Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox election/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Flags

Does anyone know exactly why we have flags included in this infobox? MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS is pretty clear that they should generally be avoided, and national flags aren't particularly common in elections as they're almost always inside a country, not between countries. Local consensus cannot override broader consensus such as the MOS, and even then, there doesn't really appear to be any real agreement in the previous discussions that I've skimmed over. Anyways, the flag serves no actual informative purpose - for elections, the topic-specific naming conventions already mean that the country/polity is included in the article title, and as such, is then also directly above the flag. Flags are more ambiguous than the polity name (see the 28 visually similar flags just to Australia, especially New Zealand's), and the polity is already identified in the article title and infobox title - the flag is nothing more than a distraction. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The manual of style advise against the use of multiple flags as to not give undue weight to a section against another, and them being distracting. Here in election infobox, there's only a single flag, not in a section but above, which give the quick info of the country concerned. It's useful when there's several such templates because the election page is about a subdivision of another entity which itself has an election template. For example 2019 European Parliament election in France. I work a lot on election page, and find it useful. As there's only one per template, I don't think it's distracting like it would be in a template in which there's dozens of flags like a christmas tree. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@Aréat: Would you be able to link where it explicitly advises against only multiple flags? MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS makes no mention of plural flags - in fact, it actually gives FIFA competitions and the Olympics, where multiple flags are used, as exceptions. Also, how exactly does an ambiguous flag that many may not be familiar with "give quick info of the country concerned"? I can understand why it might be included in MEP elections etc, but it should not be used in articles concerning only one division (such as 2020 New Zealand general election), and personally, I don't really think it's really necessary in MEP elections. It being one stand-alone flag, often with rich and vibrant colours against a plain grey background makes it really prominent and distracting - for the French flag for example, its contrast is 3.81:1, 0.71:1 over the guideline for minimum accessible contrast. Quite literally, it has very high contrast. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
The MOS advise against flag when distracting, giving weight to one field against another, and being over used. That only happen when there's several of them. You can't overuse something by using it only once. The flag info is useful at quick glance, and I've yet to see one that is prominent or distracting. They're little rectangles, and the color aren't under a text being read, in which case I sure would agree. If the presence of the flag per se was a problem because of being too contrasted, the use of flag would be forbidden altogether. Seeing that they're used in large quantities in the templates you mentioned show they're not a color problem.--Aréat (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@Aréat: Overusing something doesn't require multiple somethings. And what you're talking about is this line, they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many - it describes why not to use flags, not when not to use them. And again, it's nothing but distracting repetition - a quick glance at the page's title says exactly what division the election is about, and says the exact country, rather than leaving users to try and guess what country this flag belongs to. And the contrast ratio that I mentioned is for graphics against their background, not for text. And as I said, there used in some infoboxes that will always include multiple countries - not infoboxes that are only one country. Similarly, there's a site-wide consensus that says that those templates are exceptions - we cannot override MOS' prohibiting it elsewhere. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
It explain why not to use them by explaining the problems it cause. As there is none of these problems in these election template, the MOS give no reason to delete them outright. Again, it is not nothing but distraction. It give fast information in a quick glance. I think you don't understand the situation because you don't know many flags, and thus they're only pesty colors to you. But flags are distinct visual that instantly convey information with a few colors in a tiny rectangle. It is useful here, without being a distraction nor giving some undue prominence.--Aréat (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@Aréat: The policy does not say "Flags should only not be used when they..." - the line explicitly represents what the community believes, that flags in any manner are generally unnecessarily distracting etc. How is repeating already clearly mentioned information with abstract flags beneficial? How is that not just an unnecessary distraction? I'm well aware of the cultural and sovereign importance of flags, and am taken aback at your suggestion that I think they're unnecessary in infoboxes because '{I] don't know many flags" and think they're "only pesty colors". But I'm also realistic, and flags to the everyday person does not convey any relevant information when we're talking about elections. Could you please tell me exactly what relevant information the NZ flag conveys in 2020 New Zealand general election that isn't already in the infobox? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 23:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Again, they're explicitedly allowed when they convey information in addition to the text. Knowing flags isn't some elitist thing limited to a few amount of people. You would be surprised at how many of them the "everyday person" know, especially if they follow sport, like soccer. Anyways, my point still stand. Your whole argumentation is based around the way you don't realise the betterment of a common visual that can be understood at quick glance. It's like wanting to get rid of roadsigns that are just shapes because the information is already also written. Well, no, the sign is an information in itself, and it's useful.--Aréat (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@Aréat: Please, what important, relevant or useful information does the flag convey that is relevant to elections/election results? I'm not asking rhetorically, I'm just trying to think what you exactly think is so important? And I never said that knowing flags is elitist, but as WP:INFOBOXFLAGS says: The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag, as no reader is familiar with every flag, and many flags differ only in minor details. Also, I would again encourage you not to make personal attacks or be uncivil by trying to minimise my entire objection to the inclusion of flags because you believe I don't understand or appreciate the value and importance of flags. Also, trying to parallel small flag icons on a Wikipedia infobox to road signs is a bit... far fetched. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 02:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Page Image Neutrality vs. Syntax Standardization

Currently, the Page Image for all 2020_United_States_presidential_election state subpages is Trump's official portrait (e.g. here, here for page info). This directly contradicts WP:NEUTRAL, and is especially prominent on the mobile app, where the Page Image is the large header of the entire page. Page Images are chosen via Mediawiki's algorithm (see here), and can't be individually selected per article.

I edited the state subpages (using Extended Image Syntax and slightly altering Jorgensen's portrait to be more in line with the ratio of Trump and Biden's) which had the effect of altering the image scores for candidate's portraits, and resulted in the (neutral) state seals being the Page Image (and thus being prominent on the mobile app, and in hovercards). Besides the page image, the appearance and content to readers of the pages was entirely unchanged.

@Tartan357: reverted these edits, stating that my edits were against the standardization suggested by Template:Infobox_election. I trust they're correct about this.

I posit that the breach of WP:NEUTRAL (one of Wikipedia's core content policies) due to the bio picture being the Page Image for elections outweighs the benefits of syntax standardization, and that, wherever possible, election articles (particularly pre-election) should include images in such a way that a neutral image becomes the Page Image. Although the algorithm which picks Page Images is a bit opaque, it should be possible to do this with next to no impact on the appearance and content of the article from the reader's POV. Given @Tartan357: and I disagree, we'd like to get the community's feedback on this. Tartan357, please correct if you feel I've mischaracterized anything.

A few notes:

  • Wikimedia does appear to be aware of the issue (see here), although from reading comments I wouldn't expect a fix any time soon.
  • On the desktop site, Page Images are relatively innocuous, and only appear in hovercards. The Page Image is very salient in the mobile app, however, which can make it seem like Wikipedia nearly endorses the first candidate in the infobox.
  • I admit this approach is a bit hacky. Other but more radical fixes include adding a neutral image above the candidate photos (since position is considered) or moving the infobox out of article ledes entirely. My guess is neither of these would have much support. If anyone technically minded has a better solution, please come forward!

--Infinitesimall (talk) 11:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

This all seems reasonable to me. ― Tartan357 (Talk) 19:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

alt parameter additions

Koavf, thanks for modifying the /row template, but I am asking you again to use the sandbox and the testcases page. Your code does not work, as you would have seen if you had created a test case. I created one for you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Make it possible to replace "Leader" with "Candidate"

In Germany and other countries the leader of party is often not the candidate for the office of the head of government. In 2021 German federal election for example, Olaf Scholz is called leader although he's just the candidate of the SPD. The candidate of CDU/CSU could be Markus Söder although he definitely can't become leader of the CDU because he belongs to the CSU. So if a infobox is about candidates but not party leaders, it should be possible to replace the word "leader" with "candidate" --2003:6:6168:1825:8C05:F88A:20BF:B1EA (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Infobox images aren't centering properly

Please join this discussion. Someone here must have the skill to solve this issue: Talk:2020_United_States_presidential_election#Infobox_images_centering. -- Valjean (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

It looks like you just don't understand what the infobox is meant to look like? They aren't meant to be centered, because the left-hand side of the infobox is a column by itself with the information labels ('Nominee', 'Party' et) in it. Number 57 21:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Except that there are no words or text on the left side of the images. If you see text there, then it might be the skin I'm using. Otherwise, it just looks dumb with all that extra blank space only on the left side. Maybe there isn't any way to fix this, because right now they are centered over the text below them, and that looks good. Hmmm... Maybe a nice symbol beside them to fill the space, something like the Seal of the President of the United States? -- Valjean (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Image sizes mismatched on mobile website

(Adapted from thing first posted in Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Images misaligned on mobile website in infoboxes (archive). Ping @Jonesey95: I guess.

Hi. I don't know why, but on many pages with {{infobox election}} — e.g. 2019 Bolivian general election, 2020–21 United States Senate special election in Georgia, 2020 United States presidential election, 2016 United States presidential election, 2020 United States presidential election — the images are of two different sizes on the mobile website. I cannot figure out what causes this. It happens on my phone, on my computer in the mobile site, and in screenshots I've seen of at least these two pages from other people. What's going on here? How can this be fixed? One thing I did is I made sure the aspect ratios of the photos in the Bolivian one are all the same, but that changed nothing apparently. DemonDays64 (talk) 06:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Ongoing to College voted

See 2024 United States presidential election article. An editor there seems to be determine to permanently change "ongoing" parameter to "college_voted" parameter. What should be done? GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think college_voted is the correct parameter. It should be "ongoing" as there hasn't been a public vote yet. Number 57 20:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, this infobox doesn't affect just American electors - it also affects elections in all other countries, that may not use an electoral college. Glide08 (talk) 09:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Add |first_vote= and |second_vote= parameters

Currently, to insert data regarding (e.g) Constituency and Party results in mixed-member legislative elections, editors would have to struggle with custom parameters. I think this infobox should include the parametetrs: 

 |first_vote=        to include the "first vote" (e.g. constituency results in a mixed-member legislative election, first round results in a two-round presidential election)
 |first_percentage=  to include the percentage of the "first vote", and swing in legislative elections as well
 
 |second_vote=       to include the "second vote" (e.g. party results in a mixed-member legislative election, second round results in a two-round presidential election)
 |second_percentage= to include the percentage of the "second vote", and swing in legislative elections as well
 
 |first_vote_type=   to allow an override of the "first vote" for e.g. French Legislative elections (which use a two-round system)
 |second_vote_type=  to allow an override of the "second vote" for the same reasons

Glide08 (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. In previous discussions about including first round results in presidential election infoboxes, consensus has been against doing so. Plus editors can already use the blank data parameters to insert multiple votes for parliamentary elections as is done at 2016 Scottish Parliament election. As I said in the discussion at Talk:2017 German federal election I don't think this should be encouraged as it bloats the infobox, which is already too large to be an effective summary in many cases, and I agree with Erinthecute's point that constituency votes are not always useful in summarising elections – e.g. parties may not contest all constituencies. Number 57 09:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Re:First round results in presidential elections - I thought the point was about including candidates who were eliminated (which has already happened in some articles: e.g. 2003 San Francisco mayoral election), not the first round results for the two second-round candidates. And I suggested adding those parameters specifically so editors can avoid using blank parameters and actually know what they're editing - because if "home state" and "electoral vote", which only apply to the US, warrant separate parameters, I see no reason why these parameters, which would see far more use if adopted, should be relegated to blanks. Glide08 (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Multiple flags?

Hi. I was editing 2019 Victorian First Peoples' Assembly election and I wanted to put both the Aboriginal Australian Flag and the Torres Strait Islander Flag, as well as perhaps the Flag of Victoria (Australia). However, it seems the infobox will only accept one flag? For reference, the election was held in the state of Victoria, Australia under state law. However only Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders were eligible to vote. The Assembly is supposed to represent those people and is empowered to lay the groundwork for a treaty between local First Nations people and the State of Victoria. -- Revoran (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I suggest using no flags. While there is a field for a flag in the infobox, MOS:INFOBOXFLAG advises against using flags in infoboxes and there are specific cases where they are banned. In addition, MOS:NONSOVEREIGN advises against using flags for things other than a sovereign nation, which would argue against the Aboriginal Australian Flag, the Torres Strait Islander Flag or the Flag of Victoria (Australia). Bondegezou (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. -- Revoran (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Put current results before past results

I get confused every time I look at this template, because the first results listed are the seats won in the last election, not the seats won in the election under discussion. For example, when I glance at the infobox at 2019 Canadian federal election to see what happened in that election, I learn that the Liberals won 184 seats to the Conservatives' 99 seats. But of course that's not true. I have to then consciously remind myself that the first seat counts are the totals for the 2011 election, then comes the seat count before the election was held, and only then is the actual election total -- the third seat counts listed. I've been writing and editing elections-related Wikipedia pages for years and I still constantly make this mistake. I can only imagine that there are many readers who make the same mistake and may not even notice. I appreciate that the current ordering does have a logic -- it's chronological -- but the purpose of the infobox isn't primarily to tell a historical narrative about the progress from the last election through rearrangements in parliament to the results of the election under discussion, it's to give an overview of important details from the page, which above all else in this case is the results of the election. So I propose a simple change: move the "seats" field to appear before the "last_election" and "seats_before" fields. That way the first number you see in the infobox will be the most important number, the number of seats won, and the background information can still be found right after it. - Astrophobe (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm. Personally I think the current order makes sense as it's chronological. However, what it might be better to do is to hide the last election/seats before parameters when ongoing is set to no (i.e. when we have a result). As we have the seat change and swing entries, this makes the previous election result line semi-redundant as readers can clearly see the change that happened and deduce the previous election results (and before anyone points out this doesn't work with the Canadian infobox, it's because it is incorrectly filled in, as the seat change should be vs the previous election not the seats before situation, as stated in the template documentation). Number 57 18:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
That is a very reasonable and common request. I requested the same less than a year ago (see link). I really don't know what it will take to change it to the obvious correct order. The issue has been raised multiple times but because people familiar with the template are obviously used to the current order, it is not changed. Casual readers will continue to be confused. Vpab15 (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it's familiarity. The current order is chronological and therefore logical. Putting the previous results below the current results would result in a weird order of information. Perhaps someone can mock it up using the blank data rows so we can compare side-by-side. But I'd still go back to the question of are the previous results really needed when we have seat change and swing? Number 57 18:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Logical or not, it is confusing people so it should be changed. I'd prefer to implement the simple change of order first and then discuss other possible improvements. Otherwise there will be no change and readers will continue to get confused. Vpab15 (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I think it's more accurate to say it's confusing some people. Reversing the order is likely to confuse others as it won't be chronological. Number 57 19:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I can't see how anyone can be confused to find the current results first. It is already like that in hundreds of articles that don't have last election row. We should be consistent and show it first for all articles, whether we later show last election results or not. Vpab15 (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I can't see how people are confused by the existing order, but apparently they are. You need to understand that not everyone thinks the way you do.
As I suggested, why don't you mock up the infobox with the proposed order and compare it side-by-side with the current one – this will help people judge if it's an improvement. Number 57 19:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Leaders seat before and after election

Any guidance what should be entered in the "Leader's seat" parameter if the leader is changing seat? As is the case for multiple party leaders in the 2021 Czech legislative election. Jdcooper (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest it's the seat the leader is contesting in the election. Cheers, Number 57 19:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Default image sizes

I regularly come across articles where users have not specified an image size for the candidate pictures, leading to some quite distorted infoboxes. Can I suggest we have a default image size embedded into the infobox, in case editors have not manually added one? I'd suggest it is 150x150px if there are two columns of parties and 130x130px if three. If this is too difficult, 150x150px across the board would be fine. Cheers, Number 57 15:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Please provide links to a few articles that show these distorted infoboxes, or copy the infoboxes to the testcases page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
An example of a bad one is 1987 Nagaland Legislative Assembly election or 1974 Nagaland Legislative Assembly election. Some are not quite as bad, but annoyingly inconsistent – e.g. 1995 Maharashtra Legislative Assembly election or 1998 Delhi Legislative Assembly election, where the images are both inconsistent sizes and also far too large as neither have size settings. Cheers, Number 57 21:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I think the next step is to copy a couple of those examples into the testcases page, and then add some code to this template's sandbox (or to one of the subtemplates' sandboxes) to try to solve the problem. If you look in the archives for this talk page, you will see image size issues on nearly every page, so you're not alone in noticing quirks with this template's image sizing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I've copied a couple across to Template:Infobox_election/testcases#Consistent_image_sizes, and managed to set 150x150px as the default value for all images. However, I am not sure how to code a reduction to 130x130px if party3 is invoked. Number 57 09:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I added a couple more tests with three-person and four-person elections, removing all image size specifications. So far, the sandbox looks good. It is possible that setting |image_size=x160px as a default would allow a default size to apply to any image and give the best results; I forget the difference between 160x160px and x160px, but it's documented somewhere. I found that setting in 1980 United States presidential election, where there are three candidates' photos without individual size settings. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't think just x150px etc will work. I just tried this on an article (see here) and it left the images at different heights. I think it may have worked on your example because the three images all have roughly the same width to height ratio. Number 57 15:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I see what you mean and agree with you, at least for this case. This template is very widely used; I am hopeful that other editors will comment. I'll be on a wikibreak for a couple of days, and if there are no substantive objections, I'll be happy to implement the change when I get back. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
As there's been no objections and it's a very simple fix, I've added it in for now. Number 57 20:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

How do we narrow the infoboxes, while keeping more then two candidates in the same row?

Something must be done to get around the problem of when there's more then two candidates in an US gubernatorial election infobox. At 1966 & 1970 Alabama gubernatorial elections, I had to place the third candidate in the second row, in order to narrow the infobox, to make room for the article's opening content. GoodDay (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Like this. Specify |image_size=, which applies to all images. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
+1 to the above solution. I generally try and reduce image sizes to 130x130px in infoboxes where three people appear on one row. Number 57 10:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Election name often missing – proposed solution

I've noticed that there are many cases where the election_name parameter has not been added to an article, meaning the infobox has no title (see e.g. 1924 Mexican general election). As election articles are rarely disambiguated (and therefore there shouldn't be many cases where the title would not match the infobox heading), I propose that we make it automatic that the election_name parameter is the article name. This could be done by adding PAGENAME as a default entry to the election_name parameter – this will be overridden when the parameter is actually used in the article. Is there any opposition to this? Cheers, Number 57 23:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Sound good. As with any automatism, maybe there's a situation in which it may become a problem, but I can't think of one besides a situation in which there's multiple tables on the same page. Wouldn't it be a problem for example in Argentinian election when the primaries may be confused with the actual president election? --Aréat (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The election name would only default to the article name if the parameter wasn't used, so if is an infobox used halfway down an article for the primary elections and it already has a title like '2019 Argentine primary elections', that would stay (although I can't see this on any Argentine election articles – are you confusing infoboxes with results tables?). This would only affect infoboxes that were currently titleless (which they shouldn't be as far as I'm aware). Number 57 00:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I was indeed confusing infobox and result tables, sorry. Seem good to me, then.--Aréat (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I've implemented this. I noticed the documentation already said about the election_name that "If this field is left empty the page name is displayed", so perhaps this was done in the past but removed (possibly accidentally) at some point. Cheers. Number 57 18:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Campaigns and Elections

Paine Ellsworth, what is the purpose of the logo for the trade magazine Campaigns and Elections in 2018 New York Attorney General election. Was that election sponsored by the magazine or something? Frietjes (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

To editor Frietjes: error on my part, so the image has been removed. Awhile back another editor asked me to resolve the whitespace to the left of "image1". They wanted the images centered, which doesn't seem to be an option. So that was just my untoward attempt to grant a request. I'll try to do better next time. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 18:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Reporting

What's the point of the "reporting" parameter presenting the number on top of a sort of bar chart, as in 2021 New Jersey gubernatorial election at present? Can the reader not be trusted to have an idea of what 95% looks like without this? We aren't CNN, we don't need to use eye-catching graphics to visualise very simple data points. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

What's the problem with it? --Aréat (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I think it does a good job of highlighting the fact that it isn't the final result. A plain text reporting figure would be far more likely to be missed by readers. Number 57 01:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

What is the point of "home_state"

What is the point of adding a row for home_state? It just clutters the table and it has nothing to do with an election. If people want to know that they just can click the candidate artitcle --Yilku1 (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Number 57:I'm not experienced enough to answer your question, but let me try to explain it with my own interpretation and opinion. It seems that the "home_state" field is basically just the presidential election's counterpart to "leaders_seat" for parliamentary election. However, I do feel that this field is only useful for presidential elections in federal states (especially in the United States). It is not very useful for presidential elections in unitary states (which don't have constituent states). Cheers. RyanW1995 (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Not sure why I've been pinged here, but personally I would support removing it as unnecessary clutter. I cannot see how having this parameter passes MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE as it is hardly key information. Number 57 09:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
@Number 57:Thanks for your comment. I've pinged you because I'm afraid that I could not provide a good explanation for Yilku1's answer above. BTW, I also feel that the home state's field is unnecessary. Cheers. RyanW1995 (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I think for US Presidential elections specifically, it's often considered important - it gets talked about, and parties generally aim for a President/VP slate that's balanced across the country? But that doesn't necessarily mean it's infobox-worthy. (And inclusion of a field tends to mean people rigorously fill it in even when it's not relevant.)
The inclusion and prioritisation of information in this infobox is pretty odd overall TBH, at least for parliamentary-type elections - for UK parliamentary elections the leader's seat, which is very marginally relevant, is the fourth piece of information given; while the actual result is buried as the seventh. (Virtually every time I look at one of these infoboxes I accidentally read off the previous election's result, because it's higher than the result for the election I'm looking at.)
A couple of years ago I proposed a pretty big reorder and trim of this to emphasise the actually important information; which IIRC seemed to have general support, but I ran out of free time and didn't get round to a proposed implementation - I think it should probably be revisited. I'll see if I can find the thread. TSP (talk) 12:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Fix for upstream changes to shortname subtemplate

A while back the various .../meta/shortname templates were slated to be merged into Module:Political party at this TFD. This process is almost complete, but the one standout is this infobox, whose {{infobox election/shortname}} makes a few calls to {{Template: {{{name}}}/meta/shortname}}. The patch I used to make the initial transition works for everything except when there is a coalition or otherwise non-standard (and generally wikilinked) input such as this (party3) or this (party2). The party name module delinks all inputs, so for example |party3=[[Guyana Action Party|GAP]]–[[Working People's Alliance|WPA]] would appear simply as Guyana Action Party-Working People's Alliance if my change were re-implemented. Now, the subtemplate does take a |link= parameter, which when set as "no" puts the input directly (e.g. the previous input would be returned directly as GAP–WPA) but that affects the entire row; {{Infobox election/row}} only sends on |link= for each row/trio of party names.

What started off as a relatively minor update is getting rather complicated, so before I jump in with what I feel is the best way forward I figured I would propose it here mainly as a sanity check but also to ensure that it is done in the most sensible manner. My thought process is as follows:

  1. |party_name= and |alliance_name= are currently passed from the main infobox to {{infobox election/row}}; these are changed to numbered |party_nameX= values for each party/alliance input value
  2. Following #1, {{Infobox election/row}} is subsequently changed to pass the new numbered parameters. Essentially, you're just adding a qualifier to the |party_name= that's already being passed
  3. {{Infobox election/shortname}} is re-converted to use the module (this is basically just redoing my earlier change).

If this seems sensible, I would like to get it implemented sooner rather than later (though obviously I am fine with the process being changed or modified in a completely different manner). As I mentioned before, this will cause some of the above links to not show up as links initially (just as text). However, I would rather have a short-term unlinked party set than something that doesn't work at all. Thanks for your time. (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 07:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I've missed it (I've read the above several times and still don't really understand it), but it doesn't seem like there's an actual solution to the manual linking in the party/alliance fields, and we'll just have to accept |party3=[[Guyana Action Party|GAP]]–[[Working People's Alliance|WPA]] displaying Guyana Action Party-Working People's Alliance until something else is done (and there is no indication of what that is yet)? Cheers, Number 57 09:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Current input/output:
       | party3 = [[Guyana Action Party|GAP]]–[[Working People's Alliance|WPA]]
gives GAP–WPA in the infobox. The proposed (end-user) input/output after the listed three steps take place would require the addition of
       | party3_link = no
to be added to the infobox call in order to show the same content, otherwise it will display as Guyana Action Party–Working People's Alliance. In other words, we don't have to accept anything sub-standard, but there will need to be changes to the infobox and the articles that call it in order to keep the end-user seeing the same content as before. Primefac (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
OK, cool. Is there any way of identifying which articles might need this to be added? Also, will the same be the case for {{Infobox legislative election}}? Cheers, Number 57 13:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't know if it is possible, and I haven't dug in to see how the new module works, but a couple of options occur to me. (1) check to see if the delinked value of |party= is in the module's list of parties, and if it is not, just pass it through as is, without delinking it. (2) Do the same check, render it however you want, and assign a maintenance category so that unknown parties can be added to the module or the |party-link= parameter can be added to the infobox. These options are not necessarily mutually exclusive. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
The issue actually is in the /shortname template. The code after conversion is:
   {{#ifeq:{{{link}}}|no
     |{{{name}}}
     |[[{{{name}}}|{{#invoke:Political party|fetch|{{{name}}}|shortname}}]]
   }}
The module does pass back the input value if it's not found in the data tables, but regardless of whether it delinks or not it's going to screw with the wikilinking seen in that third line. It doesn't really make sense to do (in pseudocode) "ifeq: <input> = <input passed to module> then <input> else <input passed to module>" (i.e. pass the value to the module, check to see if it's the same as the input, and then call the module again if it's not). Primefac (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I trust your judgement and skill, but since you asked for help, I guess I was thinking of something like (pseudo code):
   {{#ifeq:{{{link}}}|no
     |{{{name}}}
     |{{#ifnotempty:{{#invoke:Political party|fetch|{{{name}}}|shortname}}
         |[[{{{name}}}|{{#invoke:Political party|fetch|{{{name}}}|shortname}}]]
         |{{{name}}}{{main other|[[Category:Political party articles needing maintenance]]}}
      }}
   }}
I know that #ifnotempty is not real, but you probably get the idea. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
If no one cares about multiple calls to the module in the same subtemplate (that was our primary concern when looking at these conversions in the early discussions), then I can do one better and get it done tonight without needing to modify anything else. Primefac (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
A think a better solution would be to add to the module a |link=yes, if we want the default to be unlinked, or |link=no, if we want the default to be linked (not both). This way we can add any maintenance category to any template call. Gonnym (talk) 09:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
That still requires changing the module and all three templates listed in my initial post. Primefac (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Done and implemented using a single module call. Primefac (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Primefac: Sorry to ping you, but I have noticed an issue at 1970 Colombian general election; it seems that if the alliance field is not used for every party, it creates errors in the ones where nothing is entered. Can this be sorted? Cheers, Number 57 11:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 Fixed, thanks. The old version didn't have a name check so I made the assumption that it would always be there. Primefac (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Primefac: Hi, I've noticed that all the Hong Kong election articles are now corrupted with the alliance names "Pro-democracy", "Pan-democracy", "Pro-Beijing", "Conservative" and others are now shown as their full names as "Pro-democracy camp (Hong Kong)" or "Pan-democracy camp", "Pro-Beijing camp" or "Conservative bloc (Hong Kong)". Is there any way to fix it? FumiHayashi (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I've fixed it – the shortname templates had not been picked up during the most recent run for whatever reason. If there are any more missing, please flag them up. Cheers, Number 57 23:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Another issue with the changes to the shortname subtemplate: Previously it checked whether there was a /meta/shortname template (using an ifexist function), and only created a link if one did not exist. However, it is now creating links in all cases (see here, where the current version is creating links for the party names, while the sandbox version (which uses the prec-changes code) is not). While this particular instance can be fixed by using |party_names = no, there are infoboxes where there are a mix of linked and non-linked party names. Please can this be sorted out. Thanks, Number 57 13:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The short answer is yes, I will implement the changes I proposed in the opening post of this thread; each party will have the option to link or not. Primefac (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 Done. |party_name= and |alliance_name= are now numbered to allow for specifying each party individually (e.g. |party2_name= or |alliance7_name=). I have left in the ability to use the old parameters (keeping their original use) if only to avoid the need to change every use. Primefac (talk) 11:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks – there also needs to be a way of turning off the linking of the |before_party= and |after_party= parameters (which appear at the bottom of the infobox), as they remain linked unless the blanket |party_name= is set to no. See e.g. here, where the individual party parameters are used, but the before/after parties are still linked. Cheers, Number 57 12:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Done, added |before_party_link= and |after_party_link=. Primefac (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Great – thanks! Could the same fixes be applied to {{Infobox legislative election}}? Cheers, Number 57 14:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
That infobox doesn't have that functionality, so to be strictly literal there is nothing to "fix". Are you asking that I add it in? Primefac (talk) 09:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I think two fixes are required for {{Infobox legislative election}}. For party rows, you can see what happens here or here – can something be done in {{Infobox legislative election/row}} to introduce a parameter to stop the party name being linked if needed.
In the main {{Infobox legislative election}}, there is a before/after party section that calls on {{Infobox election/shortname}} and produces a link (see a testcase example here) – can something be added to turn off the linking if not wanted for whatever reason. Cheers, Number 57 09:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 Done, |partyX_link=, |before_party_link=, and |after_party_link= will now provide that functionality. Primefac (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Brilliant, thanks! Number 57 18:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Shortname templates

As the result of a TfD earlier this year, all the /meta/shortname, color and abbrev templates were merged into a single module. 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 57 20:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

For some reason, somebody thought it was a good idea to create automatic links for entries under "party_name", resulting in some absurd and annoying results -- in my bucket, I have 1857 Wallachian legislative election and 1867 Romanian general election, neither of which is supposed to have links there. Please revert this or unprotect the damn template. Dahn (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Dahn: You can fix this by either using |party_name=no or for individual parties by |party1_name=no. Cheers, Number 57 21:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Running mate parameter

I'd like to propose that he running mate parameter is moved up in the infobox, so that it appears between the nominee and party parameters. Currently it appears below the party row (see here), meaning the order is (1) nominee, (2) party, (3) running mate. I think it would make more sense to move it to the suggested position. Cheers, Number 57 16:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Please add notpageimage class to images in the infobox

Currently Extension:PageImages uses the first image in the infobox to represent the atticle. This means we feature one specific candidate over the others which could be seen as a bias. This image shows up in any search.

For example, if I look at 2019_Australian_federal_election for example, I see that Scott Morrison is the featured picture and I will see his face when I search on mobile.

To rectify this please add the notpageimage class to all images that contain candidates per the guidelines in phab:T301588.

Let me know if I can help with anything here. Jdlrobson (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 April 2022

2022 Philippine general election
← 2019
2025 →
Registered67,442,714
TurnoutTBD

The infobox at 2022 Philippine general election has consistently irked me since I first watchlisted the page last October. As it turns out, the image was improperly sized and nudged the box to the left (leaving a large margin on the right side) because the image was actually part of the infobox title, split only by an <br>. This is something shared by the 2016 Philippine general election article. Today, I was finally annoyed enough to add in new parameters for the infobox that allows for the election banner or logo to be included within the infobox. The changes I've made in {{Infobox election/sandbox}} add in the parameters election_logo, election_logo_alt, election_logo_size, and election_logo_upright. An example of this in practice is shown to the right. This solves (a) the layout issues formed by placing the image in the election_title parameter, (b) the lack of proper parameters for the election image (since, as of now, only the images of candidates are accepted), and partially solves (c) the issue of a candidate appearing as the article image because of PageImages detecting the candidate image to be the first viable page image (as mentioned above by Jdlrobson; only if the election has an official logo). Pairing this with adding notpageimage to the images for the candidates (which I didn't do in the sandbox for now), the issues presented by Jdlrobson above can be completely fixed.

TL;DR: Please apply the changes in the sandbox (diff) to the main template. Chlod (say hi!) 02:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done. See test cases page. Please update the documentation page as needed. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 08:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Moved to Template talk:Infobox election § Should an election's official logo be included in the infobox?
 Undone: This request has been undone. Looks like a consensus needs to be established for this alteration. Please garner the needed consensus before using the {{edit template-protected}} template again. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 17:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Australian elections

Excuse my ignorance, but is there a way to rename the "popular vote" field as "first preference vote" or create a new field? The terminology isn't quite accurate for the Electoral system of Australia Ikuzaf (talk) 06:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the template source and then doing a quick sandbox test, it looks like adding vote_type= First Preference changes the word Popular in Popular Vote to First Preference vote Joeykins82 (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! Looks like someone else has done just that. Ikuzaf (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Can class=notpageimage be added to the candidate images?

Page Images are the lead images of wiki pages, and show up in the mobile and search results and is often the first thing the user sees when viewing a page. Neither of the candidates portraits is suitable for this. If this class is added to those images, then the candidate portraits will be excluded from being page images. Not entirely sure how to add it though. XHeliotrope (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by XHeliotrope (talk • contribs) 13:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@XHeliotrope It was just pointed out to me by another editor that the preview images on US primary elections such as 2020 Nevada Democratic presidential caucuses are the third place candidate, not the first place candidate, which makes no sense whatsoever, and I can't quite tell what causes this. I don't think class=notpageimage or pageimage=no or whatever the syntax is now should be added in all cases, as sometimes a portrait of the winning candidate is the best represenatation of the event that there is, but I think this related issue needs fixing. Toadspike (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Autolinking?

Is it intentional for the parameters "party=" and "alliance=" to automatically link to a page even if no page exists? It seems unnecessary, especially since even including a hyphen to denote "no party/alliance etc." links to this: — Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Request for re-adding the election logo parameter

There are elections where official election logo exists, and election logos are significant because they are essential to describe the election, sometimes they also contain historical datas and most notably they REPRESENT the election. So I think it is very important to add it into the template as it was before. Where elections which doesn't have any logo, the parameter will remain vacant. Ku423winz1 (talk) 04:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Based on the discussion above, there doesn't seem to be consensus for this. Number 57 10:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
@Number_57 Yes I have seen the discussion, but didn't find any reason why election logo should be abolished. For The elections which doesn't have a logo, the parameter will remain vacant. Its very simple. Logos or banners are the best thing to REPRESENT anything. Also I have seen pages where election logos were needed and people added logos in different parameters because then the logo parameter was present but wasn't effective. Ku423winz1 (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
It was only briefly added, without consensus to do so. There needs to be consensus for it to be added in. Number 57 14:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
@Number_57, no I have communicated with them and also told that using another parameter is not recommended, and they didn't added it without consensus. Tell me just one think, what will people do if there are official election logo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ku423winz1 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
There is nothing to stop anyone adding the election logo to an article; it doesn't need to be in the infobox. Number 57 14:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
@Number_57 So where it should be added? Infobox is the best place for logo, and logo are the best way to represent. Ku423winz1 (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 June 2022

Change image1, image2, image3, image4, image5, image6, image7, image8, image9 to have "notpageimage" class this will ensure that these images do not show up as the page image of a given page. this is discussed in the talk page. XHeliotrope (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done (not yet) - this needs to be worked up in the sandbox and tested first. Once it is ready, than an immediate edit can be reactivated. — xaosflux Talk 13:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
@XHeliotrope, Toadspike: I created sandbox versions at Template:Infobox election/sandbox and Template:Infobox election/row/sandbox that implement this. By default images will have class=notpageimage added, but this can be overwritten by setting |pageimage#=yes. At some point it would be nice for a "winner" parameter to be added that would also put a checkmark or some other indicator on the winning candidate as well as handle the pageimage stuff, but that would require a more major rewrite. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
That seems wonderful, thank you so much! Toadspike (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the 'leader since' parameter

I would like to propose we remove the 'leader since' parameter from this infobox for three reasons:

  1. It is usually a violation of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE as in the vast majority of cases, the information is not detailed in the article (the MOS says the infobox should be a summary of the key facts in the article, not adding additional facts)
  2. It is not key fact relating to the election
  3. The parameter is prone to vandalism and original research (I regularly see IPs changing the dates,[1] which are almost never referenced and in many cases hard to verify).

For parliamentary elections the infobox is often too cluttered and this would remove one bit of clutter. Cheers, Number 57 12:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Should an election's official logo be included in the infobox?

Do we really want to add these into infoboxes? I think it's awful and completely unnecessary. Number 57 16:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Number 57: Respectfully, I disagree. The inclusion of the parameter incentivizes editors to include the official logo used in an election and (as discussed above) removes the images of candidates as the primary page image displayed for page previews, which can be perceived as bias that Wikipedia leans towards. Twitter fell into deep water for their algorithmic image processing last year after it was found that it biased towards white people, and we're shooting ourselves in the foot by doing the same for elections. Even if we did revert this and go back to the original format of misusing the |election_name= parameter for the image, it still wouldn't fix the layout issues. Even if other countries don't have official logos for their elections, there is no denying that it is, in fact, a thing here in the Philippines, and that we shouldn't shy away from supporting this parameter, especially since it's just one that doesn't even hold any remotely controversial content. I think an explanation that goes beyond "awful and completely unnecessary" is deserved here. Chlod (say hi!) 17:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
The infobox is meant to be a summary of the key information, which the official logo is not. The election_name parameter shouldn't be used for this either. Number 57 17:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Despite being a summary of key information, we normally include logos of companies in {{infobox company}} (some even have images of their headquarters), images of buildings in {{infobox building}}, album art in {{infobox album}}, game covers in {{infobox video game}}, and the logos of game series in {{infobox video game series}}. What's the difference in this case, when we're using an official logo provided by the official governing body for elections? Is it not a representative image for the lead section? Chlod (say hi!) 17:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
I think it's quite obvious that elections are not the same as organisations. You are not going to convince me this is a good idea. Number 57 18:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm quite annoyed that I'm not getting any guideline-based reasons for non-inclusion but so be it. I'll attempt to build consensus for this on the proper talk pages. Chlod (say hi!) 23:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
If you want a guideline, then take MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. And this is the proper location to build consensus. Number 57 23:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:IBI is on that same page, and leads to MOS:LEADIMAGE, which I already linked to earlier. Quoting the guideline, [i]t is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page. Is a candidate's portrait (especially when the elections haven't even begun yet) better than the election's official logo? Would this really be pushing the neutral point of view of Wikipedia?
This isn't some random image found on the internet. This logo and variations of it can be found on the Commission on Elections website (2016, 2022), on official social media, and in the ballots used in the actual elections (2016, 2022). It's present in almost all of the COMELEC's publication material about the recent elections. There's no better-suited image than the logo, and its wide use in official documents definitely warrant inclusion. Chlod (say hi!) 00:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
The lead image problem is a separate issue that is not going to be fixed by what you're proposing, because there isn't a logo for every election. That problem needs to be solved in a different way. Number 57 10:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
That's not really a reason why the infobox shouldn't contain the logo. Better that than doing absolutely nothing and leaving the problem unsolved for all articles, even on ones where a clear solution (this) exists. And even that doesn't disprove that a logo would be the best representative image for an election article. Chlod (say hi!) 10:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
If you are serious about the lead image issue, then suggest a solution that will work for all articles, rather than one that allows you to get what you want for one specific article but doesn't fix the others. Number 57 11:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point of the template edit here. Solving the PageImages issue wasn't the main objective of adding the paramters (and I even mentioned that this is only a step in doing that): adding in the logo (which is, as I keep mentioning, the best representative image for an election, and is the best suited image to be in the lead per MOS) is. Chlod (say hi!) 11:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

If I can jump in with a third opinion here, Number 57 is right. Most elections do not have any sort of widely used logo and a parameter is just going to encourage inappropriate images being added. Bondegezou (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

How exactly would this "encourage inappropriate images being added"? If it's a matter of it appearing in VisualEditor, TemplateData can easily be modified to avoid suggesting the parameter. The TemplateData even makes it clear that an official one should be used: "The logo or banner for this election, if an official one exists." This also just completely undermines article maintenance and anti-vandalism. If the concern is that someone has a new vector for vandalizing an article, what's the difference with the images for each candidate? Chlod (say hi!) 02:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Rather than keep the parameter removed out of paranoia, perhaps we should try and see if these "inappropriate images" end up being a problem first. It's not that hard to track template parameter use anyway (and if you don't want to rely on an external tool, we can always have a tracking category for these). Chlod (say hi!) 02:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Voting instructions in the 2016 Philippine election, with the logo in the bottom. No, Khal Drogo did not defeat Duterte.

Some elections and referendums have logos. The 2016 Philippine general election logo was widespread and was actually used in polling areas. To omit this is a gross disservice. I remember Malaysian elections also have logos, but for some reason these are not in the article... or maybe I misremembered. FWIW, Template:Infobox referendum has an image parameter that serves the same purpose. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Every ballot paper I can think of includes the party logo. Why make Wikipedia even more text-based by removing the logo from articles? doktorb wordsdeeds 16:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
No-one is saying to remove the logos from articles. The debate here is about whether the infobox should have a new parameter added to it to display an official election logo where they exist. Number 57 18:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
And why is that such a big issue? As I've said before, logos are present in many different infoboxes, and like Howard the Duck said above, it's even present for the referendums infobox. In my earlier comment, you even glossed over the fact that three out of four of the infoboxes I mentioned don't even represent an "organization" (which is, in fact, represented by {{infobox organization}} and not {{infobox company}}, and lo and behold, said infobox also has a logo parameter). Chlod (say hi!) 02:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Adding in a parameter in this case just increases consistency with all infoboxes, even if the parameter name is different (because, unfortunately, image is already reserved for candidates). Chlod (say hi!) 02:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Chlod, even though I come from a country where logos for elections (and referendums) doesn't occur, the infobox should include it (even if it doesn't suggest it) so it can be included where present. I would point out another practical reason, a symbol for an election or referendum may serve a similar sense to the partisan Electoral symbol in countries where literacy rates are lower. It also has the benefit of being an image that should be generally neutral, and so it being the first (and preview) image helps avoid the bias that would occur if any individual candidate picture or party logo were to take the spot. I should also point out that "I think it's awful" is not a valid reason to note include an official logo. We are not editting wikipedia to cast our graphic design opinions. 5.68.219.54 (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
With the lack of any further comments challenging the arguments (and subsequent responses) here, I'm inclined to request a closure for this discussion to settle the debate. If anyone wishes to leave any final comments or concerns (or if any uninvolved editor wishes to close the discussion themself), please do so now. Chlod (say hi!) 04:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't think there's any point requesting a closure, as there is clearly no consensus based on the comments to date. You could ping a reminder at WT:E&R if you want more input to try and get a consensus either way. Number 57 19:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I'll re-notify the related projects and hold off on requesting a closure. I will note, though: points raised by me, Howard the Duck, and 5.68.219.54 for inclusion remain unrefuted, with only parts or specific quotes (and not the actual central points) challenged (and also already refuted). Either the silence is implicit compliance or proof that further substantial reasons to oppose do not exist. If participation is still lacking, perhaps an RfC would be in order. Chlod (say hi!) 04:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
P.S. @Bondegezou, @Doktorbuk, @Howard the Duck: Please do also mention if you are in support or opposition to the inclusion of the logo in the infobox in general. Thank you! Chlod (say hi!) 04:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
What we need are better articles, not ever more stuffed infoboxes. Yes, include these logos in articles. No, do not expand the infobox template for something that doesn’t apply for most elections. We know what Wikipedia editing is like: if you create this in the template, people will start sticking in all sorts of inappropriate things on articles while saying “But it’s in the template!” Bondegezou (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
@Bondegezou: Again, I'm inclined not to trust a claim staked entirely on an assumption. We provide proper instructions for parameter use: that's the exact purpose of template documentation. We're not banging rocks together finding out what parameter is used how. If your concern was misuse, then first prove that this is actually going to be a substantial issue (that doesn't rely on the mere assumption of bad consequences) that can't be countered with the remedies I already mentioned above. This is literally one image. If the concern was a "stuffed infobox", perhaps we shouldn't have the flag image there for the same reason, as the country the elections would be hosted on would have been obvious on the page title and lead. At least a logo would have been more unique and actually useful as part of an article than the flag of the country (a violation of MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, even). Chlod (say hi!) 11:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps you could just accept that some editors disagree with you and stop bludgeoning? Silence is not "implicit compliance", it just means people have made their point and see no purpose in repeating it again and again because you keep hammering away at it. Number 57 12:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I can accept editors disagreeing, but if I may provide my perspective for a moment: it makes no sense to block a 321-byte diff that implements an extremely small change on the scale of this template for purposes that aren't even backed up by existing Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and practices. If you disagree, then disprove what I say than be stubborn and disagree while providing no reason. Chlod (say hi!) 12:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
@Chlod: Thanks for your reply. I don't think I'm working off an assumption, but rather years of experience editing Wikipedia election articles! You raise the issue of the flag in the current template. I completely agree with you: we shouldn't have flags there as per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. However, people see the line in the template, they put them in and there are now lots of editors who are used to them and won't contemplate their removal. That illustrates my point. Lines in templates can encourage inappropriate edits because people assume they must be used. If you want to replace a national flag with an election logo, go for it. I will support that. I think having an extra line that is liable to get misused isn't the answer.
Another suggestion is to create a new template called "Infobox Filipino election" that includes a space for a logo. That can then be used on Filipino elections (presuming a consensus among editors). If people start finding it a useful approach elsewhere, then we'll see that and can revisit this template. Bondegezou (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I only know of very few elections that have official logos - it's worth noting that sub-national elections probably make up the bulk of WP's election content, and I have never seen an official logo for those. That isn't to say we cast the elections with logos out into the wilderness, but we really don't need a space in the infobox for them - they can easily go in another part of the article. As for the argument that we might be seen to be biased because of what picture comes up on article previews, I personally feel like the only people who are going to have a problem with that are those who are looking for problems anyway. Let's focus on just improving the actual articles? Gazamp (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

People can still put the logo or other pictures in other parameters. Ku423winz1 (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a problem, if any election have official logo, then what is the problem? If any election doesn't have it then let the parameter remain vacant. Ku423winz1 (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  • I don't know how many elections have official logos, but if an official logo does exist it seems reasonable and appropriate to have that logo at the top of the infobox. It is also the most appropriate PageImage. The parameter name could be "Official_election_logo". That should reduce any chance of someone putting in an improper image, and it should immediately resolve any objection against removing any improper image. Alsee (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Alsee yes that's right. Ku423winz1 (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the points raised by @Alsee:, also referring to some peoples concerns and ideas, @Bondegezou: mentioned an idea for an "Infobox Filipino election", while I would still support modifying the original template, I could also support an alt template existing too, although perhaps a better name for the template might be "Infobox election with logo", thus making it clear it could be used for non-filipino elections if they happen to have a logo.
A problem does seem to exist of logos being removed or moved further down the page despite them being appropriate in some cases, this *actual problem* should surely take precedence over a hypothetical problem of some people misusing the field? 5.68.219.54 (talk) 10:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

How about automagically fetching the candidates' page image when none is specified?

I've added the proposal to the sandbox, replacing |image1 = {{{image1|}}} with:

|image1 = {{{image1|{{img|filename=y|{{{nominee1|{{{candidate1|{{{leader1|{{{party1|{{{alliance1|}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

... and so forth for n = 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. — Guarapiranga ☎ 07:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure this is a good idea for two reasons – sometimes the image in infoboxes of politicians is one of them and other people, and more regularly, the image is landscape, which wouldn't work in this infobox. Number 57 19:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I oppose trying to blindly guess an image. I've seen more than enough headaches with the WMF telling the software to blindly guess images to represent a page. Images of people, and especially election candidates, require particular care. Alsee (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
The proposal is to guess (or fetch) the image only if none is spec'd in the infobox. If the guessed (or fetched) image turns out to be unfit for the purpose—having the wrong orientation, etc—editors can always pick an image of their choosing, as usual. — Guarapiranga ☎ 05:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
The problem is that editors will have to check all the pages that have the infobox and are automatically calling images to make sure the ones being called are appropriate. This is not feasible IMO. Number 57 21:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Indeed it isn't. I'd imagine the current instances either already have images specified, or empty image arguments. Of the current 25,251 articles that use {{Infobox election/Archive 8}}, I found less than 200 articles (< 1%) using it without image arguments, a quarter of which for elections next year (mostly in developing countries), for which candidates either had no page image in their article, or no article altogether. OTOH, I did find articles in which images weren't specified that would benefit from automatic fetching (the 2008 Sri Lanka Eastern Provincial Council election, for instance). But that's not why I'm proposing it. Rather, it's to streamline the creation of election articles. — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Your search is completely flawed because many infoboxes have the image parameter listed and unused either for some or all the candidates. There are thousands of infoboxes with missing images. The search also finds numerous articles in which the image parameter is used (like 1987 United Kingdom general election; had you done it correct (like this, you'd have found around 3,500 articles – but these are the ones not using the image parameter at all – there will be many thousand more using it but with no entry against it). Number 57 10:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Indeed it is, Number_57, but so is yours. What matter are the instances in which {{Infobox election/Archive 8}} is called with listed candidate or nominee, but no image parameter. This is what I searched for that yielded less than 200 articles (190 to be exact), and failed to put in the search link:
hastemplate:"infobox election" insource:/\| ?(candidate|nominee)[1-9]/i -insource:/\| ?image[1-9]/i
The cases in which the image parameter is listed but empty, and the cases in which candidates or nominees aren't listed either, are unaffected by this proposed change. As I said, the purpose is to help editors when creating new election articles, saving them the trouble of hunting for and copy-pasting the candidates' image filenames (in addition to defaulting to the candidates' page images, rather than some other alternative photos, escaping the consensus in the candidates' main articles).
Edit: I couldn't figure out what you referred to 1987 United Kingdom general election as an example of—the image parameters are all specified there; nothing would change for that one. — Guarapiranga ☎ 06:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
It is one the articles that appears in your original search results above as apparently having no image arguments.
I still don't believe that fewer than 200 articles have missing images and would put the number well into the thousands. The search string above fails to pick up articles like 1991 Tajik presidential election where there is a missing image. Number 57 17:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  • It is one the articles that appears in your original search results above as apparently having no image arguments.
    Yeah, sorry, I mangled that link, but the regex query above is in there.
  • I still don't believe that fewer than 200 articles have missing images and would put the number well into the thousands.
    That's bc you keep conflating missing image with missing image parameter. The difference is between null and blank. In your example of the 1991 Tajik presidential election, for instance, the image for the 2nd candidate is blank, not null, as the image parameter is declared as empty. In that case, the edit I proposed wouldn't affect the article. The image is not even missing, as the candidate's article also has no page image; not even if image2 wasn't declared, the edit still wouldn't affect it. That's why the actual number of affected the articles by the edit would be less than 200; far fewer than 200, in fact, as many of those list candidates that either have no article or no image in their article. — Guarapiranga ☎ 02:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Custom label for ‘Home state’?

It could be useful to allow a custom label for home_state in federations where the subdivions are not called (or translated to) “state”, such as cantons for Switzerland. Thoughts? Julio974◆ (Talk-Contribs) 12:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Is home canton actually a relevant thing in Swiss elections? There’s a tendency towards infobox bloat and then people fill in all these boxes even when they’re not relevant to the article at hand. So, yes, if appropriate, nice to have a custom label, but let’s not encourage unneeded detail. Bondegezou (talk) 07:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, in Swiss elections (mostly those to the Federal Council) regional (linguistical) balance is seen as one of the most important criterion after partisan balance, often deciding the slates of candidates fielded by the parties. Julio974◆ (Talk-Contribs) 09:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

After election

At 1995 East Ayrshire Council election, I'm trying to add in the council leader after the election. I've added the parameters but it won't display and I think it is because there isn't a council leader from before the election (this was the first election to the council so there was no leader before). Is there a way this could be fixed? Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

You need to add the title parameter as well. Like this:
<!-- bottom -->
|title=Council Leader
|posttitle=Council Leader after election
|before_election=
|before_party=
|after_election=TBD
|after_party=Scottish Labour Party
Hope this helps! Impru20talk 12:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
That does, thanks Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_election/Archive_8&oldid=1180170269"