are for all elections that were held during the calendar year, and these includes special elections. This is unlike elsewhere that elections articles are for a specific day/s (if there are multiple rounds or more) of the year. If the article's scope is limited to the general elections in November, we won't have this problem. (That should also mean articles about US House elections in odd-numbered years have to be reconfigured.) Howard the Duck ( talk) 20:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
That should also mean articles about US House elections in odd-numbered years have to be reconfiguredI do think a listing of all special elections in a year should exist somewhere. We already cover all the elections in their individual pages too. Elli ( talk | contribs) 23:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
"Special elections to the XXXth United States Congress" (which would include House and Senate special elections), might solve the problem. GoodDay ( talk) 00:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion at WP:TFD regarding the merging of some 16000 political party templates into one meta module. Your input would be appreciated. Primefac ( talk) 11:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Timeline of Canadian elections for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 05:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Just to let everyone know, both {{
Infobox election}} and {{
Infobox legislative election}} have had an upgrade that means entering a party name as a link in the party field (i.e. |party1=[[Labour Party]]
will result in the party colour from the meta template ({{
Labour Party/meta/color}}) appearing. Previously if you entered the party name as a link, the meta colour template would not be called and you would have to manually add a colour to the template code. This was particularly problematic for {{
Infobox election}}, which requires the colours to be added without the hashtag, meaning you couldn't simply link to the meta template and any change to party colours would require manual intervention on numerous articles.
Now this has been enabled, you don't need to create meta shortname templates for parties to get colours to work automatically in the infoboxes. Hope that all makes sense, as was a bit difficult to explain! An example might be this, where I converted a plain party name (with no associated meta shortname template) to a piped link, and the party colour still shows up. Cheers, Number 5 7 15:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Several 2022 United States elections have had images of the primary candidates added to their sections. Previously, this was only applied to Presidential elections. Should they be included or not? 67.173.23.66 ( talk) 23:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment: See below RfC. ― Tartan357 Talk 23:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I am trying to review the regular WikiProject interviews on the Signpost. I need some interviewees and I can see this project hasn't been featured yet (I think!). It would be fantastic if any members of this WikiProject wanted to participate in an interview similar to this one ( Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-06-27/WikiProject report).
It's open to anyone from this WikiProject - regular editors and those just passing through; old hands and newer editors alike. Answer any questions you'd like and leave the rest. This is a great way to draw attention to your project and the work you conduct here :).
The draft interview is here: User:Tom (LT)/sandbox/WikiProject elections and referendums interview draft. Hope to hear from you there! Tom (LT) ( talk) 00:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
There ya go. I've answered all eight questions. GoodDay ( talk) 04:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
2021 Dublin Bay South by-election has been nominated by
User:BrownHairedGirl for good article status. I don't know this for a fact, but I presume it's rare/uncommon that Irish political elections pages are nominated. The article is currently seeking a reviewer over here >>>
[1]
CeltBrowne (
talk) 22:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the village pump about a topic that is relevant to this WikiProject. See Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Real-time reporting of election results wikinights talk 20:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Background:
Currently, a candidate must receive more than 5% to appear in most US election infoboxes. This is a good standard and I do not agree with changing it.
Proposal:
If a candidate wins a county in a statewide election, they should appear in the infobox. Currently, winning a county doesn't necessarily guarantee that a candidate goes in the infobox. This results in the candidate's name appearing in the map caption but no other information like their % of the vote, # of votes, party, picture, and full name. For example, the 1976 United States Senate election in Virginia saw Martin Perper win a county but not appear in the infobox due to only receiving 4.5% of the vote. This makes the infobox a bit confusing to look at because there is no other mention of Perper besides the map caption
This would be an easy change to make because only a few elections have seen candidates win counties and not get more than 5% of the vote. MrOinkingPig ( talk) 21:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Please see Talk:2019_Sammarinese_general_election#Mass_move_request. Thanks! RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
And related to the two discussions above, there is now a discussion on amending WP:NCELECT, the naming guideline for elections/referendums. Number 5 7 08:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Given that 67.173.23.66 ( talk) removes images of candidates in the primaries sections of many, many articles citing that "photos generally aren't included for non presidential elections" and that "No such images are present on any gubernatorial elections for earlier years," should U.S. election articles, especially U.S. Senate and gubernatorial election articles in 2022, include galleries of images for the candidates in the Democratic/Republican primaries sections? — twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 23:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
In many cases, numbers are excellent representations of reality, such as the mass of a proton or the Sun or the Earth in kilograms. In other cases, open data from governments can range from quite reliable to totally fictional, yet Wikipedia infoboxes and tables usually present these with the warnings about unreliability only present in prose form in the article lead, and completely absent from the infobox. This applies for (at least) elections and the COVID-19 pandemic, and quite likely for other open government data. Should we add a credibility parameter to open data infoboxes for key numerical data for elections? See the essay Wikipedia:Reliability of open government data for a more detailed description of the problem.
Feel free to either update/improve/extend the essay, or maybe even try an RfC here on a specific action on how to deal with dubious open government data (such as adding a credibility parameter to electoral result boxes) if there seems to be a good chance of consensus among Wikipedians. To me, it's not obvious to many people reading Wikipedia infobox data - directly on Wikipedia or elsewhere indirectly - that the data only represent the government's point of view with no peer review, and that in some cases the data are widely regarded as fictitious. Of course, the difficulty is the fuzzy area in the middle, where the data's validity is disputed and there's no clear consensus in the sources; but in this case intense editorial discussion among editors with varying biases should still be able to decide on an option - e.g. a 50% probability as a baseline.
Keep in mind the number of people who have very little understanding of how the Internet, let alone Wikipedia, function, and whatever appears after typing a few words into a graphical interface is "knowledge", since "I checked that on the Internet". Boud ( talk) 16:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
"Administrative division referendums" as what I understand it, are creation, division or merger of local governments... so do UK devolution referendums fall in this definition? Howard the Duck ( talk) 12:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello editors. It has been proposed that the article Political groups (Australia) be merged into the article Electoral system of Australia. And one or both of those articles is within the scope of this WikiProject. If you would like express support for or object to the merge then you are strongly encouraged to do so at the talk page for Electoral system of Australia. Thank you!
– ClaudineChionh ( talk – contribs) 03:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if I could create an article relating to a recent election we had here in New York. We were asked about 5 ballot proposals. I have several references for the results including regional results and those who were passed or rejected. I wanted to ask first in-case someone was planning on making an article regarding 2021 elections in New York. I've started a sandbox here. I'll provide a few of my references here for now: [2] [3] [4] [5]. Make sure you tag me if you're responding if you wouldn't mind. J-Man11 ( talk) 17:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
If anyone has the time to review the page, 2021 New York state elections is now complete. Please tag me if you have anything you need clarification for, adding, etc. J-Man11 ( talk) 04:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Can {{ Map requested}} apply for election articles, you know, like someone can just put the template on an election article's talk page to request election maps, eg. indicating vote share by subdivisions? If so, why do election articles never make it into Category:Wikipedia requested maps; if not, why? Regardless, there should be a way or a page to request these kinds of maps, I think. — twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 11:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone, further opinions on a possible modification of the infobox of the Italian elections of 2018 would be very welcome, according to the current electoral system. I invite you to participate in the following discussion and give your opinion: Talk:2018 Italian general election/Archives/2021/December#Request for comment on Infobox to be used with the current Italian electoral system: -- Scia Della Cometa ( talk) 20:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
As the result of a TfD earlier this year, all the /meta/shortname, color and abbrev templates were merged into a single module. However, in the process, the contents of much of the shortname templates has been moved into the abbrev field in the module. An RfC on this and its potential impact has been started on the module's talkpage. Input from WikiProject members is welcome. Cheers, Number 5 7 20:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
This AfD has been dragging on for some time – input would be welcomed. Cheers, Number 5 7 11:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
In the template {{
Election box candidate with party link}}
, how should the |change=
parameter be calculated? The documentation says "Number of percentage points more/less than the previous election" but this does not help at all. At
1990 Bootle by-elections#November by-election, Sean Brady, Lord David Sutch and Kevin White all show "N/A", and I want to replace these three with real figures, because all three had stood at the previous by-election. But in examining the other rows in order to try to work out how to calculate them, I cannot reconcile the figures shown for Joe Benton, James Clappison and John Cunningham with either those for the May by-election or the previous general election. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 21:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
User:Nutez has nominated Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:54, 29 December 2021 (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 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
Category:Leadership elections and 36 of its sub-categories, all of which are within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Political party leadership elections. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Just wondering whether anybody has been working on an article for VotingWorks, a company that supplies voting machines for use across a number of US states. I've not seen anything in the draft articles category, but not everything appears there. Wouldn't want to begin work on it if somebody's already putting the effort in! Domeditrix ( talk) 16:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Several imagemap templates are including states that are supposed to be included.
List of templates that are having issues:
This could be user error or some other issue, I'm not sure. It seems like these templates are defaulting to the original "Gov" templates they're based off of, plus the "extra-states", but they're ignoring the "excluded-states".
For Template:2019 United States attorney general elections imagemap and Template:2015 United States attorney general elections imagemap, the templates function as intended, most likely because the gubernatorial and attorney general maps for those years have identical states.
MrOinkingPig ( talk) 20:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
require
to mw.loadData
in loading the data module, which broke excluded-states
in some cases. I've switched this back, thanks for letting me know.I think it's time to change the color scheme for german parties before 1933. I've been working on a series of election maps for Germany, and the colors between the english-language and german-language wikipedias differ, sometimes they are not even coherent within a wp (for example, parliament diagrams use colors from the spanish-language wp). I think it's time to reboot it and review the whole scheme. I've spent quite some time a few months ago (sorry for making you wait so long) looking at maps and diagrams from several sources and using them to propose a "somewhat-consensus" color scheme. I've left a few colors with question marks along with some room in the talk page to discuss individual colors and not all proposals are definitive, but apart from that most of the work is done. This proposal would only imply changing the /meta/color templates.
What about the existing parliament diagrams? Well, they aren't in phase with the current enwp colors anyway so they'll have to be changed. I have worked on a script to generate them from the results for all national and state elections between 1848 and 1933, so they will be ready to be uploaded once the changes are approved (if they are). What about the existing maps? Well, most them are based on the german-language wp color scheme, which this proposal is closer to (just look at the FKP/DRP color).
Anyway, the entire proposal (along with its talk page) is on User:Julio974fr/sandbox/2. Julio974◆ ( Talk- Contribs) 08:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Why are infoboxes for elections a long time ago such as 1790 United States elections so weird compared to e.g. 2020 United States elections? There isn't a ton that's different; shouldn't they be formatted more similarly for consistent navigation? Stuff like links to the previous elections is missing for some reason. DemonDays64 ( talk) 04:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I have always enjoyed reading WikiProject interviews on the signpost and want to try and revive that section by conducting interviews, but I need some interviewees and I can see this project hasn't been featured yet (I think!) Would anyone be interested in participating in an interview? It would be similar to this one ( Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-06-27/WikiProject report) and would be open to anyone who wants to answer any questions they would like to. It's a good way to draw attention to your project and the work you conduct here :). Cheers Tom (LT) ( talk) 01:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
2008 Virginia elections article is really weirdly organized and stuff, would love if someone could rewrite it. Thanks! DemonDays64 ( talk) 03:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I added the table to
2006 United States Senate election in Nebraska#Results by county just now but I don't know how to efficiently color the county names. I have
a Google Sheet with them, is there a good way to add {{party shading/Republican}}
and {{party shading/Democratic}}
conditionally in a way where I can paste it back in? Also is there a way I can paste bold formatting from a sheets/excel into the Visual Editor?
DemonDays64 (
talk) 01:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
{{template name|D=|R=}}
, where D=no. of votes received by Democrat, and R=by Republican. Though, one can make an app to do this automatically from an Excel/GSheet file, its highly unlikely that someone will. Also, I've no idea about app development or I would've done it.="{{template name |D="&A1&" |R="&B1&" }}"
into cell C1. Assume that the two values are 12345 and 54321, cell C1 will now display {{template name |D=12345 |R=54321 }}
. Now fill in the data for the first two columns for as many rows as are required, let's say down to row 24. Select cell C1, extend your selection down to cell C24, press Ctrl+D to copy the formula from the top cell down to all the others, then Ctrl+C to copy the same cells to the clipboard. If you now go to your Wikipedia article and edit the appropriate section, you can paste in the clipboard contents and it will show that the cell references (A1, B1, A2, B2 etc.) have been replaced by the appropriate cell values. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 10:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
original section "Consistency in statewide maps"
|
---|
Hi. Are there any different standards for different kinds of statewide election maps (by county)? Like for example is there any reason that ideally
File:2020CaliforniaProposition13.svg and other proposition maps shouldn't just use the same map as
File:California Presidential Election Results 2020.svg with different colors?
DemonDays64 (
talk) 22:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC) (please
ping on reply)
|
I noticed we have an extremely large number of very colorblind-unfriendly maps of ballot referendums, particularly almost all of the California ones such as 2016 and 2020; other states listed in c:Category:United States ballot measure maps by state have some red-green maps too.
These need to be changed to the colors listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/USA Legend Colors#Proposal support levels. Some are PNG too so those will need to be completely remade.
Also it would make sense to have more of a consistent format -- many use the extremely simplified presidential style with the legend on the map and rotated differently while others use more complicated lines with no legend like this and others are exactly like the presidential maps. Which one should be used optimally? The presidential lines would be consistent but I don't see why we use such oversimplified lines when the SVGs are still not huge and the PNGs aren't much different in size from the more complicated ones (e.g. compare complicated and simple). We should make sure we have consensus on this written down somewhere I would think. DemonDays64 ( talk) 07:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
In a previous RfC, a 5% vote threshold was established for inclusion of candidates in infoboxes of U.S. election articles. I often see this standard applied to non-U.S. election infoboxes, yet I haven't been able to find a broader consensus. Should 5% be the standard infobox inclusion threshold for all elections, including the previously-established caveat that infoboxes should have at least two candidates if only one candidate in a contested election gets above 5%? ― Tartan357 Talk 19:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Currently, lead sentences in articles about US presidential primaries look like this:
The 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries and caucuses were a series of electoral contests that took place within all 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories between February 1 and June 7, 2016.
The sentences are tautological: they say the same things twice just so that boldface could fit in. That, of course, is against MOS:AVOIDBOLD and MOS:REDUNDANCY as well as a great disservice to readers because links to essential topics are sacrificed. Links to Presidential primaries and Republican Party (United States) or Democratic Party (United States) are vital and should be provided as soon as the terms are introduced. They should not be relegated to the middle of the section or, as is usually the case, be completely absent. Therefore I suggest this or a similar format:
Presidential primaries and caucuses of the Republican Party took place within all 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories between February 1 and June 7, 2016.
Comments and suggestions are welcome! Surtsicna ( talk) 19:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Since there appears to be no opposition here, I will implement the edits and link to this discussion. At the very least it might trigger input here. Surtsicna ( talk) 10:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello. There's an RfC on whether results from constituencies where voting was postponed until some time after the election (specifically the 2019 Indian general election) should be included in the main results table. I'm sure some project members may have a view on what we should do, so please do comment. Cheers, Number 5 7 16:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Discussion regarding the format used for listing Special elections to the United States House of Representatives, and for settling on an article naming convention for the same. Detailed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#RfC: Convention for House of Representatives special elections in the United States. --- CX Zoom(he/him) ( let's talk| contribs) 15:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
BACKGROUND & ISSUES: Hi everyone. As some of us would already know, most countries have a article which lists all special/ by-elections held to that country's legislature. For example, List of United Kingdom by-elections (2010–present) & List of federal by-elections in Canada among others. As one would notice the by-elections held are categorised by the term of the Parliament which is also chronologically consistent, as they do NOT conduct simultaneous elections to multiple parliamentary terms. They elect the next parliament upon the dissolution of the current one.
US is currently the only country to have year-specific articles listing all House of Representatives special elections held that year, despite having a list of all special elections ever held, just like any other country ( List of special elections to the United States House of Representatives). However, the former part has a problem, special elections held in odd years have their own articles with infoboxes and a short summary of each race, for example, 2019 United States House of Representatives elections, whereas special elections held in even years despite having equivalent encyclopedic content & coverage are just a small subsection of general election articles without even a summary, for example, 2020 United States House of Representatives elections#Special elections.
Furthermore, unlike the countries mentioned above, in US elections to the next Congress can be held simultaneously with special elections to the current Congress, and in some instances of 18th & 19th centuries (prior to 1880), even before special elections to the current Congress are held.
And, if the 2019 United States House of Representatives elections article is ONLY for special elections, why the title doesn't reflect the same, like individual races do, for example 2019 North Carolina's 3rd congressional district special election.
PROPOSALS:
Thanks! --- CX Zoom(he/him) ( let's talk| contribs) 15:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I would personally support grouping the special elections by congress instead of by year, as for most countries (while keeping individual articles for individual special elections when necessary). Mostly like proposal 2, but without the years detailed. Julio974◆ ( Talk- Contribs)
It seems like articles such as 2020 United States House of Representatives elections are for all elections that were held during the calendar year, and these includes special elections. This is unlike elsewhere that elections articles are for a specific day/s (if there are multiple rounds or more) of the year. If the article's scope is limited to the general elections in November, we won't have this problem. (That should also mean articles about US House elections in odd-numbered years have to be reconfigured.) Howard the Duck ( talk) 20:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
That should also mean articles about US House elections in odd-numbered years have to be reconfiguredI do think a listing of all special elections in a year should exist somewhere. We already cover all the elections in their individual pages too. Elli ( talk | contribs) 23:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
"Special elections to the XXXth United States Congress" (which would include House and Senate special elections), might solve the problem. GoodDay ( talk) 00:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion at WP:TFD regarding the merging of some 16000 political party templates into one meta module. Your input would be appreciated. Primefac ( talk) 11:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Timeline of Canadian elections for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 05:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Just to let everyone know, both {{
Infobox election}} and {{
Infobox legislative election}} have had an upgrade that means entering a party name as a link in the party field (i.e. |party1=[[Labour Party]]
will result in the party colour from the meta template ({{
Labour Party/meta/color}}) appearing. Previously if you entered the party name as a link, the meta colour template would not be called and you would have to manually add a colour to the template code. This was particularly problematic for {{
Infobox election}}, which requires the colours to be added without the hashtag, meaning you couldn't simply link to the meta template and any change to party colours would require manual intervention on numerous articles.
Now this has been enabled, you don't need to create meta shortname templates for parties to get colours to work automatically in the infoboxes. Hope that all makes sense, as was a bit difficult to explain! An example might be this, where I converted a plain party name (with no associated meta shortname template) to a piped link, and the party colour still shows up. Cheers, Number 5 7 15:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Several 2022 United States elections have had images of the primary candidates added to their sections. Previously, this was only applied to Presidential elections. Should they be included or not? 67.173.23.66 ( talk) 23:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment: See below RfC. ― Tartan357 Talk 23:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I am trying to review the regular WikiProject interviews on the Signpost. I need some interviewees and I can see this project hasn't been featured yet (I think!). It would be fantastic if any members of this WikiProject wanted to participate in an interview similar to this one ( Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-06-27/WikiProject report).
It's open to anyone from this WikiProject - regular editors and those just passing through; old hands and newer editors alike. Answer any questions you'd like and leave the rest. This is a great way to draw attention to your project and the work you conduct here :).
The draft interview is here: User:Tom (LT)/sandbox/WikiProject elections and referendums interview draft. Hope to hear from you there! Tom (LT) ( talk) 00:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
There ya go. I've answered all eight questions. GoodDay ( talk) 04:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
2021 Dublin Bay South by-election has been nominated by
User:BrownHairedGirl for good article status. I don't know this for a fact, but I presume it's rare/uncommon that Irish political elections pages are nominated. The article is currently seeking a reviewer over here >>>
[1]
CeltBrowne (
talk) 22:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the village pump about a topic that is relevant to this WikiProject. See Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Real-time reporting of election results wikinights talk 20:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Background:
Currently, a candidate must receive more than 5% to appear in most US election infoboxes. This is a good standard and I do not agree with changing it.
Proposal:
If a candidate wins a county in a statewide election, they should appear in the infobox. Currently, winning a county doesn't necessarily guarantee that a candidate goes in the infobox. This results in the candidate's name appearing in the map caption but no other information like their % of the vote, # of votes, party, picture, and full name. For example, the 1976 United States Senate election in Virginia saw Martin Perper win a county but not appear in the infobox due to only receiving 4.5% of the vote. This makes the infobox a bit confusing to look at because there is no other mention of Perper besides the map caption
This would be an easy change to make because only a few elections have seen candidates win counties and not get more than 5% of the vote. MrOinkingPig ( talk) 21:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Please see Talk:2019_Sammarinese_general_election#Mass_move_request. Thanks! RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
And related to the two discussions above, there is now a discussion on amending WP:NCELECT, the naming guideline for elections/referendums. Number 5 7 08:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Given that 67.173.23.66 ( talk) removes images of candidates in the primaries sections of many, many articles citing that "photos generally aren't included for non presidential elections" and that "No such images are present on any gubernatorial elections for earlier years," should U.S. election articles, especially U.S. Senate and gubernatorial election articles in 2022, include galleries of images for the candidates in the Democratic/Republican primaries sections? — twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 23:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
In many cases, numbers are excellent representations of reality, such as the mass of a proton or the Sun or the Earth in kilograms. In other cases, open data from governments can range from quite reliable to totally fictional, yet Wikipedia infoboxes and tables usually present these with the warnings about unreliability only present in prose form in the article lead, and completely absent from the infobox. This applies for (at least) elections and the COVID-19 pandemic, and quite likely for other open government data. Should we add a credibility parameter to open data infoboxes for key numerical data for elections? See the essay Wikipedia:Reliability of open government data for a more detailed description of the problem.
Feel free to either update/improve/extend the essay, or maybe even try an RfC here on a specific action on how to deal with dubious open government data (such as adding a credibility parameter to electoral result boxes) if there seems to be a good chance of consensus among Wikipedians. To me, it's not obvious to many people reading Wikipedia infobox data - directly on Wikipedia or elsewhere indirectly - that the data only represent the government's point of view with no peer review, and that in some cases the data are widely regarded as fictitious. Of course, the difficulty is the fuzzy area in the middle, where the data's validity is disputed and there's no clear consensus in the sources; but in this case intense editorial discussion among editors with varying biases should still be able to decide on an option - e.g. a 50% probability as a baseline.
Keep in mind the number of people who have very little understanding of how the Internet, let alone Wikipedia, function, and whatever appears after typing a few words into a graphical interface is "knowledge", since "I checked that on the Internet". Boud ( talk) 16:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
"Administrative division referendums" as what I understand it, are creation, division or merger of local governments... so do UK devolution referendums fall in this definition? Howard the Duck ( talk) 12:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello editors. It has been proposed that the article Political groups (Australia) be merged into the article Electoral system of Australia. And one or both of those articles is within the scope of this WikiProject. If you would like express support for or object to the merge then you are strongly encouraged to do so at the talk page for Electoral system of Australia. Thank you!
– ClaudineChionh ( talk – contribs) 03:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if I could create an article relating to a recent election we had here in New York. We were asked about 5 ballot proposals. I have several references for the results including regional results and those who were passed or rejected. I wanted to ask first in-case someone was planning on making an article regarding 2021 elections in New York. I've started a sandbox here. I'll provide a few of my references here for now: [2] [3] [4] [5]. Make sure you tag me if you're responding if you wouldn't mind. J-Man11 ( talk) 17:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
If anyone has the time to review the page, 2021 New York state elections is now complete. Please tag me if you have anything you need clarification for, adding, etc. J-Man11 ( talk) 04:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Can {{ Map requested}} apply for election articles, you know, like someone can just put the template on an election article's talk page to request election maps, eg. indicating vote share by subdivisions? If so, why do election articles never make it into Category:Wikipedia requested maps; if not, why? Regardless, there should be a way or a page to request these kinds of maps, I think. — twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 11:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone, further opinions on a possible modification of the infobox of the Italian elections of 2018 would be very welcome, according to the current electoral system. I invite you to participate in the following discussion and give your opinion: Talk:2018 Italian general election/Archives/2021/December#Request for comment on Infobox to be used with the current Italian electoral system: -- Scia Della Cometa ( talk) 20:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
As the result of a TfD earlier this year, all the /meta/shortname, color and abbrev templates were merged into a single module. However, in the process, the contents of much of the shortname templates has been moved into the abbrev field in the module. An RfC on this and its potential impact has been started on the module's talkpage. Input from WikiProject members is welcome. Cheers, Number 5 7 20:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
This AfD has been dragging on for some time – input would be welcomed. Cheers, Number 5 7 11:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
In the template {{
Election box candidate with party link}}
, how should the |change=
parameter be calculated? The documentation says "Number of percentage points more/less than the previous election" but this does not help at all. At
1990 Bootle by-elections#November by-election, Sean Brady, Lord David Sutch and Kevin White all show "N/A", and I want to replace these three with real figures, because all three had stood at the previous by-election. But in examining the other rows in order to try to work out how to calculate them, I cannot reconcile the figures shown for Joe Benton, James Clappison and John Cunningham with either those for the May by-election or the previous general election. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 21:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
User:Nutez has nominated Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)