Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Standards for inclusion for election result maps in infoboxes

There has been an ongoing discussion from an edit war on the talk page for the 2020 United States presidential election in Pennsylvania due to the inclusion of maps of the election results in the infobox for catholic diocese and state patrols. Consensus appears to have resolved towards removing these maps and sticking with ostensibly political boundaries such as by county, municipality and precinct. However this issue has been brewing for a while and may require a general consensus from the community. What should the standard for inclusion be for maps in these infoboxes? Should maps of results using distinctly non-political boundaries be included in the page at all, if they can pass WP:REL? Dingers5Days (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Sticking with political boundaries seems to make sense, as those are the boundaries in which the votes would be counted. I don't see why other maps couldn't be included elsewhere in the article, assuming they passed WP:REL (and through it WP:DUE). That said, in this particular example, I don't see how either Catholic diocese or State patrols would pass that, given neither are mentioned in the Analysis section. CMD (talk) 02:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll note that it's not isolated to the 2020 Pennsylvania page; someone also tried adding it to the Presidential Election in North Carolina at a minimum. I think a simple standard is that maps within the infobox should be limited to divisions that encompass the entire electorate (so no city maps if only a fraction of people live within municipal boundaries) and divisions should be directly relevant to election administration (counties, municipalities/townships, voting districts). Stuart98 (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue we could also allow maps of Congressional Districts, in the American context, but I think that's more debatable. I should also note that the Catholic Diocese and State Patrols seem to be violations of WP:NOR. Planetberaure (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not opposed on principle to that, but would we allow maps of results by state house and state senate districts also within the infobox? State school board districts? County council/commission districts? If yes, wouldn't the infobox get excessively cluttered? If not, by what standard would some or all of those be 'No's while Congressional Districts are 'Yes's? Stuart98 (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

You're correct it would be a slippery slope, which is why I'm on the fence about it mostly. Planetberaure (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Strongly disagree that this is any sort of slippery slope. Results within state legislative district results have significant ramifications for redistricting, and every state has them, so it is a uniform standard. And county councils or whatever are not remotely comparable since that's a random local-only subdivision. Master of Time (talk) 02:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I feel that it should be 5 maps max: County, precinct, congressional, state house, state senate. Jenkowelten (talk) 04:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I think there's some states (New England, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, some midwestern states, maybe New York?) where municpal/township level results can be useful, with the caveat that often a single precinct will be coextensive with a single town so there is some potential redundancy. Stuart98 (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

True, but I think that should be the ultimate limit. 6 maps is pushing it. Jenkowelten (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

In Rhode Island, where counties are mainly judicial divisions and have no administrative functions or ruling bodies, a map showing just the five counties, while common, is really of very little use. Providence County, covering about 400 of the state's 1,003 square miles, and no less than half of the state's 1.1 million inhabitants, has both a densely-populated urban core around Providence, Pawtucket, Cranston and East Providence, and some very rural areas to the north and west. This kind of division also tends to cross the other four counties. Far more useful units are the 31 towns and 8 cities. The more Democratic-voting ones face Narragansett Bay and the Atlantic Ocean, while the inland towns are far more likely to vote Republican. (Similar results have appeared in maps of primary elections.) County maps show much less contrast, just as Pennsylvania's Roman Catholic diocese map shows only the crudest shadow of the famous H with Democratic Philadelphia and Pittsburgh separated by a huge less-urban middle. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean the 2022 United States House of Representatives election in Alaska has it by State House and that's been fine Alexcs114 (talk) 10:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

For "maps by subdivision" maps of Alaska, State House districts are taken as the standard (on the state election website, and also on NYT, etc.). This is probably because Alaska does not have counties like other states. Certain regions of Alaska are designated as boroughs (equivalent to counties), while large parts of the state are administered directly by the state with no county/borough level of government over those areas. See Boroughs and census areas of Alaska. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 10:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I had no idea. Good to know - Thanks! Alexcs114 (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I don't feel that it is original research since it isn't being discussed anywhere in the prose (plus I feel that standards are more flexible for images where more creative leeway is permitted), but it is nonetheless useless information. State legislative and congressional districts have plausible utility; Catholic dioceses and other irrelevant areas do not. Master of Time (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

We should recall MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which says an infobox’s purpose is to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). Some election article infoboxes (more outside the US than in) are becoming ridiculously bloated in size. An infobox needs to be a concise summary. An infobox should not have content that is not covered in the main text. We should be focusing on getting the main text right and only then thinking whether there’s something useful to be brought forward into the infobox. Too often, various maps are just being added willy-nilly to the infobox. Election articles generally suffer from a tendency by some editors to focus on tables, map and other diagrams rather than on actually writing prose. I’ve also seen lots of maps being added that are frankly unreadable when placed in an infobox. So, for all these reasons, I think we should keep maps in infoboxes to a minimum and we should require maps elsewhere in articles to have some reason for why they are there. Bondegezou (talk) 06:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I 100% agree with the above, we should be more then willing to add these to the main article instead, see 2012 United States presidential election for a great example on how to do this. Planetberaure (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I honestly wish that the infobox didn't contain any maps at all, but I doubt that'd be a popular proposal. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Not as gross as "Results by Diocese" but I don't think we need "Division results" either in an election infobox. See 2020 United States presidential election in Tennessee. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 11:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

What I said over on the talk page of the 2020 PA Election Map Fiasco:".

How about, instead of people making countless different iterations of a perfectly satisfactory map, y'all go need maps that actually need making? Have you considered that? Prior to 2018, none of the "United States House of Representatives in Pennsylvania" articles have county maps for the results in each district - Why don't y'all who care about PA so much start there? Or how about going even deeper, back to the 1990s and before, where some of the statewide elected offices need maps?

There is a chance to actually contribute and make a difference to races that haven't been mapped yet, but instead y'all waste time making the same map in countless different forms. ".

Let me also say:

Your average wikipedia user finds no value out of a map by Koppen Climate Types or Catholic Dioces. However, they may find use out of a map by county or precinct of an election that hasn't been mapped yet - of which there are thousands. Stop wasting time with nonsense maps, start contributing to the betterment of Humanity's knowledge index.
- However, this does not mean there isn't a time and place for certain niche maps. I acknowledge the argument that they can be useful for edge-cases with research, however I don't think we should encourage the development of these sorts of maps until the backlog of elections that need maps is cleared (off-topic, but somebody should create a list of elections that need maps). As such, there should at best be a section at the bottom of the article devoted to these sorts of niche maps, and nothing more.
Wikipedia is not a shitposting site! Our goal is to provide knowledge to the populous that can be trusted at a level of encyclopedic quality - not waste time and resources on nonsense. Alexcs114 (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, infoboxes should be limited to county results (State House districts in case of Alaska due to absence of regular counties; and possibly township results for certain New England states like Massachusetts which has even abolished some counties). All other maps should be limited to article body. Even those maps should be based on political subdivisions, like municipal boundaries, precincts, State House district, etc. No "Koppen climate" maps and no "Catholic diocese" maps. Persistent shitposting on Wikipedia should count as vandalism which it is, if you read Twitter discourse (see below section), you'll know. However, exception may exist for the latter category, if there is academic consensus that a certain preacher had a major electoral impact in their diocese or something. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 11:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

You're suggesting all the precinct maps be moved to the Results section of the article? Pinging @OrcaLord for input since they've been the main contributor of these maps. Stuart98 (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed Alexcs114 (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Think there's a good case to be made for allowing maps by districts in the infoboxes in some cases, such as when those districts are relevant to the result (e.g. allowing a map by US House districts for presidential races in Maine and Nebraska, or allowing a map by state house districts for a row office race in Mississippi pre-2020). I can also see a case for allowing maps by municipality and/or precinct in the infobox in addition to counties.

I agree that other maps that are by current political divisions should be included further down in the body. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I had not thought about ME/NE presidential elections when writing the above comment. I do agree that in cases of ME (from 1972) & NE (from 1992), results by congressional district have lots of encyclopedic merit and may be included in the infobox. Same goes for state house districts in MS, pre-2020. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Are precincts even an official administrative division? I’m genuinely not sure. Dingers5Days (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Precincts in most states don't have any governmental function but are the smallest reporting unit for election results, and therefore a map by them makes sense for the most detailed results possible. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

We seem in broad agreement. Can we summarise this discussion into some specific recommendations for editors? Like: if adding additional maps to an article, start by putting them in the main body of the article (possibly in a Maps section like at 2012 United States presidential election)...? Bondegezou (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe: "Infoboxes should not contain all maps of the election. Maps by county or county-equivalent should be included. Maps by municipality for some states may be included, if the entire state is divided into such municipalities. Maps by political districts may be included if the results in those political districts are relevant to the result of the election, such as for presidential elections in Maine and Nebraska. Other maps should be located further down in the article, usually in a 'Maps' section." Elli (talk | contribs) 16:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

There should be one map in an infobox: the county map. Adding others makes the infobox really congested, especially when viewing on mobile. That's not to say that other maps of municipalities, precincts, state legislative districts or what have you don't necessarily have encyclopedic merit, they just shouldn't be in the infobox. Perhaps a gallery section in or around the results section for the other maps would do. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello. The United States is not the only country in the world. I think it would be nice to have more general advice that can work internationally. Bondegezou (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Would something like "any map used in the infobox should be based on the administrative geography most typically used to illustrate this kind of election" be appropriate? We should avoid freelancing design decisions where possible, and this feels like quite an easy place to avoid editorialising. Ralbegen (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

It's hard to come up with a unified standard. Something like this?

Infoboxes for elections should generally include only one or two maps, a map of results by commonly used political and/or administrative division and, if applicable, a map of seats or electoral votes won in each relevant constituency.
Additional maps of results should go either in a page's Results section or in a dedicated Maps section. Such maps should be restricted to showing results by election-relevant divisions, such as municipalities and voting districts.

Not totally happy with this, would appreciate more suggestions. Stuart98 (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

No more than one map per infobox, I suggest. I think the optimal number of maps per infobox is 0-1. Often 0. Bondegezou (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking of two main examples where multiple maps might be needed:

Elections like the aforementioned ones in Maine and Nebraska or Mississippi row offices where winning particular electoral districts was relevant to winning the election.
Countries and subnational units that use a hybrid multi member and single member district electoral system to elect legislative assemblies.

Stuart98 (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Probably makes more sense to only set a standard for the US here, since that's what's in dispute. A global standard would require much more discussion and more edge-cases. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

If we're only establishing a guideline rather than a binding rule, specific international edge-cases can probably just be addressed individually. Stuart98 (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm unaffiliated with this project; just a note: This is a WikiProject; any consensus reached here would be at most a guideline. Any rule would require changes to the MOS; what's best is probably a well-advertised RfC to establish consensus, which supersedes guidelines. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 21:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll repeat the views I have made on Talk:2020 United States presidential election in Pennsylvania. My recommendation for a guideline would be that infoboxes should normally only include election maps depicting results in the constituencies or administrative units, at which results are actually reported at. In statwide elections in the United States, this is normally counties, precincts, and for some states, municipalities. For elections in other countries, the same principle can normally be applied. So for example, the election map used on 2019 United Kingdom general election uses constituencies, while the one on 2022 French presidential election depicts results by departments, regions, and overseas collectivities, all of which are units at which the result is officially reported at. Gust Justice (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems that the discussion has died down without a conclusion. It also seems that we all more or less agree in what the standards should be. So, I think we can elevate Elli's suggested language above to a guideline. Or an RfC for MOS level as suggested above, though I think that it is pretty much a logical extension of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, so a full RfC might not be needed. I also think we should not attempt to come up with a general guideline for all countries because each country holds elections in different manners and has different standards on what subdivision level the results are best reported presented in. Better to attend the issue in a country-by-country manner when needed. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 09:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Works for me, so long as the language Elli suggested wouldn't prohibit maps of like state legislatures in alaska's case, where counties aren't used Alexcs114 (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Alaska is definitely an edge case. Can see an argument both for state house maps and for borough maps; state house maps probably make more sense given that's the reporting unit but the downside is you can't easily compare between years. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

My thought is that in most cases, one map is appropriate - at the scale that reflects how the results are usually reported (states for US presidential elections, counties for US statewide elections, precincts for legislative, county, or municipal election). In limited edge cases, a second map may be added to the infobox. --Enos733 (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on whether or not to include being CEO, host, author, etc under Candidate Experience

I've started a discussion regarding this at Talk:2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries, which has more troublesome entries. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

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) 13:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Category:Former electoral districts of Northwest Territories

Please see Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Category:Former electoral districts of Northwest Territories. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 13:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox images

Input would be welcome on a dispute on infobox images (there is disagreement about whether there is a standard practice to use images close to the election or not). Cheers, Number 5 7 20:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

"Template:Election summary net total" is a misnomer

UndueMarmot (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Bar chart (not in Results section)

Referring to the bar charts in 2022 Malaysian general election section "2020–22 political crisis" and "Dissolution of parliament", I decided to add one in 2023 Thai general election but was reverted by @Number 57: due to "Reason = it looks awful and adds nothing. Consensus is required to retain recent additions, not to delete them." [1] (I can still remember when the "personal preference" remark was thrown at me.)

The latest edit was really disturbing since he had not point to any standards, guidelines or discussions, and there were questions that I need answers:

Are there any prior discussions regarding whether bar charts indicating seats and camps (not including in the Results) could be included in articles?
Is it now a norm that an admin can impose a standard not uniformly accepted throughout election-related articles? Because it really seems that "don't follow awful examples" rationale is given too leisurely. And I just found out that by the last edit by Number 57 on the 2022 Malaysian election [2] there had said format already and so he implicitly agree to that consensus per policy.

Horus (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not "imposing a standard". I simply reverted one of your additions to the article because I thought it was awful and asked you to respect WP:BRD when you tried to force it back in. And regarding the Malaysian article, this is the diff of the edit you're referring to. I removed the turnout figure from the infobox because it didn't match the one in the results table. Number 5 7 17:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

We've talked about diagrams like this at the UK politics wikiproject talk page [3]a couple of years agoy. They have display issues (try making your window narrow and see how it distorts). There are better ways of making this kind of information available to users that are less opaque, like tables. Ralbegen (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It was also touched on at this project last year. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

These charts can be helpful to illustrate certain majority thresholds, but I would favour pie charts for this. I guess any chart that does not cause the issue mentioned by Ralbegen, should be preferred for our readers sake. ΙℭaℜuΣatthe☼ (talk). 10:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

If there's already a hemicycle diagram or similar, that should be used instead of anything else. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I have read the discussion link posted by Kawnhr, and thank you for clarification. So now I know bar charts are discouraged anywhere in election-related articles. As for the Malaysian election bar chart, let's see if the removal became consensus, I'm fine if standards are the same everywhere. --Horus (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Constituency locator maps in UK parliamentary by-election articles

User:Kawnhr, User:Bondegezou, User:XxLuckyCxX

Since there isn't a central article dedicated to the numerous by-elections to the 2019 parliament, this is a good alternative. I would like to discuss a matter concerning the removal of locator maps from some of the parliamentary by-election articles. Although I too initially doubted the purpose of them. My views have changed. Instead of purely decorative, these maps can help readers unfamiliar with the local geography locate the relevant constituencies. It has been the consensus to include these maps in by-election articles since the 2005-2010 parliament at the latest. Before implementing widespread changes and deleting images en mass, I suggest we reach a new consensus on this matter. Your input and guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Please help tag more users, thanks!(talk) 05:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

We are having that discussion in the section immediately above. Bondegezou (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

This conversation is happening above, and I only ramped up my editing efforts as a new consensus began to take shape. I may have been a bit bold in going forward, but being bold is allowed. I don't understand the admonishment here. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Elections in Cuba

An RFC is running at Talk:Elections in Cuba on whether to change the lede sentence. You are encouraged to take part in this RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

RM Re: October surprise conspiracy theory

There is currently a discussion as to how to retitle the page October surprise conspiracy theory, which is part of this WikiProject. A prior RFC closed with a consensus to change the name of the page, but those supporting the change were roughly split between two options: 1980 October surprise theory and 1980 October surprise allegations. In a follow-up discussion, the vast majority of editors said that they would prefer either name, but a few expressed an opinion for just one or the other. As such, we are seeking wider community input. Thanks for reading!--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Non-map images in infobox's map section

Just now I was browsing and landed on 2021 North Shropshire by-election (as you do), and saw that the infobox had been bloated by the addition of a constituency map (not results of the election in this constituency; just a map of the constituency, in relation to the county) and a bar graph of the results. I saw this as at odds with not only MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE (summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article), but also the parameter itself — it's map, not any image you'd like to include. So I moved the images into the body, where they were more suited. But then I noticed that this appears to be extremely common in UK by-election articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. (Others mercifully do not include the bar graph, but still have a useless constituency map, eg). Suddenly this doesn't seem like something I can — or maybe even should — be changing by myself. I know this has come up recently, but I didn't see anything in the archives about a dedicated discussion about these images. So, unless I missed it (in which case I'd appreciate a link), I think we ought to have a discussion on whether these images belong in the infobox or not.

I'm opposed, obviously. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I would support moving these images out of the infobox too. We have too many bloated infoboxes. They were never intended to be so big. Bondegezou (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Would also support this. I occasionally come across parliamentary diagrams stuffed into the map function as well... Cheers, Number 5 7 21:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

These do not belong in the infobox. The bar chart also represents a trend of text-heavy, overpopulated graphics that I'm not sure benefit articles in any location, especially the infobox. Ralbegen (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure either graphic needs to be in the article at all. The bar graph is just duplicate information: the results section already tells me the swing! The map of the constituency is more relevant, but doesn't actually provide any clarity or context that isn't gained by just clicking the link to that constituency. I'd junk both of them entirely, but I thought that might garner pushback. — Kawnhr (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I think including a map of the constituency is quite useful for the geographical context at a glance and to add a little more detail, but I agree with others that the bar charts are not really needed in either the infobox or the rest of the article. At most, there could be a inbuilt bar graph, but even this seems unnecessary. Quinby (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand that context can be helpful, but at the same time: we aren't writing for a newspaper or an election analyst site, but an all-encompassing encyclopedia — a reader who is curious about the location and boundaries of the constituency can visit the constituency's own article, which we have and which is conveniently linked in the lede. Still, if the constituency map absolutely must be included in the article, it should be in the body and not the infobox. The map parameters are for maps of results, ie something directly related to the election. It's not like UK general elections include a map of the UK in relation to Europe. — Kawnhr (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Some map files have built in bar and pie graphs. I also oppose such, and if it's a map, it should only be that, but this is rather widespread. Howard the Duck (talk) 03:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Some maps/images become very dense with information, but end up being unreadable at the size they are displayed in an infobox. We should crack down on that. Basic usability has to come first. Bondegezou (talk) 12:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree; I'd keep images on election results infoboxes to maps (if it makes sense for information to be presented that way) or parliamentary seat diagrams, and never both, and never with graphs and charts. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Infoboxes must be concise, as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The usual election infoboxes list results in a tabular form. I can't see the argument to repeat the results in another form (i.e. graphical), so I would say no to even parliamentary seat diagrams. (A map is adding information, so that's OK.) Bondegezou (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

People are different and process information differently. We should at least cater to multiple kinds of people. Also, some elections cannot be expressed cartographically (or can be deceiving when denoted with maps); this is where parliamentary seat diagrams are handy, but yes, it's should be either-or, and not both at the same time. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement. I'm all for presenting information in multiple forms in the main body of the article. We cannot do so within an infobox that is meant to be concise. As per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. Bondegezou (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, I saw a map so cluttered the other day that it was practically unreadable. Maps should be clear, concise, and to the point: An explanation of the results belongs in the body paragraph of an article, and the explanation of map shading belongs in the map caption. Alexcs114 :) 18:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: not having maps/diagrams/charts all in the infobox also needs to mean not including a map that has diagrams, charts, tables, turnout figures, shading by leading party voteshare, legend within the image itself, and so on. Text not strictly necessary for e.g. additional members and zoom-boxes also tend to make maps harder to follow for minimal gain. I don't want to single out any user because a few of them do this, but there has been a proliferation over the last few years of maps which have multiple shades of each party and tables and lots of English-language text and extraneous extra facts. These can be confusing, unclear, and break rules of data visualisation. Where we include maps in infoboxes, these should show the winner of each geographical division according to the standard party colour. Additional heatmaps could make sense in the body of the article but only where they are for a single party and contain a small number of shades. We need to not just be cautious about including only one single (appropriate) type of image in election infoboxes but we also need to make sure we're doing it effectively with minimal complications. Ralbegen (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely opposed to having these non-map images in the infobox. The only images in the infobox (99% of the time) should be maps and photos of the candidates. Alexcs114 :) 18:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The map parameter should be only used for maps that contain election results, as already stated in the template documentation. Vacant0 (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Since nearly everyone is in agreement here, I'm going to make another pass at removing these. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good - I started an RFC on a similar matter also. Alexcs114 :) 02:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Content assessment

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Chris Pincher, recall petition

Hey all

Pincher has been recommended an 8 week suspension by the Standards Committee. I've created 2023 Tamworth recall petition as a redirect page to Chris Pincher scandal for the time being. doktorb _words^deeds 08:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

By-election article index

With the news about Tamworth potentially having a recall petition and maybe a by-election that puts immense pressure on this project. Keep an eye out for IP editors, they can be party campaigners wanting to edit candidates for their own ends; keep an eye on candidate lists, sometimes candidates are moved to the top, out of ballot paper order.

As a summary/index, we're currently looking after:

Good luck everybody! We're not usually this busy outside a general election year, and I think we're doing a pretty good job doktorb _words^deeds 08:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Several Pirate Party branches nominated for deletion

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirate Party (Ireland). There is a proposal that several Pirate Party chapter articles be deleted on the basis they never had notability beyond their initial founding. CeltBrowne (talk) 02:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Pages consisting of nothing but tables of vote counts

User:Not Another NPC has been creating many pages consisting of nothing but tables of vote counts from various Australian elections, with no other text in the articles. I think that WP isn't a good place for this kind of raw data without any context to explain their significance. See his user contributions, and Electoral results for the Division of Bass (state) for a specific example. (Some of his pages provide context, but others don't.) I've asked him about this on his talk page and he says he's following precedent. Are pages like these appropriate for Wikipedia? - Brian Kendig (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems to be common for historical results of electoral divisions in Australia to get their own articles. Not sure why this is, but I haven't encountered it for any other country. I would prefer all of these pages be merged to the articles of the divisions themselves.-- Earl Andrew - talk 18:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah this article should absolutely be merged into Division of Bass (state), not as a separate page – that's the whole point of having individual articles for the divisions/districts in the first place, as a place to compile the electoral results. Reywas92^Talk 21:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Is it right to have all of that data in Wikipedia in the first place, though? Wikipedia doesn't seem to be the right place for tabulations of every election for the past century down to the candidates who got a few percent of a vote. That seems to be too much detail that doesn't promote any particular understanding, though I can't find any Wikipedia guidelines specifically against it. - Brian Kendig (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course it is! Wikipedia is not paper. Ideally not only would we have results from every election, but prose for every election too, detailing the major candidates and other highlights from the race.-- Earl Andrew - talk 12:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough! Thank you very much! - Brian Kendig (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd say that having elections results from 100 years ago is more important than having modern results. There are a lot of resources for modern elections, but with old elections more often than not the only resources are non digitized books or a hand written document in PDF. Having them in Wikipedia is the only easy accesss of those results. Yilku1 (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Ballot paper order

I've got a point of contention with User:Chris55. I've always believed that for UK by-election articles, the rule is using ballot paper order (that is alphabetical by surname). This reflects reality and does not open accusations of bias by changing the order. What are people's opinions? doktorb _words^deeds 08:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m no expert on electoral conventions. I just find it odd if a person can invent their surname just to get to the top of the ballot list. Doktorb says it’s a ballot list, and I assume he’s extrapolating from the published list of candidates. If indeed this is part of electoral law I’m happy to let him have his way as I already have. Chris55 (talk) 08:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer ballot order (if it is uniform throughout the constituency), else alphabetical by surname. In very rare cases, status of party or incumbency/most recent vote share may be considered (as in pre-election infoboxes). However, there are, I believe, no hard rules, so editorial judgement and consensus among editors take precedence. However, the order should be chosen so that the chance of bias is least. Someone may invent a surname to jump up the list but that would be a very rare occurrence, but artificially placing a candidate at the top has greater chances of introducing bias because every editor would want their preferred candidate on top. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we should stick to ballot paper order when ballot papers are uniform, otherwise alphabetically by surname according to how the candidates are listed on ballot papers. Ralbegen (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

If we're talking about a list with of candidates before the election itself, then alphabetical is fine (excluding the infobox), but if we're talking about the results themselves, the candidates should be in order of how many votes they received (for a FPTP election).-- Earl Andrew - talk 14:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm talking about. I know there's some disagreement about the infobox (the perennial 5% rule debate!). But this was just about the results box and it looks like my understanding of consensus is correct. doktorb _words^deeds 15:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Post-election results box should always be ordered by votes. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Clarify the 5% rule for parliamentary elections

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached that WP:5%R should not be strictly implemented for parliamentary elections. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is meant to add onto the discussion surrounding the 5% rule for election infoboxes. This general guideline has traditionally been applied to American candidate-based elections, but more recently, RfCs have been created about parliamentary and party-based elections as well, and the general consensus has seemingly been to apply to the 5% rule to these elections in some form. However, in the context of elections like the 2021 Canadian federal election (more specifically, the discussion on whether or not to include the PPC in the infobox), there still seems to remain some ambiguity. For example, if a party elects 0 candidates and receives less than 5% of the popular vote, but also receives some form of "substantial" media attention or is included in debates, should the 5% rule apply? How subjective and case-by-case should the 5% rule be in the case of parliamentary elections and parties that don't elect any candidates? What "exemptions" should apply, and how should they be decided upon?

I hope that a productive discussion with a new consensus can be reached from this RfC! AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

After the results concerning the 2021 Canadian federal election infobox? I no longer have much faith in the 5% or 1 seat inclusion criteria, concerning Westminster parliamentary systems. But, I'll repeat my position, on this general topic. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Survey (5% rule)

Support - enforcing the 5% or 1 seat criteria, for the infoboxes of parliamentary elections. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
To clarify, do you believe that there should be any exemption given for a party with particular media noteworthiness, or debate inclusion, or not? AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
No exemptions. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment I don't think a percentage of the vote is particularly relevant for parliamentary elections. I would say the threshold for inclusion is winning a seat (by and large, the rule of thumb in most articles has been to exclude parties not winning seats, although there are always a few exceptions). Also, can we clarify that the scope of this discussion is limited to articles where {{Infobox election}} is used. Cheers, Number 5 7 19:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. I think we should be using reliable sources to determine which parties are 'major' enough to warrant inclusion in infoboxes. 5% May make sense for certain countries like Germany which has a 5% threshold for seats, but might make less sense for Canada, which has a 4% threshold for leaders' debate inclusion. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

What sort of reliable sources do you propose should be consulted for each election, in a manner that could theoretically apply site-wide to all countries with a parliamentary system? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AwesomeSaucer9 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose while I think the 5% or 1 seat rule is a good guideline, there are cases where a party gets just under 5% but warrants inclusion (oftentimes the party would place higher in popular vote than a party with below 5% that won a seat). A strict rule like this won't help us improve articles. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
What cases do you have in mind? And how do we determine if they apply to specific elections or countries or parties in particular? AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
The 2021 Canadian federal election, for example. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Then my follow-up questions would be: what about the 2021 Canadian election and the PPC warrant its inclusion for the infobox, and how could these aspects be prescribed to other elections in other countries on a more regular basis? AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
See the RfC in which it was decided to include the PPC for the answer to this question.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Support. Exceptions will lead to never ending debates for inclusion. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - This is the latest attempt to impose a strict 5% rule, something that this project has refused to do many times before (see archives). This latest attempt follows a discussion at Talk:2021 Canadian federal election in which it was looking like a consensus was emerging not to reconsider the previous consensus to include a party in the infobox that had received 4.94% (and widespread coverage during the election). Strict rules make for bad articles. There is a reason ignore all rules is a thing. As has been said in many of these discussions before, ultimately our guide is MOS:INFOBOX which says an infobox is meant to be a summary of an article, and by extension the WP:RS covering it (because of WP:DUE). The 5% rule has always been a guideline. It is more strictly applied when a party achieves 5%, because the reasoning goes such a party clearly played a significant role in the election, and was covered extensively in reliable sources. If a party receives 5% it is a significant party, and almost certainly belongs in the infobox. The opposite is not necessarily true. A party that falls short of 5% might belong in the infobox, despite falling short, because they nonetheless played a significant role in the election. Maybe it won seats. Maybe it resulted in significant vote splits that decided the fate of other parties. Maybe it experienced a significant fall from power or grace, "imploding" (ie a governing party or other major party that ceases to become a significant force following that election). It that case, the downfall *is* part of the story of the election. Maybe it should be included for other reasons that can only be determined by reference to the specific election and coverage in RS. Another exception to the "5% rule" that we have recognized is where only one candidate receives over 5% (ie where there is a massive landslide) but where the election was contested. In that case only having one person/party in the infobox would make it look like it was an acclamation, so we (as a project) decided to include the next highest candidate/party (even though they are under 5%) - see the 2017 RfC on this project page. Personally, I think this RfC should be snow closed. The topic has been debated countless times. Every time, the community has refused to impose a strict rule. How could we when we have a policy like WP:IAR? At best the "5% Rule" can be a guideline, which must be considered and applied by editors considering the specific election in question, and the article in question (and content there) and the RS covering that election.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
While I do oppose codifying this, nothing about the previous discussions justifies a WP:SNOW close (this isn't a landslide in either direction and does merit more discussion), and WP:IAR does not preclude us from having established guidelines. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Sure, WP:IAR doesn't restrict guidelines, but what I am interpreting this as is an attempt to require strict adherence to the "5% Rule". This seems like an attempt to override the consensus reached at Talk:2021 Canadian federal election. If I am wrong about that, I am not sure what the point of the discussion is. If I am not, then I think trying to impose a strict rule is a WP:SNOW issue. There have been many discussions on this and there just hasn't been consensus to impose a strict rule (and ignore everything else), and I don't see how you square a strict rule with ignoring rules.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
There hasn't been a site-wide discussion around the specific rules and allowed exemptions for the 5% rule when applied to parliamentary elections. The archived discussions you linked are certainly helpful, but I wouldn't call them perfectly relevant here. I think this discussion is worth having, and there seems to be a reasonably diverse set of opinions here. If, over the next few days, a clearer consensus emerges with how it should be applied (and to be perfectly honest, I don't think just saying "IAR" is strict enough in this case), I'm happy to close it. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
What exactly are you hoping to accomplish with this RfC? In the previous discussion at 2021 Canadian federal election you seemed to be arguing for a strict guideline (ie we must always abide by the 5% rule, no exceptions). Here you seem to be doing that, but also hedging your bets in seeking some sort of codification of the types of exceptions (if any). Sorry, I just don't see the point if all we are going to come back to as always, appropriate exceptions may be made via local consensus as was the case in the the 2021 RfC. There was a pretty clear local consensus to include the PPC at the 2021 article, which you now seem to take issue with, so are you looking for a strict rule, a codification of all the types of exceptions, or something else?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, at first I was opposed to exemptions, but now I'm somewhat convinced, though I still would personally like something more formal than "leave it up to the pages themselves", which essentially renders the rule entirely moot. You've got idiosyncrasies like the 2021 Canadian election, but also the 2015 United Kingdom general election in which legitimately notable parties aren't included. That doesn't make sense. I'm hoping that there can be some sort of consensus around the individual cases other than "eh, I dunno." AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I think the answer to that is as Howard the Duck says below, different rules for different countries/jurisdictions. I don't think the Canada consensus is the same as that in the UK where there are a handful of regional parliamentary parties that usually only receive a few seats and less than 5% of the vote. Some of these parties historically refuse to even take their seats in Parliament (ie Sinn Féin, as protest for Irish independence). Anyway, I don't think local guidelines be it the "5% rule" or the "5% or a seat" rule are easily translated across jurisdictions.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

(e/c) Can you link to the archives where this has been discussed with regards to parliamentary elections, because I only recall it being discussed for presidential/mayoral elections, and couldn't find any discussions re this being applied to parliamentary elections. Also, this is clearly not a snow close as it is currently 3–3 in terms of support/oppose. Cheers, Number 5 7 19:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I may be wrong about it being discussed on this project. There was discussion in this 2021 RfC which sought to apply to all elections, but it's closing summary recognized different principles may apply to parliamentary/party-list elections and as always, appropriate exceptions may be made via local consensus. There have been many discussion on WP:CANADA and/or Canadian election articles about a "5% or seat" general rule. Which has always been loosely applied based on various factors including whether a party is allowed to participate in official debates, whether they had a seat at the time of dissolution etc. I will provide specific wikilinks when I have a moment. I didn't call *snow* because of the votes prior to my comment. I was calling it based on prior discussions (this horse seems sufficiently beaten to me), and my view that this appears to be an attempt to override the RfC consensus at Talk:2021 Canadian federal election, an RfC which was widely participated in. Perhaps, those editors should be notified of this RfC.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
The 2021 RfC linked was not about *all* elections, but about all elections of candidates rather than parliamentary elections. Also, the last discussion on the PPC is from 2021, and consensus can change. Cheers, Number 5 7 21:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, CCC. I said so myself in the earlier discussion that spawned this one. However, that is not how that discussion seemed to be going before this RfC was opened, and the nominator sought to close "without consensus" the discussion there, or otherwise withdraw it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with Howard the Duck and Elli that these rules should only be general guidelines that have to be adapted to their respective election circumstances, since the context in which elections take place, i.e. the election law and standards of what is notable, varies from country to country. ΙℭaℜuΣatthe☼ (talk). 19:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. 5%/1 seat is a good guideline, but it shouldn't be taken as an absolute; local context and coverage ought to be taken into consideration, too. If the purpose of Wikipedia is to reflect the sources, it doesn't make sense to insist upon a criteria for displaying results if it put us at odds with how the mainstream is reporting those same results. That doesn't mean we should abandon the rule — as said, I think it is a very good guideline; it does a good job at keeping infoboxes a reasonable size, and being able to point to it also helps fight against editors trying to push their favourite microparty — but that there will be times when a strict application of it may not be the best route, and situations like that call for a local debate. The Canadian example that kicked off this RfC is, I think, a good example of this working out in practice. Yes, the PPC fell below 5% — but its performance still received considerable coverage in the press, so it would be remiss for Wikipedia to not mention that. Another editor has noted that the Canadian Leaders' Debate Commission sets a requirement of 4% for invitations to debates — and is 4% really any less arbitrary than 5%? For better or worse, Canadian election coverage is very charitable to small parties — routinely included in polling and seat projections, invited to debates, etc — so if Wikipedia is following the sources, we have to be, too. But don't think I'm trying to carve out some special exemption for Canada here. Consider the UK. If you go back through their general elections, you'll see it's common for parties outside the big three to win seats: from the Irish parties to the nationalists in Scotland or Wales to truly minor parties like the Greens, RESPECT or Health Concern. Yet, you won't find them in the infoboxes, presumably because their victories are minor in the grand scheme of things and they garner little attention. From a Canadian perspective, this is very odd — any party winning seats would be getting press! — but ultimately our countries have different political environments and I trust that our UK editors are accurately reflecting theirs by having (what I see as) a slightly higher standard for inclusion. Given every country will have its own political environment, a simple one-size-fits-all rule is not ideal, and we should allow local editors to bend the guideline to better reflect that. — Kawnhr (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
The UK seems like an interesting case because, at least in the case of the 2015 United Kingdom general election, UKIP is not included, even though it received well above 5% of the overall popular vote, elected one MP, and received substantial media attention. Do you think that UKIP should be included in that infobox? AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I think UKIP should be included in that infobox, yes — getting third in the popular vote, outpolling the "traditional" third-party, is a notable performance, even if it didn't translate into seats. Moreover, that performance, both in sheer votes and how it didn't translate, was a notable story in post-election aftermath, so including them in the infobox would be reflecting what the article covers. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I would generally agree, but I am not sure how you include them and their one seat (even with their 12.6% notable performance) and exclude the regional parties that received more seats (see results). You can't have all twelve or thirteen (if you count the independent speaker) in the infobox. My understanding is that it is only coded for nine anyway. Even just including Sinn Féin, Plaid Cymru, the Social Democratic & Labour Party and the Ulster Unionist Party with UKIP is going to make for a pretty bloated infobox. Seems like an imperfect compromise whatever you do there, unless someone designs a new elections infobox where you can alternate between seats and popular vote.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Considering the Nordic countries' infoboxes, I don't think it'd be bad. Moreover, if it truly does feel bloated, it might be better to use the abbreviated infobox format that's often used in Dutch and Danish elections. This is probably a discussion better suited for that specific page, though. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I think this might be proving how a hard-and-fast rule isn't ideal for parliamentary elections (or, at least, ones that don't use proportional voting systems) — Kawnhr (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Multi-party democracies should generally use {{Infobox legislative election}} like 2023 Thai general election. Look how well-summarised and elegant the presented information looks. I cannot imagine how bloated a normal election infobox would be with 10 parties. Honestly, leader's picture really doesn't add a lot of value to the infobox, especially when it leads to the important stuff being lost, so it should be switched. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 07:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I just realised something. Traditionally, the first image of an article is the image visible on mobile site search results, vector-2022 search results, and article summaries that appear on hovering over wikilinks. Usually, that is the picture of the leading party's leader. But, in the Thai example, the map is the first image presented, thus the electoral map is one appearing everywhere. Small but significant improvement. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 07:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed: I favour more use of the {{Infobox legislative election}} too. It is more compact while showing the important information. It does what an infobox is supposed to do. Bondegezou (talk) 08:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
There are some instances where that template cannot be used, like if there are staggered elections, although I'd like to see it get features for things like that. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

This template seems like an improvement for countries with >9 parties, though I still prefer using the traditional one that has pictures of party leaders for articles such as 2021 Canadian federal election (since as Howard the Duck said, some countries, including Canada, are more personality-focused). Elli (talk | contribs) 21:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Some places are more personality based, hence showing the picture is rather important. There's a rough guide where less parties = more important the person is (i.e. things like the U.S. where the leaders of the two parties are well-known, vs. an evenly-divided legislature where there are so many parties and leaders, no one has the space for all), although that's not always the case. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. While this can certainly be a general guideline, there should be a case-by-case exemption due to variances in election procedures. If a candidate under 5% is WP:DUE, they should be included. Prcc27 (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Support I support enforcing the 5% or 1 seat criteria for infoboxes in all elections, including parliamentary elections. If parties got media coverage that can be discussed in the body of the article, not the infobox. Infoboxes should be narrowly focused, which aligns with my earlier RFC above regarding Maps. Alexcs114 :) 14:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
So would you have UK elections include all parties that win seats, even regional ones that receive well under 1% of the national vote? Would you include Sinn Féin even if they refuse to actually take their seat(s)? Or are you just saying that winning a seat should be a minimal criteria to be considered to be included in the infobox? What about parties that have seats before the election, and are then wiped out? Should we show their downfall?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, No, No, and Yes, if we were applying this to the UK (Which we aren't to my knowledge, then again this is the issue with not setting standards per-country) Alexcs114 :) 12:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose It's a good guideline, but it shouldn't be strictly implemented, as there can be election with parties which warrants inclusion.--Aréat (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Note - Since there hasn't been any comments here in over two weeks, I have asked for a close at Wikipedia:Closure requests.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (5% rule)

Just like almost all of the discussions here, shouldn't this be done on a per-nation or jurisdiction basis? Every country can be argued as unique, and standards in A may not apply in B. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that does seem to have been the conclusion of this 2021 RfC which was closed with a summary that recognized different principles may apply to parliamentary/party-list elections and as always, appropriate exceptions may be made via local consensus.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Number 57, there has been a long standing general rule of thumb for Canadian election articles (which is often ignored) that says following an election a party is included in an infobox if it has won a seat or 5% of the vote. Looking through the federal and provincial/territorial articles you will find they generally follow this rule, with exceptions like if a party lost a seat we include them, or considerations like did they make it into official debates, or did they get virtually 5% and had significant coverage in RS. The 5% rule seems to be pretty strictly applied in US election, though even there in nomination races there seems to be some exceptions where a candidate falls short but receives delegates. My understanding is that 5% or a seat is generally not followed in UK elections, but might be in others like New Zealand or Germany where they have a legislative threshold for seats (often 5%). Admittedly, I don't often edit UK or European elections articles. I view, rightly or wrongly, this RfC at mainly targeted at the Canadian experience as it seems to be an attempt to override the previous consensus at Talk:2021 Canadian federal election. Anyway, in answer to your question about where this has been discussed these are some of the discussions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. It is certainly, certainly not an exhaustive list of the Canadian experience, I would need to go through all the archives for all of the Canadian federal, provincial and territorial elections to do that (and perhaps party leadership elections too). As far as I know, there has not been a specific RfC on WP:CANADA about that just passing discussions on the PPC issue, or notices to discussions on article pages. I don't purport to be an expert on other elections, as I have said, but as far as I know the 5% rule has not been rigidly applied outside of US elections.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I favour retaining some flexibility to reflect the circumstances of different elections. The infobox is a summary of the article. If the article has good reasons to give substantial coverage to a party, then it’s reasonable for the infobox to represent that. The example I think about is if a major party deliberately boycotts an election in a state without fair and free elections: the best way to represent that is to still mention the boycotting party in the infobox. That said, elections are about winning seats. Most of the time, in regular Parliamentary elections in free and fair democracies, the cut-off for inclusion for a party should be winning a seat, not a percentage of the vote. The purpose of an election is not to get media coverage or to be included in a debate. An election is about choosing who sits in the Parliament. Parties should be ordered by seats won and the natural cut-off is winning seats versus not winning seats. Bondegezou (talk) 06:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion at Talk:Opinion polling for the 2023 Spanish general election § What happened to the References?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Opinion polling for the 2023 Spanish general election § What happened to the References?. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Article seems to have gotten too big and is now having formatting and display issues. Users more familiar with this type of article probably should take a look at it and help figure out what to leave in and what to leave out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Potential sockpuppetry to change B&W images to AI-colored ones at US presidential election articles

See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Sussyfist69. And discussions on Talk:1960 United States presidential election & Talk:1968 United States presidential election. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry confirmed. I suspect there are more socks out there so please take appropriate care when involving in discussions about image changes on presidential election articles. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

2023 Warrandyte state by-election

Perhaps some members of this WikiProject could take a look at 2023 Warrandyte state by-election and may be help resolve the content dispute taking place over which candidates to include. I came across the article via discussion at WP:COIN#2023 Warrandyte state by-election and know nothing about Austrailian elections. I tried to revert back to the last stable version because of a host of formatting and syntax errors that were being introduced by one of the participants in the dispute, but the errors got subsequently re-added when my edited was reverted. Eventually, WP:3RR will come into play if things keep going as they are. — Marchjuly (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I've put the article on extended confirmed protection for a month. It's clear there is at least one editor editing on behalf of a candidate and possibly more. Also restored correctly formatted version. Cheers, Number 5 7 07:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this Number 57. Just for reference, appears to be in response to something you posted, but was added to the wrong COIN thread. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Considering what we saw in the aftermath of the 2020 US presidential election, I think highlighting the standards of citations on this project will be helpful, but I'd appreciate more views on this. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Opinion polling in [country] – a major gap in Wikipedia's coverage?

We of course have a general article on opinion polls and relevant concepts like poll aggregator. We have a lot of lists compiling specific opinion polling data: Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 United States presidential election and countless similar. We have a lot of articles on individual pollsters: YouGov, Ipsos and so on, even a list of polling organizations broken down by country. We have Category:Opinion polling by country, containing Category:Opinion polling in the United States, etc.

But, as far as I can tell, we have no articles on opinion polling as practiced in each country, despite the topics surely being overwhelming notable. There are literal multi-volume encyclopedias dedicated to the subject of opinion polling in the United States, yet that's a redlink!

Before I invest any time into writing these articles, I just want to make sure I haven't overlooked anything obvious – whether there is coverage under unusual or unexpected titles. Because in a lot of ways this seems like the Wikipedia equivalent of finding $100 on the ground. – Teratix ₵ 23:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC about party colours

How should party colours (as stored in (e.g.) Module:Political party/A and used in infoboxes, results tables etc) be determined? By the dominant colour of the logo or via colours used for the party in the media. Number 5 7 10:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the best solution to this is to make it an individual thing for each party. If we were to say that all party colors should be based on their logo's, we'd have to change a lot of colors on the page. If the logo color makes sense (makes parties stand out from other parties) we can have it, but if the logo is the only thing that associates a party with that color, it should be possible to change the color to another, if the media portrays them with another color.

Cheers, Thomediter (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Philippine political party colors are not even based on logos; some were based on a discussion almost 2 decades ago (LOL). We tried changing this a few years ago, had a discussion about this, even had consensus for changes, but was reverted because the current colors are so entrenched, and that the some of the colors are different from the current ones. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Check out my project on fixing this. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

As for the answer on the question, party colors should correspond to actual usage IRL, as per WP:RS. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It depends. What the party themselves uses is a good starting point but shouldn't be the only consideration. For example, if a party uses the same colour as another party, it's a good idea to use different colour in the interest of clarity (eg: Die Linke officially uses red, but they're customarily depicted as purple — on Wiki and elsewhere — so as not to be confused with the much larger SPD.) And of course there's parties that use multiple colours, where deciding which of them to use is best done by looking at what the media or legislature uses (eg: the German FDP uses three colours in its logo, but we've settled on yellow, because that's what's used by the Bundestag and so on).

Also, I don't think we should necessarily stick to the exact shade used in a logo — we can adjust it slightly in order to better stand out among other parties, or to be less eye-searing. The colours we use for Canadian parties are paler than what the logos use, and I think we're better for it. — Kawnhr (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The problem with sticking too closely to official colours can be seen at 2022 Israeli legislative election. The top three parties use near-identical shades of dark blue, making it impossible to distinguish information at a glance. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, exactly that is the problem with logo colors.

I also used these images to argue for why I think Red-Green Alliance should use orange. It's much easier to distungish the parties if different colors are used. In the diagram called current, it's too difficult to see whether the lowest two dots are one or two parties and in my proposal it's clear that it is two different parties.

(current)

(my proposal) Thomediter (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It's important to note that on Green Left's website (the party which we are arguing about) you can both see a red and white logo. They also often use green on their election posters, so it's clear that in the case of that party, they don't have one color they associate themselves with. Instead using the color of what DR, TV2 and the official parliament site use, makes sense if you ask me. Thomediter (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Lean towards Media - This is somewhat of a tough RFC to answer. I think we should avoid a "one size fits all" approach, and give each users of each nationality discretion towards picking the colours for their country's political party colours. That said, to directly answer the question I'd lean towards using the colours the media of that country uses rather than strictly sticking towards the colours used by the party in their logo. User:Kawnhr gave the example that 3 separate parties in Israel all use the national colour of Dark Blue in their branding, and almost the exact same phenomenon occurs in Ireland, where several parties all primarily use Green as their party colour, only differing on the shade. In a scenario where two or more of those parties make up a majority of the successful candidates in an election, it may well be necessary to pick a "new" colour for one of the parties in other to properly visually display the results of that election on a map. CeltBrowne (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment - this is a slightly false dichotomy in my view, really this decision should be handled case-by-case, with the overriding consideration being what do reliable sources say (which often might mean the media, but there are other sources than that too). In the majority of cases, the logo matches the colour generally "associated" with that party anyway, e.g. Labour/Conservatives/Lib Dems/Greens in the UK, Republicans/Democrats in the US etc; so there's no issue there. Where there's a difference between logo colour and colour used in sources, as we've seen recently in the Denmark case, we should do what we always do and simply evaluate all the sources, going with the majority, in particular any which explicitly address the colour question. For Denmark, it's clear that sources have converged on a particular colour scheme for the various parties, so that's what we should use even though the logos have different colours. But for other countries there might be more of a decision to make. What I would definitely oppose is favouring the logo when there's clearly a better-used choice available, and also definitely oppose the suggestion above to "give each users of each nationality discretion towards picking the colours for their country's political party colours". Editors from a particular country don't WP:OWN the content pertaining to that country any more than any other editor, that's a fairly basic Wiki-principle. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment - While we are on the topic: Are we ever going to hold an official vote on this:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/USA legend colors/proposals

Because at the moment, some contributors such as myself employ the new proposed colors, some employ the old ones, and some employ a mix of both. Alexcs114 (talk) 07:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Lean towards Media - I definitely agree with @CeltBrowne that this depends on political party and country, and as such no "one size fits all" approach is readily available. Here in the USA, the democrats used to be red and the republicans blue believe it or not, until the media did a little switchero in their reporting, around about the 1990s to the 2000s. Ever since, we've had blue dems and red reps. That's just one example, however I believe it clearly showcases that the media has a substantial impact on determining the branding that the public associates with each political party. Alexcs114 (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Strongly against media : from experience it's unreliable. Users can cherry pick the source they wan't, which lead to edit wars. Logos are a direct neutral pick of what the party itself chose as a color representing itself. Media can be unreliable and unencylopedic, sometimes using "deep red communism" or "brown shirt fascism" colors to paint the opposite party in unfavorable ways.--Aréat (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I think this concern is unfounded. Using media colours as a source doesn't mean they would be absolute, nor that they would all be treated as equally valid for an editor to push into an article. Editors would still be expected to discuss proposals, evaluate sources and reach a consensus. If everyone respects the process, there's no edit war to be had. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

It's grounded on the experience of the french wiki where going with media colors was done for a decade and directly led to countless edit wars before it was finally abandoned. I find your comment pretty naive, if it were true, there would be no edit war anywhere in the first place. --Aréat (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

My comment was grounded in my own experience in the areas I've edited, where the closest thing to an "edit war" is an IP editor showing up to change the hex code in an article to match the party's new branding, only to get reverted and for that to be that. Discussions like "what colour should we use?" or "should we change this colour?" have occasionally gone on for a while but always been civil and lead to a consensus. If the FrWiki experience is as you say, then maybe the guidelines weren't clear enough. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure the english wiki is on par with the french one in quality. That you didn't happen to observe an edit war on this doesn't mean it can't happen. The many edit wars I've seen, however, show it absolutely can, and does. Which is why using medias is a less efficient method than using logos. --Aréat (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

There have been regular edit wars over colours, which seem to have increased recently (just check the history of some of the modules and you can see repeated reverting), and this RfC was triggered by some particularly poor behaviour over party colours. Number 5 7 19:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

the map on 2023 Wisconsin SCOTUS elections had a mini edit war, iirc Alexcs114 :) 19:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Lean towards media Generally there will be media consensus on colours, and when that doesn't exist we can work it out ourselves. SportingFlyer T·C 11:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Bad RfC This is not something that should go through an RfC but should be instead decided on a case-by-case basis. Where there is a dispute, editors should go on that party's talk page and discuss and determine which colour is mostly associated with the party. The main colour (used in the Module) should be the one that the party is mostly associated with, so it does not matter whether it was taken from the party's logo, its materials, or from the media. --Vacant0 (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Vacant0, what's your recommendation if two parties (in the same country/election) are associated with the same color? For example, Republican Party and Communist Party USA both use red as their main color. We have Red states, and we have Red scares; the same color is iconic for both. If both parties won seats in a legislature, what would you do? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Use different shades of red. Vacant0 (talk) 09:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I spent a while with a tool that checks color contrast, and I don't think this is feasible. Our Wikipedia:Accessibility rules say that we're supposed to take things into consideration like colorblindness and low vision. The minimum goal is a color contrast ratio of 3:1 (it really ought to be 4.5, and 7+ is best), and by that point, it no longer looks like the iconic colors. This pair: (red and dark red) has a contrast ratio of 2.5, which means that some people won't be able to tell that the colors are different, especially if the colors are small (e.g., little dots like we use in those images: ●●). When I choose red colors that have an acceptable contrast with each other, then the color contrast for the lighter one is too low with the white background (which means some people will struggle to see it, especially if it's small). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)