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 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
There has been an ongoing discussion from an edit war on the talk page for the 2020 United States presidential election in Pennsylvania due to the inclusion of maps of the election results in the infobox for catholic diocese and state patrols. Consensus appears to have resolved towards removing these maps and sticking with ostensibly political boundaries such as by county, municipality and precinct. However this issue has been brewing for a while and may require a general consensus from the community. What should the standard for inclusion be for maps in these infoboxes? Should maps of results using distinctly non-political boundaries be included in the page at all, if they can pass WP:REL? Dingers5Days ( talk) 01:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). Some election article infoboxes (more outside the US than in) are becoming ridiculously bloated in size. An infobox needs to be a concise summary. An infobox should not have content that is not covered in the main text. We should be focusing on getting the main text right and only then thinking whether there’s something useful to be brought forward into the infobox. Too often, various maps are just being added willy-nilly to the infobox. Election articles generally suffer from a tendency by some editors to focus on tables, map and other diagrams rather than on actually writing prose. I’ve also seen lots of maps being added that are frankly unreadable when placed in an infobox. So, for all these reasons, I think we should keep maps in infoboxes to a minimum and we should require maps elsewhere in articles to have some reason for why they are there. Bondegezou ( talk) 06:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
We seem in broad agreement. Can we summarise this discussion into some specific recommendations for editors? Like: if adding additional maps to an article, start by putting them in the main body of the article (possibly in a Maps section like at 2012 United States presidential election)...? Bondegezou ( talk) 16:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
It seems that the discussion has died down without a conclusion. It also seems that we all more or less agree in what the standards should be. So, I think we can elevate Elli's suggested language above to a guideline. Or an RfC for MOS level as suggested above, though I think that it is pretty much a logical extension of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, so a full RfC might not be needed. I also think we should not attempt to come up with a general guideline for all countries because each country holds elections in different manners and has different standards on what subdivision level the results are best reported presented in. Better to attend the issue in a country-by-country manner when needed. — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 09:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I've started a discussion regarding this at Talk:2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries, which has more troublesome entries. Aaron Liu ( talk) 15:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
A Request for comments is being held, which concerns the inclusion of the lists about outgoing and elected MPs in the {{ Infobox legislative election}}. Your input would be appreciated. -- Scia Della Cometa ( talk) 13:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Category:Former electoral districts of Northwest Territories. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 13:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Input would be welcome on a dispute on infobox images (there is disagreement about whether there is a standard practice to use images close to the election or not). Cheers, Number 5 7 20:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
UndueMarmot ( talk) 00:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Referring to the bar charts in 2022 Malaysian general election section " 2020–22 political crisis" and " Dissolution of parliament", I decided to add one in 2023 Thai general election but was reverted by @ Number 57: due to "Reason = it looks awful and adds nothing. Consensus is required to retain recent additions, not to delete them." [1] (I can still remember when the "personal preference" remark was thrown at me.)
The latest edit was really disturbing since he had not point to any standards, guidelines or discussions, and there were questions that I need answers:
Horus ( talk) 17:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
User:Kawnhr, User:Bondegezou, User:XxLuckyCxX
Since there isn't a central article dedicated to the numerous by-elections to the 2019 parliament, this is a good alternative. I would like to discuss a matter concerning the removal of locator maps from some of the parliamentary by-election articles. Although I too initially doubted the purpose of them. My views have changed. Instead of purely decorative, these maps can help readers unfamiliar with the local geography locate the relevant constituencies. It has been the consensus to include these maps in by-election articles since the 2005-2010 parliament at the latest. Before implementing widespread changes and deleting images en mass, I suggest we reach a new consensus on this matter. Your input and guidance would be greatly appreciated.
Please help tag more users, thanks!( talk) 05:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
An RFC is running at Talk:Elections in Cuba on whether to change the lede sentence. You are encouraged to take part in this RFC. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion as to how to retitle the page October surprise conspiracy theory, which is part of this WikiProject. A prior RFC closed with a consensus to change the name of the page, but those supporting the change were roughly split between two options: 1980 October surprise theory and 1980 October surprise allegations. In a follow-up discussion, the vast majority of editors said that they would prefer either name, but a few expressed an opinion for just one or the other. As such, we are seeking wider community input. Thanks for reading!-- Jerome Frank Disciple 22:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Just now I was browsing and landed on
2021 North Shropshire by-election (as you do), and saw that the infobox had been bloated by the addition of a constituency map (not results of the election in this constituency; just a map of the constituency, in relation to the county) and a bar graph of the results. I saw this as at odds with not only
MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE (summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article
), but also the parameter itself — it's map
, not any image you'd like to include
. So I moved the images into the body, where they were more suited. But then I noticed that this appears to be extremely common in UK by-election articles:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6. (Others mercifully do not include the bar graph, but still have a useless constituency map,
eg). Suddenly this doesn't seem like something I can — or maybe even should — be changing by myself.
I know this has come up recently, but I didn't see anything in the archives about a dedicated discussion about these images. So, unless I missed it (in which case I'd appreciate a link), I think we ought to have a discussion on whether these images belong in the infobox or not.
I'm opposed, obviously. — Kawnhr ( talk) 19:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
map
parameters are for maps of results, ie something directly related to the election. It's not like UK general elections include a map of the UK in relation to Europe. —
Kawnhr (
talk) 15:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content.Bondegezou ( talk) 14:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia ( per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 21:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Hey all
Pincher has been recommended an 8 week suspension by the Standards Committee. I've created 2023 Tamworth recall petition as a redirect page to Chris Pincher scandal for the time being. doktorb words deeds 08:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
With the news about Tamworth potentially having a recall petition and maybe a by-election that puts immense pressure on this project. Keep an eye out for IP editors, they can be party campaigners wanting to edit candidates for their own ends; keep an eye on candidate lists, sometimes candidates are moved to the top, out of ballot paper order.
As a summary/index, we're currently looking after:
Good luck everybody! We're not usually this busy outside a general election year, and I think we're doing a pretty good job doktorb words deeds 08:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirate Party (Ireland). There is a proposal that several Pirate Party chapter articles be deleted on the basis they never had notability beyond their initial founding. CeltBrowne ( talk) 02:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
User:Not Another NPC has been creating many pages consisting of nothing but tables of vote counts from various Australian elections, with no other text in the articles. I think that WP isn't a good place for this kind of raw data without any context to explain their significance. See his user contributions, and Electoral results for the Division of Bass (state) for a specific example. (Some of his pages provide context, but others don't.) I've asked him about this on his talk page and he says he's following precedent. Are pages like these appropriate for Wikipedia? - Brian Kendig ( talk) 16:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I've got a point of contention with User:Chris55. I've always believed that for UK by-election articles, the rule is using ballot paper order (that is alphabetical by surname). This reflects reality and does not open accusations of bias by changing the order. What are people's opinions? doktorb words deeds 08:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
This discussion is meant to add onto the discussion surrounding the 5% rule for election infoboxes. This general guideline has traditionally been applied to American candidate-based elections, but more recently, RfCs have been created about parliamentary and party-based elections as well, and the general consensus has seemingly been to apply to the 5% rule to these elections in some form. However, in the context of elections like the 2021 Canadian federal election (more specifically, the discussion on whether or not to include the PPC in the infobox), there still seems to remain some ambiguity. For example, if a party elects 0 candidates and receives less than 5% of the popular vote, but also receives some form of "substantial" media attention or is included in debates, should the 5% rule apply? How subjective and case-by-case should the 5% rule be in the case of parliamentary elections and parties that don't elect any candidates? What "exemptions" should apply, and how should they be decided upon?
I hope that a productive discussion with a new consensus can be reached from this RfC! AwesomeSaucer9 ( talk) 18:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
as always, appropriate exceptions may be made via local consensusas was the case in the the 2021 RfC. There was a pretty clear local consensus to include the PPC at the 2021 article, which you now seem to take issue with, so are you looking for a strict rule, a codification of all the types of exceptions, or something else?-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 00:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
different principles may apply to parliamentary/party-list electionsand
as always, appropriate exceptions may be made via local consensus. There have been many discussion on WP:CANADA and/or Canadian election articles about a "5% or seat" general rule. Which has always been loosely applied based on various factors including whether a party is allowed to participate in official debates, whether they had a seat at the time of dissolution etc. I will provide specific wikilinks when I have a moment. I didn't call *snow* because of the votes prior to my comment. I was calling it based on prior discussions ( this horse seems sufficiently beaten to me), and my view that this appears to be an attempt to override the RfC consensus at Talk:2021 Canadian federal election, an RfC which was widely participated in. Perhaps, those editors should be notified of this RfC.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 21:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Note - Since there hasn't been any comments here in over two weeks, I have asked for a close at Wikipedia:Closure requests.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 23:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Just like almost all of the discussions here, shouldn't this be done on a per-nation or jurisdiction basis? Every country can be argued as unique, and standards in A may not apply in B. Howard the Duck ( talk) 22:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
different principles may apply to parliamentary/party-list electionsand
as always, appropriate exceptions may be made via local consensus.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 23:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Number 57, there has been a long standing general rule of thumb for Canadian election articles (which is often ignored) that says following an election a party is included in an infobox if it has won a seat or 5% of the vote. Looking through the federal and provincial/territorial articles you will find they generally follow this rule, with exceptions like if a party lost a seat we include them, or considerations like did they make it into official debates, or did they get virtually 5% and had significant coverage in RS. The 5% rule seems to be pretty strictly applied in US election, though even there in nomination races there seems to be some exceptions where a candidate falls short but receives delegates. My understanding is that 5% or a seat is generally not followed in UK elections, but might be in others like New Zealand or Germany where they have a legislative threshold for seats (often 5%). Admittedly, I don't often edit UK or European elections articles. I view, rightly or wrongly, this RfC at mainly targeted at the Canadian experience as it seems to be an attempt to override the previous consensus at Talk:2021 Canadian federal election. Anyway, in answer to your question about where this has been discussed these are some of the discussions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. It is certainly, certainly not an exhaustive list of the Canadian experience, I would need to go through all the archives for all of the Canadian federal, provincial and territorial elections to do that (and perhaps party leadership elections too). As far as I know, there has not been a specific RfC on WP:CANADA about that just passing discussions on the PPC issue, or notices to discussions on article pages. I don't purport to be an expert on other elections, as I have said, but as far as I know the 5% rule has not been rigidly applied outside of US elections.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 00:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I favour retaining some flexibility to reflect the circumstances of different elections. The infobox is a summary of the article. If the article has good reasons to give substantial coverage to a party, then it’s reasonable for the infobox to represent that. The example I think about is if a major party deliberately boycotts an election in a state without fair and free elections: the best way to represent that is to still mention the boycotting party in the infobox. That said, elections are about winning seats. Most of the time, in regular Parliamentary elections in free and fair democracies, the cut-off for inclusion for a party should be winning a seat, not a percentage of the vote. The purpose of an election is not to get media coverage or to be included in a debate. An election is about choosing who sits in the Parliament. Parties should be ordered by seats won and the natural cut-off is winning seats versus not winning seats. Bondegezou ( talk) 06:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Opinion polling for the 2023 Spanish general election § What happened to the References?. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 03:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Sussyfist69. And discussions on Talk:1960 United States presidential election & Talk:1968 United States presidential election. — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 21:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps some members of this WikiProject could take a look at 2023 Warrandyte state by-election and may be help resolve the content dispute taking place over which candidates to include. I came across the article via discussion at WP:COIN#2023 Warrandyte state by-election and know nothing about Austrailian elections. I tried to revert back to the last stable version because of a host of formatting and syntax errors that were being introduced by one of the participants in the dispute, but the errors got subsequently re-added when my edited was reverted. Eventually, WP:3RR will come into play if things keep going as they are. — Marchjuly ( talk) 06:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej ( talk) 18:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
We of course have a general article on opinion polls and relevant concepts like poll aggregator. We have a lot of lists compiling specific opinion polling data: Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 United States presidential election and countless similar. We have a lot of articles on individual pollsters: YouGov, Ipsos and so on, even a list of polling organizations broken down by country. We have Category:Opinion polling by country, containing Category:Opinion polling in the United States, etc.
But, as far as I can tell, we have no articles on opinion polling as practiced in each country, despite the topics surely being overwhelming notable. There are literal multi-volume encyclopedias dedicated to the subject of opinion polling in the United States, yet that's a redlink!
Before I invest any time into writing these articles, I just want to make sure I haven't overlooked anything obvious – whether there is coverage under unusual or unexpected titles. Because in a lot of ways this seems like the Wikipedia equivalent of finding $100 on the ground. – Tera tix ₵ 23:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
How should party colours (as stored in (e.g.) Module:Political party/A and used in infoboxes, results tables etc) be determined? By the dominant colour of the logo or via colours used for the party in the media. Number 5 7 10:27, 30 May 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 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
There has been an ongoing discussion from an edit war on the talk page for the 2020 United States presidential election in Pennsylvania due to the inclusion of maps of the election results in the infobox for catholic diocese and state patrols. Consensus appears to have resolved towards removing these maps and sticking with ostensibly political boundaries such as by county, municipality and precinct. However this issue has been brewing for a while and may require a general consensus from the community. What should the standard for inclusion be for maps in these infoboxes? Should maps of results using distinctly non-political boundaries be included in the page at all, if they can pass WP:REL? Dingers5Days ( talk) 01:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). Some election article infoboxes (more outside the US than in) are becoming ridiculously bloated in size. An infobox needs to be a concise summary. An infobox should not have content that is not covered in the main text. We should be focusing on getting the main text right and only then thinking whether there’s something useful to be brought forward into the infobox. Too often, various maps are just being added willy-nilly to the infobox. Election articles generally suffer from a tendency by some editors to focus on tables, map and other diagrams rather than on actually writing prose. I’ve also seen lots of maps being added that are frankly unreadable when placed in an infobox. So, for all these reasons, I think we should keep maps in infoboxes to a minimum and we should require maps elsewhere in articles to have some reason for why they are there. Bondegezou ( talk) 06:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
We seem in broad agreement. Can we summarise this discussion into some specific recommendations for editors? Like: if adding additional maps to an article, start by putting them in the main body of the article (possibly in a Maps section like at 2012 United States presidential election)...? Bondegezou ( talk) 16:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
It seems that the discussion has died down without a conclusion. It also seems that we all more or less agree in what the standards should be. So, I think we can elevate Elli's suggested language above to a guideline. Or an RfC for MOS level as suggested above, though I think that it is pretty much a logical extension of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, so a full RfC might not be needed. I also think we should not attempt to come up with a general guideline for all countries because each country holds elections in different manners and has different standards on what subdivision level the results are best reported presented in. Better to attend the issue in a country-by-country manner when needed. — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 09:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I've started a discussion regarding this at Talk:2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries, which has more troublesome entries. Aaron Liu ( talk) 15:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
A Request for comments is being held, which concerns the inclusion of the lists about outgoing and elected MPs in the {{ Infobox legislative election}}. Your input would be appreciated. -- Scia Della Cometa ( talk) 13:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Category:Former electoral districts of Northwest Territories. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 13:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Input would be welcome on a dispute on infobox images (there is disagreement about whether there is a standard practice to use images close to the election or not). Cheers, Number 5 7 20:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
UndueMarmot ( talk) 00:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Referring to the bar charts in 2022 Malaysian general election section " 2020–22 political crisis" and " Dissolution of parliament", I decided to add one in 2023 Thai general election but was reverted by @ Number 57: due to "Reason = it looks awful and adds nothing. Consensus is required to retain recent additions, not to delete them." [1] (I can still remember when the "personal preference" remark was thrown at me.)
The latest edit was really disturbing since he had not point to any standards, guidelines or discussions, and there were questions that I need answers:
Horus ( talk) 17:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
User:Kawnhr, User:Bondegezou, User:XxLuckyCxX
Since there isn't a central article dedicated to the numerous by-elections to the 2019 parliament, this is a good alternative. I would like to discuss a matter concerning the removal of locator maps from some of the parliamentary by-election articles. Although I too initially doubted the purpose of them. My views have changed. Instead of purely decorative, these maps can help readers unfamiliar with the local geography locate the relevant constituencies. It has been the consensus to include these maps in by-election articles since the 2005-2010 parliament at the latest. Before implementing widespread changes and deleting images en mass, I suggest we reach a new consensus on this matter. Your input and guidance would be greatly appreciated.
Please help tag more users, thanks!( talk) 05:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
An RFC is running at Talk:Elections in Cuba on whether to change the lede sentence. You are encouraged to take part in this RFC. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion as to how to retitle the page October surprise conspiracy theory, which is part of this WikiProject. A prior RFC closed with a consensus to change the name of the page, but those supporting the change were roughly split between two options: 1980 October surprise theory and 1980 October surprise allegations. In a follow-up discussion, the vast majority of editors said that they would prefer either name, but a few expressed an opinion for just one or the other. As such, we are seeking wider community input. Thanks for reading!-- Jerome Frank Disciple 22:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Just now I was browsing and landed on
2021 North Shropshire by-election (as you do), and saw that the infobox had been bloated by the addition of a constituency map (not results of the election in this constituency; just a map of the constituency, in relation to the county) and a bar graph of the results. I saw this as at odds with not only
MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE (summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article
), but also the parameter itself — it's map
, not any image you'd like to include
. So I moved the images into the body, where they were more suited. But then I noticed that this appears to be extremely common in UK by-election articles:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6. (Others mercifully do not include the bar graph, but still have a useless constituency map,
eg). Suddenly this doesn't seem like something I can — or maybe even should — be changing by myself.
I know this has come up recently, but I didn't see anything in the archives about a dedicated discussion about these images. So, unless I missed it (in which case I'd appreciate a link), I think we ought to have a discussion on whether these images belong in the infobox or not.
I'm opposed, obviously. — Kawnhr ( talk) 19:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
map
parameters are for maps of results, ie something directly related to the election. It's not like UK general elections include a map of the UK in relation to Europe. —
Kawnhr (
talk) 15:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content.Bondegezou ( talk) 14:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia ( per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 21:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Hey all
Pincher has been recommended an 8 week suspension by the Standards Committee. I've created 2023 Tamworth recall petition as a redirect page to Chris Pincher scandal for the time being. doktorb words deeds 08:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
With the news about Tamworth potentially having a recall petition and maybe a by-election that puts immense pressure on this project. Keep an eye out for IP editors, they can be party campaigners wanting to edit candidates for their own ends; keep an eye on candidate lists, sometimes candidates are moved to the top, out of ballot paper order.
As a summary/index, we're currently looking after:
Good luck everybody! We're not usually this busy outside a general election year, and I think we're doing a pretty good job doktorb words deeds 08:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirate Party (Ireland). There is a proposal that several Pirate Party chapter articles be deleted on the basis they never had notability beyond their initial founding. CeltBrowne ( talk) 02:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
User:Not Another NPC has been creating many pages consisting of nothing but tables of vote counts from various Australian elections, with no other text in the articles. I think that WP isn't a good place for this kind of raw data without any context to explain their significance. See his user contributions, and Electoral results for the Division of Bass (state) for a specific example. (Some of his pages provide context, but others don't.) I've asked him about this on his talk page and he says he's following precedent. Are pages like these appropriate for Wikipedia? - Brian Kendig ( talk) 16:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I've got a point of contention with User:Chris55. I've always believed that for UK by-election articles, the rule is using ballot paper order (that is alphabetical by surname). This reflects reality and does not open accusations of bias by changing the order. What are people's opinions? doktorb words deeds 08:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
This discussion is meant to add onto the discussion surrounding the 5% rule for election infoboxes. This general guideline has traditionally been applied to American candidate-based elections, but more recently, RfCs have been created about parliamentary and party-based elections as well, and the general consensus has seemingly been to apply to the 5% rule to these elections in some form. However, in the context of elections like the 2021 Canadian federal election (more specifically, the discussion on whether or not to include the PPC in the infobox), there still seems to remain some ambiguity. For example, if a party elects 0 candidates and receives less than 5% of the popular vote, but also receives some form of "substantial" media attention or is included in debates, should the 5% rule apply? How subjective and case-by-case should the 5% rule be in the case of parliamentary elections and parties that don't elect any candidates? What "exemptions" should apply, and how should they be decided upon?
I hope that a productive discussion with a new consensus can be reached from this RfC! AwesomeSaucer9 ( talk) 18:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
as always, appropriate exceptions may be made via local consensusas was the case in the the 2021 RfC. There was a pretty clear local consensus to include the PPC at the 2021 article, which you now seem to take issue with, so are you looking for a strict rule, a codification of all the types of exceptions, or something else?-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 00:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
different principles may apply to parliamentary/party-list electionsand
as always, appropriate exceptions may be made via local consensus. There have been many discussion on WP:CANADA and/or Canadian election articles about a "5% or seat" general rule. Which has always been loosely applied based on various factors including whether a party is allowed to participate in official debates, whether they had a seat at the time of dissolution etc. I will provide specific wikilinks when I have a moment. I didn't call *snow* because of the votes prior to my comment. I was calling it based on prior discussions ( this horse seems sufficiently beaten to me), and my view that this appears to be an attempt to override the RfC consensus at Talk:2021 Canadian federal election, an RfC which was widely participated in. Perhaps, those editors should be notified of this RfC.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 21:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Note - Since there hasn't been any comments here in over two weeks, I have asked for a close at Wikipedia:Closure requests.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 23:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Just like almost all of the discussions here, shouldn't this be done on a per-nation or jurisdiction basis? Every country can be argued as unique, and standards in A may not apply in B. Howard the Duck ( talk) 22:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
different principles may apply to parliamentary/party-list electionsand
as always, appropriate exceptions may be made via local consensus.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 23:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Number 57, there has been a long standing general rule of thumb for Canadian election articles (which is often ignored) that says following an election a party is included in an infobox if it has won a seat or 5% of the vote. Looking through the federal and provincial/territorial articles you will find they generally follow this rule, with exceptions like if a party lost a seat we include them, or considerations like did they make it into official debates, or did they get virtually 5% and had significant coverage in RS. The 5% rule seems to be pretty strictly applied in US election, though even there in nomination races there seems to be some exceptions where a candidate falls short but receives delegates. My understanding is that 5% or a seat is generally not followed in UK elections, but might be in others like New Zealand or Germany where they have a legislative threshold for seats (often 5%). Admittedly, I don't often edit UK or European elections articles. I view, rightly or wrongly, this RfC at mainly targeted at the Canadian experience as it seems to be an attempt to override the previous consensus at Talk:2021 Canadian federal election. Anyway, in answer to your question about where this has been discussed these are some of the discussions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. It is certainly, certainly not an exhaustive list of the Canadian experience, I would need to go through all the archives for all of the Canadian federal, provincial and territorial elections to do that (and perhaps party leadership elections too). As far as I know, there has not been a specific RfC on WP:CANADA about that just passing discussions on the PPC issue, or notices to discussions on article pages. I don't purport to be an expert on other elections, as I have said, but as far as I know the 5% rule has not been rigidly applied outside of US elections.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 00:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I favour retaining some flexibility to reflect the circumstances of different elections. The infobox is a summary of the article. If the article has good reasons to give substantial coverage to a party, then it’s reasonable for the infobox to represent that. The example I think about is if a major party deliberately boycotts an election in a state without fair and free elections: the best way to represent that is to still mention the boycotting party in the infobox. That said, elections are about winning seats. Most of the time, in regular Parliamentary elections in free and fair democracies, the cut-off for inclusion for a party should be winning a seat, not a percentage of the vote. The purpose of an election is not to get media coverage or to be included in a debate. An election is about choosing who sits in the Parliament. Parties should be ordered by seats won and the natural cut-off is winning seats versus not winning seats. Bondegezou ( talk) 06:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Opinion polling for the 2023 Spanish general election § What happened to the References?. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 03:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Sussyfist69. And discussions on Talk:1960 United States presidential election & Talk:1968 United States presidential election. — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 21:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps some members of this WikiProject could take a look at 2023 Warrandyte state by-election and may be help resolve the content dispute taking place over which candidates to include. I came across the article via discussion at WP:COIN#2023 Warrandyte state by-election and know nothing about Austrailian elections. I tried to revert back to the last stable version because of a host of formatting and syntax errors that were being introduced by one of the participants in the dispute, but the errors got subsequently re-added when my edited was reverted. Eventually, WP:3RR will come into play if things keep going as they are. — Marchjuly ( talk) 06:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej ( talk) 18:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
We of course have a general article on opinion polls and relevant concepts like poll aggregator. We have a lot of lists compiling specific opinion polling data: Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 United States presidential election and countless similar. We have a lot of articles on individual pollsters: YouGov, Ipsos and so on, even a list of polling organizations broken down by country. We have Category:Opinion polling by country, containing Category:Opinion polling in the United States, etc.
But, as far as I can tell, we have no articles on opinion polling as practiced in each country, despite the topics surely being overwhelming notable. There are literal multi-volume encyclopedias dedicated to the subject of opinion polling in the United States, yet that's a redlink!
Before I invest any time into writing these articles, I just want to make sure I haven't overlooked anything obvious – whether there is coverage under unusual or unexpected titles. Because in a lot of ways this seems like the Wikipedia equivalent of finding $100 on the ground. – Tera tix ₵ 23:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
How should party colours (as stored in (e.g.) Module:Political party/A and used in infoboxes, results tables etc) be determined? By the dominant colour of the logo or via colours used for the party in the media. Number 5 7 10:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)