Template talk:Infobox election/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Edit request 19 January 2023 (Use with {{party color}})

By replacing the border-bottom: 6px solid #{{{color1}}} lines of code for colour handling with border-bottom: 6px solid #{{#sub:{{{color1}}}|-6}}, the template can now be used with the {{party color}} template, by allowing values starting with #.

Kingdom of Baustralia (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: @Kingdom of Baustralia Why does this change need to occur. If the parameter |party1= is used, it will automatically get the value of {{Party color}}. Along with this, why only change |color1= when there is also a |color2= and |color3=? Please provide some examples of when this would be useful as well as make your requested changes to the templates's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. Terasail^[✉️] 07:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Terasail: This is a valid request as sometimes a party uses a different colour to its usual one for an election, or changed its colour, so another colour (from the party colours module) needs to be used. I agree this change is needed and would be helpful. An example of where it would be used is 2019 Austrian legislative election, where the Austrian People's Party did not use their usual black colour and it would be useful to call it via {{party color|Austrian People's Party (2017)}} rather than it being hardcoded as a colour. Cheers, Number 57 19:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done @Kingdom of Baustralia @Number 57: I used gsub so that it will also work with 3 character hex codes (#FFF). Let me know if there is anything wrong with it but you should be able to add both templates, and hex codes with # as the parameter. I checked the testcases and didn't notice any difference apart from #3 which was showing the correct change. Terasail^[✉️] 21:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Terasail: It doesn't seem to be working properly. I added the party colour template at the Austrian election article. It should be showing colour #63C3D0 (which is what is in the module), but it appears to be #597fcd... Number 57 22:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah I see, let me look into it. Terasail^[✉️] 22:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I am going to reopen the request incase anyone else wants to do this... I can't get this to work with Module:String or Module:Ustring. They have a wondeful habbit of adding a 35 ('#' character number) on the front of the output which ruins the color. I must be doing something stupid but I just can't see what, its been a hour and I got nowhere... Terasail^[✉️] 23:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I had a go at it. It will not work for the case where #, or # wrapped in nowiki tags, is used before the color, but it appears to work for {{party color}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: It still doesn't work at the Austrian article (see here), unless you've only done it in the sandbox? Number 57 23:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

It's only in the sandbox. I was hoping that another pair of eyes would look at it before I broke a bunch of articles. If you preview that Austrian article using {{Infobox election/sandbox}}, you should see a color under Herr Kurz. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Yep, looks like it works to me - thanks! Number 57 00:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that Jonesey. I was close looking at what you did, but just couldn't reach the finish line... Terasail^[✉️] 00:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 February 2023

Please add "leaders_seat" as a parameter for parliamentary elections. This is necessary for elections in many countries (e.g Australia). I do recall it formerly existing, but it for some reason disappeared. Can someone please add it back as soon as possible? It should go under the "party" parameter and the label should say "Leader's seat". Thanks! Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I've worked out that @Number 57: removed it. Can you please add it back? I think it's necessary for certain countries to include this, especially because due to this articles such as 2023 New South Wales state election and 2024 Queensland state election now have to include it as a blank label, thus putting it at the bottom of the infobox (which looks odd). Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Another reason I ask for this is because "home_state" is a parameter and is used for American elections. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion on these parameters at WT:E&R. They were initially removed after discussion at that page. Number 57 09:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

home_state parameter is important for American elections (presidential only), because the constitution mandates that presidential electors from one state cannot cast their electoral votes for persons of the same state in both the presidential and vice-presidential ballot. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 10:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Broken template?

I've noticed that the 'leaders_seats' and 'leader_since' are no longer part of the infobox, leaving a lot of these infobox entries orphaned across quite a lot election pages; is the template broken? BitterGiant (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion is happening at this link. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Swing

The parameter called "Swing" actually describes vote change. The two may be interchangeable in some territories but they are definitely not in others. See, for example, Swing (United Kingdom). I suggest the label be changed to the more literally descriptive "Vote change" to avoid ambiguity. Utilisateur19911 (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

3x4.svg

This template is now showing a weird image "File:3x4.svg" when only one candidate is listed in the infobox (such as in unopposed elections). Anyone know why this is? Kiwichris (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Where are you seeing this? This could be because I recently requested that when a bot removes images from the infobox as NFCC violations (which happens regularly), they are replaced with 3x4.svg to avoid messing up the infobox (if no image is present for , it can compress that column to the widest word used). I'm guessing this might have happened on an article where there was only one image in the infobox? Number 57 15:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

An example would be this page: 16th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party. Kiwichris (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, the bot owner a change to the infobox rather than their bot code, and this is what caused the problem. I've undone the changes. Number 57 12:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

RFC on the infobox of the 2018–2022 Italian general elections

An RFC about the infobox of the two general elections in Italy, is being held. You are all invited to participate. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

RFC: outgoing and elected MPs in the Infobox legislative election

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) 13:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 July 2023

"This infobox describes a presidential, primary, legislative or parliamentary elections." Change "elections" to "election" Needforspeed888 (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

Add a wikilink for the word "Swing" to Swing (politics). --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not strictly opposed to this, but it would result in that link showing up multiple times in the same infobox (see the UK example). Is that a desired outcome? Primefac (talk) 07:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Council Infobox

In cases where it is used for an individual council election, should we use the overall party leader or the leader of that councils party group TheHaloVeteran2 (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

IMO it should be the leader of the party for the election in question, so it would be the local leader. Cheers, Number 57 20:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 November 2023

Please add new parameters like Party/Alliance. Happyjit Singh (talk) 06:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Alliances are between parties. There are seats where alliance members have friendly fight. All the rules and guidelines laid for election articles ask us to use parties only. For example - MOS:INDELECT states Only those parties that are covered by Reliable Media as a major contender for winning that election are listed in the infobox. It says parties not alliances. If any admin or senior editor disagrees, then I shall be happy to be corrected. ShaanSengupta^Talk 09:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

What is the difference between nominee and candidate?

I occasionally see infoboxes being changed from nominee to candidate and vice versa, and there seems no hard-and-fast rules about which term is appropriate. Are they just different terms for the same thing, or is there actually a difference? If the latter, can we create a clear definition of when to use each? Number 57 22:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

This usage may vary by country, but in US presidential elections, there are two major parties, and until the party's convention a few months before the election, there are multiple candidates in each party. At the convention, the party chooses a nominee, at which point each party has only one candidate for president. See United States presidential nominating convention for excruciating details. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Candidate image size when viewing election pages on mobile

I have noticed that when viewing the election infobox on mobile, candidate image sizes are always of unequal size (which seems like a bug to me). It seems like whichever candiate is represented by a blue colour gets a larger image Can anyone replicate it?

screenshot of the infobox from this page - https://i.ibb.co/8cnWhTc/IMG-0622.png - and another from the infobox from 2024 London mayoral election (where I noticed the issue) - https://i.ibb.co/hHbb86h/IMG-0623.png Oliverwinton (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Oliverwinton: This has been a problem for a while, but I am not sure the infobox code is the problem (as it sets consistent sizes). It might be worth reporting it as a bug via the route detailed at WP:BUGS. Number 57 14:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed change to the before/after section

I would like to propose we change the final section of the infobox so that instead of the defaults being "[Title] before election" and "Elected [title]", the default is "[Title] before election" and "[Title] after election".

The default of "Elected [title]" for the post-election situation doesn't work for most parliamentary elections as the Prime Minister or whatever other postholder is mentioned is not generally elected to that position. This results in a huge number of infoboxes having to correct it by using the "posttitle" parameter. Defaulting to "[Title] before election" and "[Title] after election" would be neutral and correct, and avoid having to add a correcting parameter to many articles (or edits like this where the entire section gets removed because the wording is wrong). Cheers, Number 57 20:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree as a straightforward improvement. Ralbegen (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

not really neccesary imo WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 04:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Good idea, Number 57. Bondegezou (talk) 10:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

MP before election

With very few exceptions, there is no sitting MP immediately before a by-election: that is why an election is needed. Even at a general election, the parliament is dissolved, therefpre MPs cease to be such. It is not reasonable to state, before an election, that the MP before an election is a person who died some weeks previously. Suggest rename this field to Previous MP. As an aside, wikilinking MP twice on the same row, in a context where it can be reasonably assumed that the reader knows what that is, seems something of overkill. Kevin McE (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I assume this is in relation to Special:Diff/1206896902. I think it's an argument of semantics, and as such I don't really have an opinion on the matter (I mean, really, there isn't much difference between "X was the previous MP" and "Y was the MP before this election"). Primefac (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely it is semantic, there is a difference in meaning inasmuch as "before" carries an implication of "up to the time of", which is absent from "previous". Kevin McE (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for automatically adding short descriptions to this template

Hi all, there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Short description#Proposal to add automatic SDs to Template:Infobox election. As it would involve a potential change to this template, editors are invited to participate in the discussion. Thank you for helping improve WP:Short descriptions on Wikipedia! - - mathmitch7 ^{(talk/contribs)} 17:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Please fix this so that putting "TBD" in the after party parameter does not link the disambiguation page, TBD

Thanks. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@BD2412: Done. Will now appear as TBD. Also did the same for TBC. These sorts of things can be sorted out at {{Infobox election/shortname}}. Cheers, Number 57 16:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! BD2412 T 16:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Alternative party label

I would like to propose that we add support to the template for alternative labels for the party field. Especially in elections to non-governmental bodies, it is common for there to be party-like entities that aren't referred to with the word "party".

For example, in elections to the General Synod of the Church of Sweden (see, e.g., 2021), they use the term "nominating group" because, while some of the nominating groups are political parties (the same parties as in Swedish parliamentary elections), other nominating groups are not. Or, for another example, in many trade unions, candidates run as part of a "slate" (see, e.g., 2021 Teamsters election). Although slates are distinct from parties in that they don't typically exist over more than one electoral cycle, they serve the same function in the context of that election.

It is, of course, already possible to get a custom label using auxiliary rows (1blank, 1data1); however, this would put the name of the party-like entity at the bottom of all of the statistical data despite it being the first thing our readers are looking for in most cases. And this would be especially impractical in an article like 2021 Swedish Church Assembly elections as there are no leaders listed.

I have added the necessary code to the sandbox. An example of what this would look like can be seen at Template:Infobox election/testcases § Alternative party label. Graham (talk) 05:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the past couple archives of this talk page, new topics that don't get a reply within the first day or two are never replied to, so I'll go ahead and add {{edit template-protected}}. Graham (talk) 05:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Done, although it needed a slight tweak to default to simply 'Party' if nothing was entered (in the testcases it could be seen that all the examples without the new parameter were broken). Number 57 21:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I added a necessary test case with an empty |party_label= and tweaked the code just a bit. I think it is all working now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Notes

Strange output

I modified the last edit because articles like this one were picking up the unnamed parameters and using them for the flag. removing these unnamed parameters fix the strange Template:Country data independent at the top, but then left a blank row at the top. this is because if |country= is in the template but blank, then the #ifexist check still picks up Template:Country data which is a valid template. I put the "check for blank" back around this line and now it looks fine in both cases. Frietjes (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Talking of strange outputs, can anyone work out why the colour bar of the presidential election section of this infobox is so wide? It isn't an issue on other infoboxes arranged in the same way... Cheers, Number 57 16:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Seem to happen when "candidate1" is used, and not when it's "nominee1". --Aréat (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Can someone revert to last clean ASAP, strange things are still showing up in i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_United_States_presidential_election_in_Nebraska DemocraticLuntz (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The code seem to malfunction and data that should not be visible in GUI output seems to be visible and the information does not seem to be contained in designated area, I don't know what has happened perhaps some kind of new regulations imposed on templates can not put up with the actuality in programming scale. Cactus Ronin (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The "alliance" parameter outputs "parameter 1 should be a party name." if nothing is entered now. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 18:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ahecht: can you fix what broke with your changes? Frietjes (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

the blank row is still at the top of 2012 World Bank Group presidential election caused by the bad logic for |country= being blank and 1918 Portuguese general election still has a large red error saying parameter 1 should be a party name., ... which is coming from Module:Political party get bad input this error was caused by this change which broke another blank input case. Frietjes (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I have fixed the big red error with a partial revert of the /shortname template. I added a new test case to show the error. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Jonesey95, that helps. we still have 2024 Portuguese legislative election linking to "none" which is a disambiguation page, but at least no red errors. Frietjes (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jonesey95@Frietjes Thanks for adding the test case. I added an additional check for |country= being blank. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Re the test case, do we know why using candidate and nominee do different things to the width of the colour bar? And also what is happening with the previous/next election links (why are they spilling off the edge of the infobox?). Cheers, Number 57 22:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, can people remember to use the sandbox to test stuff, rather than risk breaking tens of thousands of articles... Number 57 22:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

TemplateStyles revert

Hi @Number 57 in this revert you wrote

This has messed up thousands of articles. Please test this kind of stuff in the sandbox first

FWIW I tested this on a local MediaWiki instance so please don't assume I didn't test this, but could you expand on what exactly broke? It looked fine to me on the testcases after I made the change - and it is a minor change that is only adding CSS.

The template is currently problematic as it is exhibiting bias, so I'm keen to understand what problem you are seeing with the two rules of CSS I added so I'm keen to fix it ASAP.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_London_mayoral_election#c-Jdlrobson-20240418225000-Bazza_7-20240418165000

Thanks in advance for your quick answer! 🐸 Jdlrobson (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I loaded it into sandbox per your request and I'm not seeing anything obvious on Template:Infobox election/testcases - what am I missing? 🐸 Jdlrobson (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The initial edit you made to the infobox caused the images to be compressed horizontally. For example, the images at 2024 United States presidential election stayed the same height, but were compressed to about a third of their original width.

I'm not sure what you've done this time, but it causes the images to be really small (I think 80x80px) but also stretches the infobox to twice as wide as it should be.

Annoyingly I can't show this side-by-side, as if you put the two versions on the same page, the style from the sandbox interferes with the main version. However, compare User:Number 57/sandbox 3 (normal infobox with default size of 150x150px) with User:Number 57/sandbox 4 (sandbox) and you'll see what I mean.

Perhaps you are doing this from a mobile device which is why you can't see the effect it is having? Number 57 23:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes this was the intention of the change. It should aplly to Minerva but not Vector. Why do you consider that broken? Without this all the infoboxes are clipped by default on mobile and every candidate other than the first requires scrolling to view.

i was editing from a desktop device and testing both mobile and desktop experiences

What skin are you using? 🐸 Jdlrobson (talk) 01:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

?useskin=monobook and ?useskin=timeless show differences for me in desktop mode. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, did you mean to fix the image to 80x80px? It's far too small on a computer screen. I am using Monobook btw. Cheers, Number 57 10:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay I didn't realize we optimized templates for Monobook and Timeless. When reporting "breakage" it's helpful to know straight away if you are using non-default skin and specifically what you mean by breakage (my understanding of breakage is the page doesn't render at all).

I've updated the styles to not apply to Monobook and Timeless, I always forget they are responsive.

The behaviour for Minerva is expected - 80x80 is selected as typically a mobile browser will be upwards of 320px and assuming at least 3 candidates (plus the heading row) 80*4 = 320. On Minerva infoboxes are capped to 300px so they should probably be smaller but that didn't. I think we could go up to 100px if we wanted since typically the majority of devices these days are 400px. Feel free to increase to 100px in the styles in Template:Infobox_election/styles.css if you feel like that makes a better compromise.

I think ideally, we'd switch to a row based layout on lower resolution devices, and stack these vertically rather than horizontally but that seems like a larger change that might require change to the HTML or more drastic changes to the CSS? 🐸 Jdlrobson (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that a switch to a fully vertically stacked layout (akin to the es and fr.wiki infoboxes) would make sense and make the infobox more flexible. Number 57 18:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Request for IRV infobox

Right now IRV infoboxes like 2009 Burlington, Vermont mayoral election are kind of hacked-together. It’d be nice to have a template to reproduce that with fewer manual inputs! (cc @Number 57) –Sincerely, A Lime 17:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

New format?

Hi there. Just want to ask if there's a new format of the infobox in the making. Went to a few election pages and there was a new format, but with the images displaced and with things not within the lines of the box, making it look disorganized and disproportionate.Tuesp1985 (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Tuesp1985, where did you see this happening? Primefac (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm seeing this now on all the election pages with infoboxes. But, for example, the 2024 European Parliament election in Ireland.Tuesp1985 (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you seeing the same thing at Template:Infobox election § Legislative or parliamentary? Everything looks normal/okay to me. Primefac (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the format looks different, with the images floating, in some cases with their sizes tampered, and a lot of spacing between the lines, which makes the infobox disproportionate. When I posted the topic, the template still had the former format, but it has now changed, with the US election example being weird.Tuesp1985 (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, neither the template nor its .css have been changed recently, so I suspect it's probably a WP:THURSDAY issue or a browser issue. Primefac (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

A browser issue I don't think it is, as on Mozilla and Chrome I'm seeing the same issue. Maybe it's WP:THURSDAY issue, like you said. But, are you seeing now the changes?Tuesp1985 (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

All looks fine and normal to me; I'm using the legacy Vector, which got some major overhauls a week or so ago (they're rolling out the updates to the various skins). Primefac (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I also noticed the same thing on the U.S. election pages on my phone (desktop site). Prcc27 (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

This is apparently an unintended effect of a code change deployed today. It is being discussed at VPT in a multi-header thread. Bug reports have been filed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Right, I've read the VPT threads and yeah reports have been filed. Let's see if the matter is resolved. Thanks for the info Jonesey95.Tuesp1985 (talk) 01:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Some issues seem to have been resolved, however image sizes, in some infoboxes, and a few glitches persist.Tuesp1985 (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Please provide links to a couple of affected articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Some examples are 2013 Christchurch mayoral election and 2022 Tauranga by-election where the candidate images size shrunk to a very small size compared to pre-update. Kiwichris (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Both of those look fine to me. I gave them a null edit in case a caching problem was manifesting on your end. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to change numbers up to ten

Hello. For the 2024 Cork City Council election page, ten parties/independent parties can be shown as gaining/losing seats from the previous 2019 Cork City Council election - for either losing all their seats, or gaining seats as a new party. As the box only can show nine parties, this unfortunately means that not every party/non-party elected/unelected can be shown in the box. It would be a great benefit if all ten figures could be in the box, which is why I would propose to increase it to ten. Lucky102 (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

This template gets ridiculously large with that many parties. What about just switching to Template:Infobox legislative election? Bondegezou (talk) 06:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Ten wouldn't really make sense as the infobox works in rows of three. But it's already too big once it goes beyond one row, so I echo the comments above about using {{Infobox legislative election}} instead. Number 57 21:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I always feel like the legislative election infobox is too sparse for 6-9 candidates, but the current infobox can't handle more than 3 candidates well. Have we ever tried borrowing the infobox from non-English Wikipedias? Example in Spanish. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

RFC: Should elections include equal-ranked ballots in calculating vote shares?

Should elections include equal-ranked and truncated ballots when calculating vote shares? For example, should ballots marked A = B > C be included in calculating the vote share for A against B?

• Support - Yes
• Oppose - No

Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Support. The convention in the social choice literature on this topic is very clear: equal-ranked ballots need to be included, because they can affect the outcome of the election. This is particularly important for paired counting methods, because equal-ranking indicates indifference (which dilutes the margin of victory). Even for systems where equal-ranking two candidates does not affect the results, users should know what share of ballots were exhausted or ranked several candidates as tied. It is easy to calculate what the results of the election would have been if equal ranks were excluded, but not vice-versa. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose for now on the basis that you've not explained adequately what you are seeking to do. I've read your comments at WT:E&R several times and I am still none the wiser to what the issue is here. Number 57 19:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm trying to find consensus on a consistent standard for reporting ranked-choice voting results.

  As an example, let's take the article on the 2011 Irish presidential election. The infobox says the "final round result" was 56.8% of the vote for Michael Higgins, against 35.5% of the vote for Sean Gallagher. These don't add up to 100%, because some voters have ballots that look like this:

  1. Mitchell
  2. McGuiness
  3. All other candidates (equal)

  "Any other candidate" votes make up the last 8%. The question is whether an infobox reporting "final round results" should include "all other candidates," or whether these votes should be excluded.

  Currently, there is no standard, and infoboxes are inconsistent across articles. For example, 2009 Burlington mayoral election uses the opposite convention. "All other candidates" are 6.7% of votes, but these are discarded to report the margin as 51.5% to 48.5%, instead of as 48% to 45.2%.

  This allows unscrupulous editors to manipulate the apparent margin of victory: a Purple party supporter might report an election they lost as having a margin of 30% to 20%, with 50% of voters being apathetic between the two (an unconvincing victory). Elsewhere, they could report the same election results, but with Purple as the winner, by saying Purple had 60% of the final-round vote. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

So, do you just mean we should stick to reporting first preference votes for STV/AV/SV elections? Bondegezou (talk) 06:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying that in every round or matchup, the vote share should be equal to the number of votes for a candidate, divided by the total number of ballots (including those that, in the final round, show no further preferences). This is because those ballots can still affect the outcome under many voting systems. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 07:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we should follow standard practice by reliable sources, and that these may vary from context to context. Closed Limelike Curves, can you show some examples in RS of what you want done? Bondegezou (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

RS? Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

There's not really a standard practice from reliable sources for this, because both numbers are correct; they just measure different things. The only time this causes a problem is when vote totals are inconsistent across infoboxes on Wikipedia, because excluding truncated ballots from some totals but not others leaves the door open for biases and confusion. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I think consistency in a series of articles about elections in the same place makes sense. I don’t think there’s a particular need for how we report Maltese elections to match how we report Australian elections if RS about the former do one thing and RS about the latter do another. I think instead of this very generic RfC, that most editors appear to be struggling to follow given the lack of activity in it, it would be more useful to examine specific cases. Bondegezou (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It's more that the reliable sources differ between media sources and academic sources. Journalists reporting election results tend to drop these kinds of ballots. Academic sources (scientific journals) consistently include them.

By the way, I should note that this is actually an extremely that's created no fewer than 6 edit wars and I'm utterly sick and tired of it. I'm describing this policy as vaguely and generically as possible, without mentioning any specifics or specific articles, because if I don't it'll probably start a flame war and the entire debate will fall back on partisan lines. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)