Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:47, 7 July 2020 editSecretName101 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers128,112 edits →How should we present elections with runoffs in infoboxes?: commenting← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:22, 27 December 2024 edit undoGoodDay (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers492,997 edits →Incumbent being inconsistently used in US gov election pages 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header|wp=yes}} {{talk header|wp=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums}} {{WikiProject Elections and Referendums}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 15 |counter = 27
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(60d) |algo = old(31d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Archive box |age=6 |units=months |auto=long |search=yes}} {{Archive box |age=31 |units=days |auto=long |search=yes}}
__TOC__


== RfC on the chronological order of US Presidential election result tables == == US Presidential election pages, intros ==
'''RfC question:''' Should United States presidential election results tables be displayed in standard chronological order or reverse chronological order? <small>RfC relisted by ] (]) at 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC).</small> &ndash; ] (] • ]) 22:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


See ], concerning bolding in intros of US presidential election pages. ] (]) 13:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello everyone,


== Guidance on "politicians from" categories ==
In time for this year's United States presidential election, I've been thinking about standardizing the US Presidential election results tables in counties and municipalities (see ] for an example) and plan to deploy {{tl|PresHead}}, {{tl|PresRow}}, and {{tl|PresFoot}} to that effect more this year now that issues with substituting PresRow and PresFoot have been fixed by Pppery. However, I have a question to ask before I do so.


I was cleaning out ], to make sure that only people who became politicians while being residents of ] are only inside this category. This is a part of cleaning of ] as a lot of people are said to be born in Manila, but it could be elsewhere in ] or even in ]. I chanced upon ], who was said to be "born in Manila", emigrated to the US, lived in ], and was a member of the ]. Now, he was said to be a politician from Manila, Los Angeles and Colorado Springs. Are all of these correct? ] (]) 23:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
] says that lists should be in standard chronological order, but the ''de facto'' standard with these tables has always been to put them in reverse chronological order. To the best of my knowledge there has never been a discussion or explicit consensus for or against this order. SALORDER does make an exception for frequently-updated lists such as the deaths in the current year, but once every four years hardly qualifies as such a frequency, and those lists are put into normal chronological order once they are no longer as frequently updated. One could argue with merit that recent results are more important and useful to an average reader than old results, and therefore some IAR can happen to allow reverse chronological order, but I've never seen it expressly ratified or repudiated.
:I think the 'People from X' categories are generally quite problematic due to the lack of a definition of what makes someone 'from' somewhere. On a personal level, the only place I would consider myself 'from' is the place I grew up, not where I was born (the nearest town that had a maternity hospital) or live now. This is a meta topic that should probably have a Misplaced Pages-wide discussion. ] ]] 11:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
::There was a good faith effort for someone else to trim down the aforementioned ], and it then classified anyone who has worked in government as politicians; in ]s, this is not always the case. Also, again for some reason, a lot of notable Filipinos were said to have been "born in Manila" which caused this category to be very large. This would let some people who had been notable elsewhere to be as someone "from Manila".
::FWIW, I could consider the place where I lived (and have lived at) as the places where I am from, but I'd also agree this needs wider discussion. ] (]) 14:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Personally, I add categories if (A) the person was born there or (B) the person lived there for a non trivial amount of time or (C) currently resides there. -- ] - ] 14:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm ok with this logic for "People from" categories. How about "Politicians from" ones? Some countries limit the candidates to actual residents of the area, for example. ] (]) 14:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::To me, it makes no difference. "Politicians from" would be a subcategory of "People from", so theoretically the same rules should apply.-- ] - ] 15:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::This makes sense. Looking at ], and see as he is categorized to be a politician from Casper, Wyoming, and Lincoln, Nebraska... then is also categorized as a Texas Republican. Of course American politicians can be categorized down to the city and not have fear of being sent to CFD (LOL). FWIW, in Cheney's case, he is categorized as well as "Republican Party vmembers of the United States House of Representatives from Wyoming"; usually I remove the "politicians from Foo" if he is already categorized as "officeholder from/of Foo"... I suppose that's wrong LOL. ] (]) 02:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)


== Categorization of elections and selection processes by politician eponymous categories ==
<s>Perhaps this could be better at an RfC, but I think this is an appropriate and sufficient venue.</s> There was some consensus in ] from June to change them to standard chronological order, but it was weak and secondary to the main topic, IMO, so I'm looking for a clearer and more explicit consensus.


Does it make sense to add eponymous categories of those running in elections or in the selection process for a VP nom to such related categories? Examples:
&ndash; ] (] • ]) 00:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
* ] has categories for ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ].
* ] contains these eponymous categories: ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
Not only are these elections and selections not defined by all these individuals, it doesn't really seem the purpose of eponymous categories, leading to overcategorization. <span style="color:blue">Star</span><span style="color:orange">cheers</span><span style="color:green">peaks</span><span style="color:red">news</span>lost<span style="color:blue">wars</span><sup>]</sup> 23:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)


:I would say that elections should generally not be put into the main category of the participating candidates, except perhaps for major events like a presidential election. Vice presidential candidate selection should only be in the category of the vice presidential candidate. For the presidential candidate, it should be part of the campaign category. E.g. ]. ] (]) 23:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:I’m happy with the current reverse order but have definitely seen inconsistency in other sorts of election results elsewhere. I think because it’s a single table that’s by default hidden reverse is okay. Thanks for your work on this! ]<sup>]</sup> 00:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
:: I'm in line with your thinking. Thanks. <span style="color:blue">Star</span><span style="color:orange">cheers</span><span style="color:green">peaks</span><span style="color:red">news</span>lost<span style="color:blue">wars</span><sup>]</sup> 03:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
::I do tend to agree that reverse order tends to be better for this, but it's nice to get a firm consensus on this. And thanks! :) &ndash; ] (] • ]) 00:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
:It really doesn't matter strongly to me, but my preference for these lists is the standard chronological order (similar to lists of members of congress from a particular congressional district). --] (]) 02:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


== Term limited wording on member lists ==
*'''Making this an RfC''' in order to have more discussion and a more thorough consensus. Hopefully people and LegoBot don't mind! &ndash; ] (] • ]) 22:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


Hi, I've been working on California State Assembly district articles redoing the member lists, an in those districts (as well as in the State Senate), they have term limited legislators. I recently went through my contributions and reworded "Termed out" to "Retired due to term limits," but it might be a little too long for something that could be shorter. I've been wondering if there was anyone who would make it a preference to do one of these specific phrasings for people termed out of office (with an example of them running for another office afterwards as a combination):
*I'm in favour of reverse chronological, I'm guessing reader interest is highest in the most recent. - ] (]) 01:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
# Termed out. / Termed out and ran for another office.
# Term limited. / Term limited and ran for another office.
# Term limited and retired. / Term limited and ran for another office. (replacing "retired" with another action)
# Retired due to term limits. / Retired due to term limits and ran for another office. (current usage)


I also see that some pages (such as ]) use "term-limited" instead of "term limited," so if 2 is used, should it have the hyphen?
* I favor '''following ]''' which is forward chronological order. Make the tables sortable, and then follow SALORDER – anyone who wants to see reverse chronological order can simply reverse sort. Best of both worlds: follows the MOS, while still allowing for a format/sorting that will be of interest to many readers. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 02:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
:This is also the solution I would favor: sortable chronological order. ] (]) 08:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC) <span style=" font-size:100%; font-family:Century Gothic;" >]<sup>]</sup></span> 19:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)


:I've always seen "term limited" (as is) here in Misplaced Pages but have not seen it in real life. It's always "this person cannot run due to term limits" or something like that. Choice #4 is what is used IRL, but I kinda like #2 as it's shorter. "Retired" sounds something else, but can get the idea across in seven letter vs. "ran for another office". I'd probably be okay with "Retired" if you are short on space (such as tables). ] (]) 00:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
== 1997 UK General Election map wrong ==


== RfC ongoing at ] ==
Just been pointed out to me elsewhere that the current map shows Teignbridge as a Lib Dem seat in 1997 when the Conservatives narrowly held it. I've corrected it myself, but don't appear to have any ability to overwrite the current one. See below.] (]) 22:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


There is a RfC ongoing at ], an article within the scope of this WikiProject. All editors are invited to participate. '''] ]''' 18:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
]
:{{ping|ImperatordeElysium}} If you go to the , you should be able to upload your version over the top of the old one using the "Upload new version" button. Or if that doesn't work, contact ], who uploaded the original file. ] ]] 19:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|ImperatordeElysium}} Hello. I have corrected this error. ] (]) 16:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


== Talk:2026 Maine gubernatorial election ==
==RfC on Infoboxes: Should there always be two candidates?==
{{archive top|This is an interesting and well-designed RfC concerning infoboxes. Generally, a Misplaced Pages article should be a summary of the reliable sources, and where editors have chosen to use an infobox, the infobox is a summary of the Misplaced Pages article. The basic job of an encyclopaedist is to write summaries, and Wikipedians generally have a lot of practice at it, so we don't normally find infoboxes difficult. However, not everything fits neatly into a pithy entry in an infobox, and that's why infoboxes come up so much at RfC.{{pb}}In the matter of elections, previous discussions have reached consensus that if the article contains an infobox, then the infobox should usually contain at least two candidates, even in cases where the winning candidate received a very overwhelming share of the vote. Like all content decisions, this consensus allows for occasional exceptions in unusual cases.{{pb}}This discussion seeks to establish numerical thresholds for the inclusion of second place candidates. Wikipedians have not been able to agree on any such set of thresholds, so in some cases decisions will need to be made individually on article talk pages. However, the 5% threshold does enjoy plurality support -- even if this support falls short of an actual consensus -- so I suggest that the proposed 5% threshold could be a useful reference point in these talk-page discussions.{{pb}}I hope this helps.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 19:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)}}
In all elections contested by more than one candidate, should we include at least two candidates in an infobox (ie the winner, and the second place finisher)?


Please comment at ] regarding speculation that he might run as an independent.--] 23:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
'''A - Yes.'''<br>
'''B - No.'''


==National election articles categorisation==
By way of background, this issue was discussed in ]. The result of that RfC was ''There was strong consensus for A, "If only one candidate meets the threshold, then the second-place contender should be included.'' Since that RfC there has been discussion of this point at ] and ]. At least one editor there has suggested we may wish to deviate from the consensus reached in the 2017 RfC. If we are going to do so, we may also need to set a threshold for the inclusion of second place candidates if that threshold should be less than 5% but greater than some other number.--] (]) 18:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to propose that we have a formal convention (similar to the ]) regarding categorisation of national election articles, specifically that national elections (president or parliament) are included in the continental level election category for the year, as well as a national one (where they exist). This would mean making continental categories non-diffusing, in line with ].


For example, ] would be in both ] and ].
===Votes and discussion===
*'''Yes''' If there is more than one candidate, the second-place candidate should always be shown even when they have received less than 5% of the vote. ] ]] 19:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''No''' If someone can't even get 5% of the vote in an election they have not earned a position in the infobox. The main 2020 national primary articles need not include the people who did not perform nationally. However for subset elections like Presidential by state (the example there being DC in 2016), it would be reasonable to include two to match the main national article. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' – I would say 5% is a logical cuttoff: above 5%, and 2nd place should be listed; below 5%, probably not, as that's effectively a "one-party only" result. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
**{{ping|IJBall}} Yes, the 5% threshold is a good one for 3rd place finishers (and 4th, 5th etc). My understanding is that our past consensus is that ]. The reasons being that summarizing the race requires showing who came first and second, avoiding the false conclusion that a race was uncontested, and showing the scale of the victory (ie how decisive the win is by virtue of the difference between first and second place). Do you think the 2017 RfC got it wrong and we should be applying a 5% threshold to second place finishers? If we should be applying a threshold, is 5% the right one for second place finishers too, or should it be lower?--] (]) 18:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' I do not see any reason to deviate from the 2017 RfC. Including a second place finisher properly summarizes the race by avoiding the false impression that the winner ran unopposed and shows the scale of victory of the actual winner, and by extension the level of opposition.--] (]) 20:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


I think this would have two main benefits: Firstly it would create consistency of the continental category contents, as only some countries (I would estimate less than a fifth) have their own 'election by year' category series (for example, South Africa does, but Germany does not). Secondly, it is very useful for searching for national elections that took place in a particular year, as if articles for some countries are only located in the national category, it involves searching into potentially dozens of subcategories for each continent.
*<s>'''No''' I think it is implied when the candidate gets less than 100% of the vote that they didn’t run uncontested. The infobox is supposed to be a summary, the results box is where candidates who get less than 5% should go, as per the standard for when there is more than one major candidate. It’s just weird that on ] there’s a candidate in the infobox who got 1.7% when it’s obvious by reading the lead that Obama was running for re-election. ] (]) 00:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)</s>
::<small>Striking sockpuppet vote and comment. ] (]) 20:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)</small>


**{{ping|Smith0124}} Several countries have held presidential elections (or similar) where there is only one candidate on the ballot, but it is possible to cast an 'against' vote. Therefore having someone in the infobox with less than 100% of the vote does not necessarily mean than an election had more than one candidate. ] ]] 10:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC) Thoughts on this welcome. Cheers, ] ]] 19:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)


:I'd support this but would need some guidance.
**<s>{{ping|Koopinator}} well just like e if uncommitted gets more than 5% if against gets more than 5% it should be included. ] (]) 18:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)</s>
:Some countries who have national elections on a specific day (mostly presidential systems) have separate general, presidential, and legislative elections, sometimes even local elections. In cases such as this the "primary" general election article only get to be included in the continental category. Is that right?
::<small>Striking sockpuppet comment. ] (]) 20:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)</small>
:How about parliamentary republics where the president is not the head of government and is mostly a figurehead? Are their presidential elections classified into the continental ones, as well (assuming parliamentary elections already are)? How about semi-presidential countries like France? ] (]) 00:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::I would suggest the full rule would be:
:::{{tq|Articles on direct elections to national institutions (parliament and presidency) should be included in the continental-level election category for that year. Articles on sub-national elections (state/regional/local), indirect elections (such as presidential elections carried out by parliaments) or primary elections should be included only in national-level categories where they exist.}}
::I wouldn't treat articles on direct president elections differently based on the powers of the person elected – it's more the method of election that I think makes it important here. Cheers, ] ]] 21:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::In countries such as the United States, Taiwan and Philippines, there is a general, presidential and legislative (in cases of directly-elected bicameral chambers, separate articles for both elections) election articles exist. Should only the "main" general election be in the continental category, or some, or all? ] (]) 21:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::What do you think? I'm open to options in this case. ] ]] 22:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'd be in favor of letting in just the general election article if separate articles exist for other national level elections. ] (]) 22:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'm not in favor of the current set up where continental categories only have subcategories. ] (]) 22:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::OK, happy to go with that. Amended suggestion below:
:::::::{{tq|Articles on direct elections to national institutions (parliament and presidency) should be included in the continental-level election category for that year. Articles on sub-national elections (state/regional/local), indirect elections (such as presidential elections carried out by parliaments) or primary elections should be included only in national-level categories where they exist. If there are multiple articles on a general election (e.g. ], ], ]), only the main (general election) article should be in the continental category.}}
::::::] ]] 19:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


== UK Template: help needed ==
*'''Yes''' Less than 100% of the vote for a candidate does not necessarily mean that they ran contested, it could mean that some folks spoiled their ballot, only voted for down ballot candidates or wrote-in random names. I believe adding second-place finishers will make this less ambiguous. Furthermore, according to ], "The 5% threshold was always meant for third place finishers. I was part of those initial discussions and the figure actually derived from ]'s assessment of what constitutes a successful third party run." In my view, Martin O'Malley gaining less than 1% of the vote in the 2016 Democratic Primaries is insignificant, the election was about Hillary vs Bernie. But when it's a lopsided incumbent renomination, i feel that the election becomes about "Who challenged the incumbent, at all, and how successful were they in doing so?". Thus, small fries like John Wolfe become more significant. Like, with the 2012 Democratic Primaries and 2020 Republican Primaries, what story is there besides "Obama vs Wolfe" or "Trump vs Weld"? I also disagree with people saying that candidates with less than 5% of the vote have not "earned" a spot in the infobox. Second place doesn't count for nothing. Coincidentally, i have silver chess trophy in my room right now. ] (]) 09:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


Please can someone assist at ]? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 17:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''', there shouldn't always be a second person in the infobox. There are some situations to include a candidate if they don't meet the 5% threshold, e.g. being nominated by a major party (in a general) or being awarded delegates (in a primary). Leaving it open for anyone opens the gates for perennial candidates who receive negligible vote totals to be included. -] (]) 20:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
::Why should a "major party" candidate who receives "negligible vote totals" be included, and a minor party or independent with the same vote total be excluded? Arguably, it is all the more significant when a less influential party manages to overcome the more traditional "major parties" to place in second. In the US context, if a Green/Libertarian/Independent overcame the Democrat or Republican to finish in second, isn't that awfully notable, significant, and a key highlight of the race?--] (]) 20:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


:The new {{tl|Election results}} template should be able to handle these "multipartisan" candidates better than the old ones. ] (]) 00:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
**<s>I think this discussion about significance of major parties is a digression from the focus of this Rfc. The question is if we should always have two candidates. The 5% threshold as it stands disregards party, and if someone thinks that should be altered that should be its own discussion. ] (]) 21:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)</s>
:::<small>Striking sockpuppet comment. ] (]) 20:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)</small>


== Requested move at ] ==
:::Perhaps, it is off topic if you word it like that. However {{no ping|Shivertimbers433}} seems to be suggesting that we move away from the 2017 consensus that the 5% threshold does not apply to second place finishers, and then apply it to some second place finishers and not others. If we are going to establish a consensus about what threshold (if any) to apply to second place finishers, that is worthy of discussion. It is also not very helpful to propose we implement a new threshold without defining it. A second discussion may be required, but before we get there Shivertimbers should have a chance to clarify exactly what they are proposing.--] (]) 21:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] 02:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*I'd prefer a pretty "blanket" application on this – in a(ny) two-person race, if the 2nd place finisher gets less than 5%, they probably shouldn't be included in the infobox, regardless of party. When somebody wins the race with 95+%, that wasn't really a "two-person race" in any meaningful sense of the concept. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 23:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


=='Legislative' elections==
**<s>{{ping|IJBall}} I agree with this 100 percent, though to play devil’s advocate it doesn’t take into account multiple candidates getting less than 5% of the vote but adding up to more than 5%. However, even taking that into account, if a candidate gets less than 80% of the vote it’s highly unlikely another candidate didn’t get at least 5%, and I can’t think of a single example of this happening. If a candidate gets above 80% of the vote and no other candidate gets above 5%, I think your thinking still applies. ] (]) 23:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)</s>
For a small number of countries, parliamentary election articles are titled '2024 Foolandic legislative election' rather than '2024 Foolandic parliamentary/federal/general election'. There does not seem to be any logic to when this term is used, as it is used for both parliamentary republics and presidential republics (and some federal ones) – it seems to be almost accidental that some article series were started as 'parliamentary' and others as 'legislative'.
:::<small>Striking sockpuppet comment. ] (]) 20:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)</small>


Following on from ] of all the Czech articles from 'legislative' to 'parliamentary', does anyone have any objections to moving other national parliamentary election articles from legislative to parliamentary? The countries that would be affected are: Argentina, Austria, Cyprus, El Salvador, France, Greece, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Palestine, Portugal, Russia, South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam. It would be nice to eradicate what appears to be a quite glaring inconsistency. Cheers, ] ]] 15:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
***{{ping|Smith0124}} I think i have found something akin to what you are talking about: ]. ] (]) 11:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Yes'''. As was mentioned above, the 5% threshold is meant for third place finishers. The threshold comes from a specific standard as explained above. Using it as a threshold for second place finishers is completely arbitrary. Moreover, there's no reason to give the false impression a race was uncontested when it was contested. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)</small>
*'''Yes'''. I think that having only one candidate in an infobox (if more than one stood) creates a strong impression that the winning candidate ran unopposed. It also helpfully immediately highlights the level of support for the opposition. ] (]) 10:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Yes'''. I feel common sense says having only one candidate in an infobox is confusing. It implies the winner ran unopposed, and even when the reader is aware that's not the case, noting the winner with a percentage less than 100% immediately begs the question of who got the rest of the vote. ] (]) 05:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
<small>'''Note''' - I have placed a notice on the ]. If there are any other projects which should be given notice, please do so and note here. Thanks--] (]) 21:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)</small>
*'''No''' - I agree with the nom's statement that we may need to "set a threshold for the inclusion of second place candidates .... less than 5% but greater than some other number." I'm not sure what that number should, but there should definitely be a number. Clearly if someone gets under 1% of the vote it would be ] to actually show the person's picture. ] (]) 02:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
<small>'''Note''' - I have noted this discussion on ] as recent edits were relevant to this discussion.--] (]) 20:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)</small>
*'''Yes''' All candidates and their picture should be included for historical accuracy. How did you come up with a 5% threshold? Are we not trying to show the record of the election regardless of winners and losers?--] (]) 12:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
**{{ping|Tgmod}} This is clearly impractical as in some presidential elections there have been 40 or more candidates. Infoboxes are meant to be summaries of articles and anything beyond three or four people in the infobox makes it far too large to be an effective summary; it takes nothing away from an article's "historical accuracy" if someone who received 600 votes does not have their picture in the infobox, as long as they are still listed in the article's list of candidates and results table. ] ]] 12:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
***{{ping|Number 57}} Well yes it would be impractical for the Presidential election, but only about 2-3 of those have nationwide ballot access the rest are write in candidates. Why not include the ones that got ballot access? Getting ballot access proves that a specified number of people want to see you on the ballot that they signed their name to it, therefore it should be included as part of the record along with the votes they received.--] (]) 13:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
****{{ping|Tgmod}} This RfC is not only about American elections. In most countries (in fact virtually all of them outside the US), the same list of candidates is presented to all voters across the country, sometimes with 40 or more candidates. ] ]] 13:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
*****{{ping|Number 57}} Yes but typically in American elections there is information and media suppression outside of the 2 main parties (not to say that doesn't happen elsewhere but I notice it in many wikepedia articles as well). For example the ] list 4 parties results in their info box where as the ] list only 2 parties even though a 3rd party received over 4 million votes and a 4th party received over 1 million votes. Another example is the ] it list 6 different parties and results. Shouldn't we try to write the most complete information and treat them all equally?
******{{ping|Tgmod}} Please take a look at ]. Dozens of candidates, even excluding parties with less than 500 votes. Is it really reasonable to include each and every single one? ] (]) 13:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
*******{{ping|Tgmod}} This discussion is about elections where there are single candidates (presidential, mayoral etc), not parliamentary elections, which are an entirely different kettle of fish. ] ]] 14:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''No''' per ]. The fact that the infobox doesn't say exactly 100% is enough to imply that the main candidate did not run unopposed. Regarding the question of "who got the rest of the vote" mentioned above, I don't think going with A will provide a satisfactory resolution. Suppose the main candidate got 99.2% and four other candidates split the vote 0.2% each, edging each other out by less than a hundred votes. Do all five candidates belong in the infobox? Does the second-place finisher belong in the infobox to the detriment of the other three who basically did as well as s/he did? The first option is too clunky and the second option does not adequately summarize the election any more than including just one candidate. I think the easiest solution here is simply to list the one candidate who got nearly all of the votes. -- ] ] ] ] &spades; 06:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
**{{ping|King of Hearts}} Less than 100% of the vote for a candidate does not necessarily mean that they ran contested, it could mean that some folks spoiled their ballot, only voted for down ballot candidates or wrote-in random names. ] (]) 06:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
***The problem with "Yes" is that it's making an absolute statement, whereas "No" doesn't mean we can't include a token second-place finisher if we want. I prefer the flexibility of deciding case by case what to do. In my opinion there is no significant difference between 1) 1 million votes to Candidate A, 100 to Candidate B, 1 thousand spoiled ballots; and 2) 1 million votes to Candidate A, 1 thousand spoiled ballots. At least, to the extent that we should emphasize the fact at the top of the page. -- ] ] ] ] &spades; 07:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''No vote either way''', but in most cases, the percentages refer to proportion from valid votes, so spoiled votes, undervotes, overvotes, null votes and anything else that's not counted for a candidate isn't included. These stats (invalid votes) aren't included in the infobox anyway. A 1-candidate race will always get 100%. Some places do have ] as choices, so it's essentially a 2-horse race. Other jurisdictions may include such invalid votes in the percentages, but for the most part, they don't. This is not readily apparent, though, so if someone sees one person having 98% of the vote, while no one else is with him/her, it may provoke more questions than answers. ] (]) 07:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
'''Note''' - A similar issue was just addressed in a RfC which was just closed at ] finding consensus for inclusion of Bill Weld, the second place finisher to Trump in that contest, as Weld had won one delegate. Weld also currently has <2% of the popular vote. The RfC was closed without prejudice to considering a threshold higher than winning one delegate (which had the "best" consensus). The closing comments do not address the 2017 RfC which was mentioned there.--] (]) 03:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
*Again, I think that is exactly what we should be doing - deciding case by case. We should not make it a blanket requirement to always include more than one candidate, or set a hard numerical threshold. Each election is different, and a candidate who got 1% of the popular vote in one election could very well be more important than another candidate who got 2% of the popular vote in a different election that took place halfway around the world. -- ]]]] 04:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
::Perhaps. One of the problems with deciding case by case is that we end up with a lot of wasted time debating the infobox with every election. It also means that the infobox tends to change many times, during the election as editors argue the standard. And readers notice, and ask what the heck is happening on the talk page. As happened with ] (main article and individual state primaries) which remains unresolved, waiting for a close. The Republican one might now go to a second RfC to try to finally decide the issue. Deciding these things case by case without guidelines, also means we will end up with vastly different policies being implemented across the project depending on the editors that show up on a given day (and perhaps their prejudices for or against specific candidates). It is helpful to have a guideline because it helps reduce the influence of those biases (we agree before the results are in). I think the 5% threshold (for 3rd, 4th, 5th place finishers) has proven a useful guideline for infoboxes. The 2017 RfC guideline that second place finishers should be included is equally helpful.--] (]) 04:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Delete the rule / don't have a rule for this''' - Some elections can have fringe candidates who utterly fail in the vote but become notable through coverage and should be prominently displayed on the page. Other elections only have one notable candidate and should have only that candidate in the infobox. It depends on the election, and I don't think one size fits all here. ] (]) 04:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
::There already IS a rule. Or at least an unofficial guideline. The ] created as much. The question is not whether we should create a rule, but whether we should set aside the rule/guideline that currently exists.--] (]) 18:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
:::{{reply|Darryl Kerrigan}} I changed my wording to "delete the rule / don't have a rule for this" to make my intention clearer. ] (]) 18:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''No''': there are some cases in elections outside the US where thresholds are very important in determining major/minor-candidate/party status. For example, in the UK, 5% is the threshold for a candidate retaining their deposit. One notable example is the ], where the non-Labour vote was scattered amongst joke candidates and far-right candidates, and to include them in the infobox would be a ] violation. ''']''' (]) 18:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
::The ] candidate in that race received 4.8% of the vote and came in second. Not sure I agree it is ] to include her. Actually, the fact that nearly 1/20 folks voted for a far-right party in THAT election, might be very ] to mention. That is among the most unusual of elections. It was a by-election to replace a politician who was murdered by an individual holding far-right views. None of the other main parties (ie. ], ], ] or ]) ran candidates out of respect. Notwithstanding that, the fact that nearly 1/20 folks in that riding would vote for a far-right party in the circumstances is quite notable indeed. In any event, I am not sure we should be making or unmaking rules based on extreme cases like that.--] (]) 19:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Yes''': Even if the second candidate has a very low score, it gives the picture of the election. ] (]) 08:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''No''' emphatically. I've come across instances where a candidate has received 1 million plus votes, and the next-closest candidate is a write-in with 35 votes. It would be absurd to require us to include that write-in in the infobox. There are races where candidates go virtually unchallenged, and we shouldn't present those by making it look as though there WAS a significant challenger. ] (]) 23:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
**{{ping|SecretName101}} I don't think write-ins are usually considered formal candidates, and although I think there should be two candidates in the infobox, I wouldn't apply it to write-ins. Do you object to a formal second-place candidate being in the infobox if they don't receive many votes? ] ]] 09:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
:::For what it is worth, as the RfC opener my thought was that "candidate" means someone that formally runs (or at least actively runs). Write-ins of fictional characters or politicians/celebrities who were not running would not qualify. That said a "write in" like ] in 2010 should. While she wasn't on the ballot, she was very much "running" and won (of course).--] (]) 15:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


:I might agree when it comes to countries with a parliamentary system, like Israel or Portugal, but I would be vary of doing that for countries that are (semi-) presidential. In those cases, I think it would only be appropriate if reliable sources describes said elections as such. "Parliamentary" as a term feels more fitting when it's a standalone election, but might make less sense if it's an election that takes place simultaneously with a presidential election. ] (]) 15:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
== Ourcampaigns.com ==
:Our article is at ] but our articles for ] elections are entitled "legislative", maybe because in French it is called that way. ] (]) 20:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:Re: Indonesia -- This country is in a ]. Currently its elections to the ] are in a general election article together with the presidential election, but the presidential election itself has a separate article. As there's no separate election to its House of Representatives, this should be unaffected as the general election article both have the elections to the executive and legislative branches. ] (]) 21:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:Re: El Salvador; this is also in a ], and the unicameral legislature is called "]". If anything, this is where "legislative" has a strong argument.
:Re: South Korea; this is in a ], but I suppose the president is more powerful than the prime minister. The article is at ]. ] calls the last election "".
:Re: Taiwan; this is a ], and its legislature is called the "]". The ] uses "". The ] is appointed by the president without legislative approval. The Legislative Yuan elects its own ] though, and our legislative elections articles shows the winner of the Legislative Yuan presidential election.
:This actually is interesting and country-centric discussions should be made so that it'll surely be aligned with what the ] are actually calling it.
:I'd put into premium more into local English language sources; foreign ones such as ] and ] pander to their local audiences and use terms that are familiar to their intended audiences. ] (]) 21:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks both for the responses. I haven't noticed any particular trend in the media for parliamentary elections in presidential systems to be called 'legislative' rather than 'parliamentary' (despite being a presidential system, numerous news orgs refer to Indonesia's elections (which were held separately prior to 2019) as parliamentary (, , ). However, I do suspect you are correct that the French ones are likely titled as they are due to the direct translation.
::Based on the feedback, I'll start RMs for each article series. Cheers, ] ]] 22:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Again with Indonesia and for other similar countries, I'd be interested what term local English ] use. Indonesia, while not an English speaking country, has a sizable number of English speakers, and local English ] exist. That's why I refrained from using foreign ] such as AJ, AP, Reuters, AFP, CNN, BBC, etc. in determining what the actual term used is. This is something Indonesians can only answer. ] (]) 22:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


== RfC on a new infobox ==
Hi. is used as a source on ~2700 articles. Your input on its use as a source would be appreciated at ]. <span style="font-size: 80%;color:blue"><sup>~</sup>]<sup>~]~</sup></span> 04:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


An editor started an rfc at ] to replace the political party infobox with a new one for American parties. ] (]) 21:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
== Parliamentary boundary reviews (United Kingdom) ==


== Usage of 'Former", when start-end dates are used ==
This is largely a copy and paste from the UK politics project talk page, I know there are some interested parties in the wider psephological corner of Misplaced Pages who might want to keep their editing fingers primed for action.

Following the two aborted attempts at the ], the government is trying again, having today published the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill (see https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-01/0127/20127.pdf ). I have thrown together a very rough and ready ] to help us all get prepared for the process which will soon be starting. The title, incidentally, is not "Seventh..." or "Eighth..." because I believe there is some uncertainty over the official designation and I thought it better to have an article in place than play "catch up". In anycase, this article can always be moved if we get any official title in the future.

When the ] happened, and decisions made on new constituencies, I remember the existing constituency articles were sometimes flooded with editors wanting to add the new boundary details, and it sometimes got a bit rushed and confused. We need, I think, to be very careful about starting new constituency articles until we're absolutely certain about the name and boundaries.

(With regards to constituency names, I noticed during one of the "zombie" Reviews that the Scottish Commission named "North X" something Misplaced Pages already had an article for named "X North", with an existing redirect. I think we may, if this happens again, have a Project discussion about how we name articles where "Compass Point X" and "X Compass Point" converge. Again, however, this is a long way off).

Hopefully we can all get together and work on the relevant articles when the time comes. Good luck! ] <sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 04:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

== ] ==

Perhaps someone in this WikiProject can help out with ]. The question is related to ] and attempts by the OP to add content to ]. The first things that come to me regarding the proposed content are ] and ] as well as possibly ], but there might be a way to incorporate a trimmed down version of this content into the article in way acceptable to Misplaced Pages if reliable sources can be found in support. -- ] (]) 02:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

If there are sources, and looks like their would be for the proposals in the section, it sounds like a notable section (or new page if it is too large a proportion of the page) ] (]) 03:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

==]==
A requested move at this talk page has been relisted due to a lack of consensus emerging. Additional input would be welcome. Cheers, ] ]] 18:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:Just a reminder about this – no further input has been received since I flagged this up. Cheers, ] ]] 16:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I've commented there. ] (]) 03:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

== Consistency in US federal legislative elections ==

Hello,

I was told to ask my question regarding elections on this WikiProject (I originally asked at the Teahouse).

I have noticed inconsistencies in US House of Representatives elections pages. For instance, Washington (state) only has dedicated HoR election pages until 2000, whereas New York has dedicated pages until ~1968. Is creating new articles to keep consistency justifiable? There are reliable sources available, but (subjectively) I'm not sure if it would normally meet ]. (For those that are wondering I am focusing on Washington)

Should I work on creating new election pages for these inconsistencies?

Thanks, ] (]) 09:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

P.S: I joined the WikiProject!
:I think you are right on ]– personally I have always wondered why we have this article set and why they are considered noteworthy. I appreciate it's useful to have articles on the breakdown of results, but for the US it means having a breakdown article for single constituencies (i.e. states where a single representative is elected), which I do not believe is notable. Is there a higher level at which the results could be combined while still having a decent amount of information? It's also possible that the information could be split between a single national results article, and the articles on the constituencies themselves (which would detail the result at each election). ] ]] 10:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
::Presumably the state level is the highest you can collect all per district totals. If it's notable in 2020, it's notable all the way to 1776. This is similar to the countless UK by-election articles that we have, and those are even more specific, relating to just one district, as opposed to state level summaries, which can range from 1 to 50+. ] (]) 10:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
:::I think by-elections/special elections are different as they are standalone elections as opposed to being part of a nationwide election. ] ]] 10:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
::::It's the same election to the presumably the same district, redistricting notwithstanding. Whether or not it's the only election for the day or isn't (there are days when multiple special/by-elections are held) shouldn't detract the fact that it's a legislative election. ] (]) 10:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::It's not the same as it is not part of the regular election cycle and the reasons for it being held are different. I seriously doubt an article on a general election in a single constituency in the UK would survive an AfD, whereas a by-election almost certainly would. ] ]] 10:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::Giraffer isn't asking about an article a specific district on a specific election. This is about a legislative elections in a specific area.
:::::If you think such articles shouldn't exist, you can AFD one, then we'll see it from there. Otherwise, this discussion is a waste of time. ] (]) 11:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
::::::I know what they were asking about, and I gave the view that those that are for a single district (e.g. ]) are probably not notable. ] ]] 11:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::::You can send that to AFD, but a state-wide election, even for one "district", should surely be notable; otherwise, gubernatorial, U.S. Senate and presidential elections from states that has at-large representations wouldn't be "notable". ] (]) 11:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
::The answer to the first question is that the election pages have not yet been created. The community has largely accepted the election pages as notable (see ])
::<blockquote>Candidates who are running or unsuccessfully ran for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged into lists of campaign hopefuls, such as Ontario New Democratic Party candidates in the ], or into articles detailing the specific race in question, such as ].</blockquote>
::As the quote indicates, there is a recognition that the election contest is notable, even if the candidates are not. As a community, the last major ]. The community has also routinely kept specific pages for special elections. --] (]) 15:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)  
:::Interesting. While I won't support an article about election in a specific district in a place that is divided into multiple districts held during a general election, I'll support it being included in an article with elections from other districts in the place where it's from. If it's an at-large election, and it's the only election of its kind in that place, I'll support for its inclusion. That article you cited though seems to be "weird" and has 73 references so what should I know about it meeting ]? ] (]) 16:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Enos733. Go ahead and make state based articles and/or lists for each election. ] (]) 03:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I very strongly discourage making articles just for the sake of having articles. ''Please'' do ''not'' bulk create pages unless there is demonstrated to be more information in the article than basic results already in the main page such as sourced prose discussion. There is no inherent issue with having more articles for some states than others, and pages that are empty other than redundant results tables are not a useful thing to have. Instead, it's another page to monitor and maintain, another page that could inappropriately diverge in style or material. ] is just a duplicate of ] but with outdated formatting. Just because elections are generally considered notable does ''not'' mean there must be separate pages for all of them when they are also covered elsewhere. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps consider transcluding then, as in results of Australian elections. In the Australian case, there is a page for the election as a whole in a particular year, and transcluded results in pages for each seat. Both serve a purpose depending on what the reader is interested in. ] (]) 11:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
:Transclusion is always a great idea! It helps consolidate edits on specific content that is applicable to multiple articles while avoiding inconsistencies. Redirects to page sections also work before there's additional sections to include. So many of these election results articles are just raw data and prose repetition of it, and I don't feel it really helps the reader. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I'll make & work on the articles, unless there is very little to be said about the topics. @] & @], I agree with you, but I also think that @] brings up a valid point about making articles for the sake of doing so. My editing is and will be mostly on (US) House of Representative & Senate elections, ''but on a state wide basis'', i.e. ] and not on a congressional-district-level, i.e. ]. State-wide election-related articles are notable the majority of the time so creating & working on new articles shouldn't be ''too'' controversial (?) but at the end of the day if someone strongly disagrees they can nominate the articles for AfD.

Thanks for your time.

Regards, ] (]) 08:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

== Costa Rica's parties meta colors ==

While reviewing the party coloring in the Spanish articles and adding the parties logos I realized that there's a certain inconsistency on what we can consider the party's logo "dominant" color and the meta color. I know there are a lot of different reasons for choosing a meta color not only what color is dominant (specially if the colors are repeated) however I wonder why some choices were made. So I'm proposing a revolutionary idea; to re-establish most of the meta colors to a more suited version.

For example, lets take a look at National Restoration, the first is its meta color, which is apropiate is one of the colors, but this is the logo and this is the flag. Shouldn't yellow be more appropiate? PAC uses gold which is more suited to its logo and FA uses a different tone of Yellow and can use black also.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Meta!! style="width:50%;"| Logo !! style="width:20%;"| Flag
|-
|bgcolor=#0059cf|
|<center>]</center>
|<center>]</center>
|}

Similar cases can be made abourt other parties, ] has assigned the Indigo, but has no Indigo in it, whilst ] has the red, which is one of its color but judging by the logo that you can see in its article Dark Blue is more dominant.

I would've brought this issue to the Costa Rica Wikiproject but is not very active and hasn't have any activity since 2019 besides I think is more an electoral issue. Opinions?

Thank you. --] (]) 17:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
:I think ] or ] would be the best editors to comment on this, as they are regular editors of Costa Rican election articles. ] ]] 18:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
::Thank you ].
::Maho and I indeed were planning to make a possible re-arenging of the color codes but never really started, it is indeed an issue that we had in mind for a long time. The color coding is complex as many parties use the same colors and Costa Rica has ''too many'' parties. So I do not oppose any discussion about it.
::In the particular case of National Restoration the original color used was indeed yellow, the problem was that the unexpected protagonism it reached during the last election make it difficult to use it as it was too similar to PAC's. Not that it is impossible to have two yellow parties in the same infobox but let's just say the ] article would look quite different.
::However there are cases were indeed change can be done more easily. I choose indigo for ADC's color as it was the closest I could find to the flag. In the case of the Republicans the idea was to make it a little different from PUSC which traditionally uses blue, however based on the logos it could be dark blue for PRSC and a lighter tone of blue for PUSC. I would like to see Maho's opinion, taking into account that in case this is decided upon a lot of graphics have to be updated and that may also imply changing other languages' wikis.
::One interesting exercise would be to contact the different parties and ask their opinion, would not be binging of course we can decide by our selves by voting or similar, but could work as a input. --] (]) 21:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
:::Thanks ]. for letting us know about this.
:::Effectively as ] said, he and I have talked about doing this. As of today, Costa Rica officially has 139 registered parties according to the Supreme Electoral Tribunal; even though we only have 5 million inhabitants. As an example of the usage of many colors, the love that the right-wing has towards the color blue has made it extremely complicated to make a classification of distinguishable colors. Couple that here we have a "balcanization" not of the Left, but of the Right (e.g. New Republic is an offshoot of National Restoration which is an offshoot of Costa Rican Renewal which itself is an offshoot of the now extinct National Christian Alliance / Social Christian Republican and Christian Democrat Alliance being offshoots of PUSC, etc etc).
:::Dereck touched a topic that is extremely important, which is the unexpected protagonism that different parties have in each election. PAC in 2006, ML in 2010, FA in 2014, PIN and later PREN in 2018 and cantonal parties in 2020. That makes it extremely difficult to mantain security towards color coordination and congruence. Also, PREN's main color ''used to be'' yellow, with their previous flag . Now with New Republic coming into the scene we now have ''5'' Christian Right parties (Costa Rican Renewal, Acces. w/o Exclusion, Christian. Dem. Alliance, National Restoration, New Republic), which, lo and behold, all use blue as their main color.
:::On the topic of the Social Christian parties, I'm more keen on keeping PRSC as red and PUSC as blue. My reasoning is as follows: the National Republican Party (the precursor to both PUSC and PRSC) uses the red #BA151B, and the Republicans claim to be the resurrection of said party. Actually, I'd prefer if we changed PRSC from #E30000 (which is a bright red, more suitable for the Left) to properly #BA151B or something similar. On the other hand, I prefer keeping PUSC blue in reference to them now being the main centre-right party, and in most countries said party uses blue (UK Conservative Party, France's Les Républicains, Mexico's National Action Party), and couple that with National Unification Party/National Union Party being the other precursor to PUSC and they did use blue as their main/only color.
:::As a side note I'd like to let you peeps know that the colors I used for the cantonal parties I made them up while making the huge results table for the 2020 municipal elections, just checking the main color used in each party's flag so color conflict ''is'' present there. But it doesn't matter much because those parties are way too small and I use the grey #CFCFCF to refer them collectively in other tables and graphs.
::: Hmmmm I'm not so sure about asking political parties for their input. There's a reason why Costa Rica is better known for its Supreme Electoral Tribunal than its political parties; maybe we could ask TSE? Or its Institute for Training and Studies in Democracy?
::: What I think should be done as well is a definite list of parties from furthest to Left to furthest to Right. That, I'm not going to lie, it's going to be hard. Costa Rica's political history is very similar to Latin America's: parties were originally created as groups supporting a specific individual, not like in Europe where they're more ideollogicaly consistent. I mean, not for nothing two of the main ideologies of this country are "Figuerismo" (José Figueres Ferrer) and "Calderonismo" (Rafael Ángel Calderón Guardia)(even though both individuals have been ''dead'' for a considerable amount of years). And don't even get me started on the First Republic era with Echandismo, Jimenismo, Acostismo, Volismo, "a la tica Communism", etc etc. But I digress. Putting each party in a line could also help on deciding colors, for example, Citizens' Action and Broad Front are both yellow and they tend to be next to each other ideologically.
:::
:::I would also like to call ] for help. He helped me a lot when I started making maps (which, I should work more on that on this site) and gave me ideas regarding color usage.
:::--] (]) 01:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
::::I agree with all said by Maho, and yes it is interesting that we have a balcanization of the Right not of the Left which is pretty much estable having only two parties (FA and PT unless you count PAC which is quite centrist). On the other hand for further complication the parties that Maho mentions that appear as registered, they will appear as such for ever unless the Electoral Law is reform as you can . It seems that according to the TSE the only legal way to dissolve a political party is if its willingly takes part in elections and has less that 3000 votes. Not participing in elections and just having a ghostly existence does not qualify for dissolution. Most of those parties are by all effects dissolved; for example Avance Nacional, Todos, Centro Democrático Social, and the like, their leaders already moved to other parties (Rolando Araya-PLN, José Manuel Echandi-PUSC, Rodolfo Méndez Mata-PAC), they don't make assemblies since several elections ago etcétera, they are by all effects dead, but unless they take part in elections they won't get dissolve, that mean someone has to make all the cantonal, provincial and national assemblies just to take part in elections to be dissolved, no one is going to take that effort. Those parties will be forever in some sorte of eternal limbo, once a party is created in Costa Rica it can't be uncreated lol. --] (]) 01:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
::::::OK I see now that I was actually wrong and missjudge the issue, it seems that the color selection is logical and I should've checked previous flags of the parties indeed. My apologies to ] and ]. --] (]) 02:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::: PD; regarding what Maho713 mentions of "for example, Citizens' Action and Broad Front are both yellow and they tend to be next to each other ideologically" the only possible solution I can think of (because indeed sometimes the graphics in the legislative archs look too similar) is to swicht the color of one of both by the other color, for example PAC with red and FA with black. On this however PAC is older so we can use the ] and say that is the newest party the one that should be changed, besides red is already use for many relevant parties like Movimiento Libertario and Republican Party, and PAC is more clearly ID on media with gold. --] (]) 02:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
:The issue regarding PAC's position in the political spectrum is quite curious, the Left accuses it of being neoliberal and elitist while the Right acusses it of the complete opposite (even coming with the creative pejorative term of "PACommunism" that is thrown at them whenever they ever so slightly turn to the centre-left). Then again, PAC was created by disgruntled members of both PLN and PUSC, with later additions of the now extinct Democratic Force (though many later defected to Broad Front). What ] mentions of the inability to deregister parties is also a huge complication, Libertarian Movement will linger in limbo for the foreseeable future as liberals move to United We Can, Liberal Progressive, PUSC and the probably-will-be-created Liberal Union. It's amazing how, despite having one of the most solid electoral systems in the world, we have huge flaws like that hahaha. At least we don't have ruthless systems like Peru's where a party is forcefully disbanded if it doesn't participate in each election '''and''' obtains at least 4% of the vote in all ballots.
:And ] there's nothing to apologize for hahahaha. Your comment helps a lot to see the perception of political parties and electoral issues in the eyes of people alien to the matter. Even many Costa Ricans are completely lost in these issues, Dereck and I are a deviation of the standard. So what may seem logical and simple to understand to us won't necessarily be like that for other people. So your input really helps in knowing that we should in one way or another change our display of information so it's easier to understand. For example, we work a lot on elections and the Legislative Assembly, but I know that there's a lot of work to do when it comes to articles regarding our Public Administration (which is, immensely huge, I'm talking 300+ public institutions) and other institutions like the General Comptroller, General Prosecutor, General Procurator and Ombudsman. That's precisely why I've started working on covering local elections, our municipal governments need better articles. So in synthesis, you don't have to apologize, understanding the Costa Rican State is a complicated thing.
:] (]) 04:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
::I agree with ], now ] suggest something interesting, to switch colors of PAC or FA due to both using a tone of yellow and be side be side in most arch parliamentary graphics due to be center-left and left respectively. What do you think?
::I think that changing PAC for red is a no no. Red is already use in many parties like ML and PRSC, that would mean changing FA to black. Any thoughts? --] (]) 15:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
:::No, on second thoughts I think FA's yellow tone is different enough, besides a black tone would be too similar to PIN's tone (although in different parts of the arch still would be confusing). --] (]) 05:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

== Fixing damage to election and other political pages by a now-blocked sockpuppet ==

From what I have gleaned so far, there is reason to suspect the now-blocked {{u|Smith0124}} had edited many election pages in an improper manner — largely, from my understanding, to remove candidates from infoboxes. The edits were to over 100 2020 election and comments on over 60 2020 election talk pages; and several dozen edits/comments other politician/political article/talk pages. The damage to ] and ] is in the process of being contained.

But the others need to be addressed. If anyone here is interested, I can provide the list of pages. ] (]) 07:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

:I have struck through Smith0124's vote and comments on this page. Is no one interested in addressing this malady? ] (]) 20:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

: Here is the list I've culled from edits so far, grouped ~topically. '''Please strike through items as you address them. (Note: this list might be enlarged as I research further.''')

:*'''UPDATE''': The sockpuppet and been reported. I have reverted the presidential election edits. The others of the new batch of ~40 are gubernatorial races.

:Prior to turning to political pages, this editor (as Smith0124 and Peterjack1) had previously largely edited highway pages. AFAICS, the common pattern seems to be declaring as fact a community standard where none had been established or violating one where it had been. (For an odd example of the latter in the highway category see where he insistently violated .) ] (]) 05:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

*<s>]</s>
*<s>]</s>
*<s>]</s>
*<s>]</s>

*<s>]</s>
*<s>]</s>
*<s>]</s>
*<s>]</s>
*<s>]</s>
*<s>]</s>
*<s>]</s>
*<s>]</s>
*<s>]</s>

*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*<s>]</s>
*<s>]</s>
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]

*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*<s>]</s>
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]

*<s>]</s>
*<s>]</s>
*<s>]</s>
*<s>]</s>
*<s>]</s>
*<s>]</s>

*]
*]

*] — requested help on the Talk page for reviewing many edits

*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]

*]

*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]

*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]

*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]

*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]

*<s>]</s>
*<s>]</s>

Again, please strike through items as you address them. ] (]) 22:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

== Templates for deletion ==

See
:]
:]
:]
:]
:which have been declared pointless. ] (]) 03:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
==Ongoing Discussion at 2016 United States presidential election in the District of Columbia==
There is an ongoing discussion at ] about the inclusion of ] in the infobox. ] (]) 00:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

== How should we present elections with runoffs in infoboxes? ==
{{Infobox election
| election_name = 1996 Russian presidential election
| country = Russia
| type = presidential
| ongoing = no
| previous_election = 1991 Russian presidential election
| previous_year = 1991
| next_election = 2000 Russian presidential election
| next_year = 2000
| election_date = 16 June 1996 (first round)<br />3 July 1996 (second round)
| turnout = 69.7% {{decrease}} 5 ] (first round)<br />68.8% {{decrease}} 0.9 ] (second round)
| 1blank = First-round vote
| 2blank = First-round percentage
| 3blank = Second-round vote
| 4blank = Second-round percentage
| image1 = ]
| nominee1 = ''']'''
| party1 = Independent politician
| home_state1 = ]
| 1data1 = '''26,665,495'''
| 2data1 = '''35.8%'''
| 3data1 = '''40,203,948'''
| 4data1 = '''54.4%'''
| image2 = ]
| nominee2 = ]
| party2 = Communist Party of the Russian Federation
| home_state2 = ]
| 1data2 = '''24,211,686'''
| 2data2 = '''32.5%'''
| 3data2 = 30,102,288
| 4data2 = 40.7%
| image3 = ]
| nominee3 = ]
| party3 = ]
| color3 = CC9933
| home_state3 = ]
| 1data3 = 10,974,736
| 2data3 = 14.7%
| image4 = ]
| nominee4 = ]
| party4 = Yabloko
| home_state4 = ]
| 1data4 = 5,550,752
| 2data4 = 7.4%
| image5 = ]
| nominee5 = ]
| party5 = Liberal Democratic Party of Russia
| home_state5 = ]
| 1data5 = 4,311,479
| 2data5 = 5.8%
| map = ]<br>]
|map_caption =
{{clear}}{{legend|#CECECE|Regions in which ] won a plurality}}
{{legend|#FF0000|Regions in which ] won a plurality}}
| title = President
| before_election = ]
| after_election = ]
|before_party = Independent (politician)
|after_party = Independent (politician)
| opinion_polls = Opinion polling for the Russian presidential election, 1996
}}

{{Infobox election
| election_name = 1996 Russian presidential election
| country = Russia
| type = presidential
| ongoing = no
| previous_election = 1991 Russian presidential election
| previous_year = 1991
| next_election = 2000 Russian presidential election
| next_year = 2000
| election_date = 16 June 1996 (first round)<br />3 July 1996 (second round)
| turnout = 69.7% {{decrease}} 5 ] (first round)<br />68.8% {{decrease}} 0.9 ] (second round)
| image1 = ]
| nominee1 = ''']'''
| party1 = Independent politician
| home_state1 = ]
| popular_vote1 = '''40,203,948'''
| percentage1 = '''54.4%'''
| image2 = ]
| nominee2 = ]
| party2 = Communist Party of the Russian Federation
| home_state2 = ]
| popular_vote2 = 30,102,288
| percentage2 = 40.7%
| map_image = Red belt in Russian 1996 presidential elections.svg
| map_size =
| map_caption = {{legend|#CECECE|Regions in which ] won a plurality of the second-round vote }}
{{legend|#FF0000|Regions in which ] won a plurality of the second-round vote }}
| title = President
| before_election = ]
| after_election = ]
|before_party = Independent (politician)
|after_party = Independent (politician)
| opinion_polls = Opinion polling for the Russian presidential election, 1996
}}


Howdy. What is the purpose of using "former", when we already use start/end dates? For example - at the ] page, we've got "Amanda Chase, former state senator (2016–2024)". Wouldn't it be more accurate to write <br>
We currently seem to have a disjointed policy, where we allow election infoboxes for '''mayoral''' elections with runoffs to include results information about both rounds, but national elections seem to exclude the first round. Using the ] as an example, should infoboxes for elections with runoffs look more like the first example (including results information about ''both'' rounds of the election) or the second example (including only results information about the second round).
*"Amanda Chase, former state senator" ''or''
*"Amanda Chase, state senator (2016–2024)"
We shouldn't be using ''both'' "former" & "(2016–2024)". <br>
] (]) 17:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


:I agree with you. <span class="nowrap">&#8212;''']'''</span> <sup class="nowrap">(] • {]•]})</sup> 17:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Note, that we'd probably edit the infobox template to better accommodate two-round elections (or create a new secondary infobox template to do that job) if we change our rules, so the first example looks sloppier here than it would if we'd implement this change.
:"Forrmer" is an accurate description of their job, they are a "former US Representative," whereas "U.S. Representative" would imply they are still incumbent, while the (2016-2024) is a description of their term in office, as they served from X date to Y date. ] (]) 00:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::We shouldn't be using both indicators, as each one already explains 'no longer in office'. ] (]) 01:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I dont really see a problem in it, I think its ultimately just a stylistic choice which has been being used for a long time across WP. ] (]) 05:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:As stated previously, I disagree with this change. Without the "former," people who don't look too closely at the start and end date will think the person is an incumbent. ] (]) 00:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


== Incumbent being inconsistently used in US gov election pages ==
For additional context, an example of a mayoral election that currently includes both rounds in its election box is the ].


I've come across US gubernatorial election pages that are inconsistent with usage of "incumbent". Some incumbent office holders have "incumbent" mentioned while others don't. What should we do? Include the word "Incumbent", or exclude. An example of the inconsistency is at ] party primaries sections, where ''only'' the current governor has "incumbent" used, but other current officials don't. ] (]) 03:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
] (]) 16:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


:This isn't really inconsistent in a way that matters. We say "incumbent" when it's the person currently holding that office, and not otherwise. ] (] &#124; ]) 04:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:As I think is quite clearly displayed in the two examples to the right, trying to fit in both the first and second rounds candidates/results is a bit of a mess and makes the infobox far too long (it is over two screens in height on my laptop). This is probably the main reason for the long-standing consensus that infoboxes of presidential elections that go to a second round should only have the second round candidates/results. I would imagine the discrepancy with mayoral has arisen because different sets of editors edit national elections and subnational election articles.
::But that not the case at the exampled page. There, we got incumbent for the current governor, but don't have incumbent for the current lieutenant governor & other current office holders. ] (]) 04:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:I don't really see a way of incorporating first round results into {{tl|Infobox election}} that won't make it too large or disjointed (with various gaps). The only solution I could offer would be some kind of wholescale redesign/reorganisation where {{tl|Infobox election}} is reformatted to operate in the same way that the fr.wiki infobox does (see example ]). This style avoids empty spaces where you have no second round figures for first round candidates or the empty place in the bottom left when you have five or eight candidates. Personally I think any shift should also encompass a switch to using {{tl|Infobox election}} only for single-candidate elections (presidents, mayors etc) and {{tl|Infobox legislative election}} for parliamentary elections. ] ]] 16:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
:::Yes, that is proper usage. If the LG wasn't current, they'd generally be referred to as the 'former' LG, as you see on the example page. In common parlance, 'incumbent' is almost exclusively used regarding the office/election being discussed, even if it may be technically applicable elsewhere. ] (]) 05:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:: At least for U.S. elections, a non-partisan election (like the majority of mayoral races) or a jungle primary where all candidates are competing against each other in both rounds the samples you're showing can make sense. In other races where there are separate party primaries, however, it doesn't work. The primaries are different races and elections from the general election. ] (]) 17:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
::::Agree with this. Since the article is about the gubernatorial election it's fair to point out that Evers is the incumbent for the same position here as indication he'd be running for reelection. Even if other people are technically also incumbents, it doesn't have to be pointed out the same way. ]<sup>]</sup> 05:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I'd propose creating a new template called something like "infobox election two rounds" that would act as an alternative to infobox election for use on elections with two rounds. Additionally, I'd propose we find a way that such an infobox allow ] to work within it in such a way that two maps can be included (one for each round) in a more compacted style). And for clarity, partisan primaries are not to be considered a "round" of an election, they are a nomination contest, not a general election contest. ] (]) 18:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
:::::This makes no sense to me. Yas are saying this is ok - <br> "], incumbent ] (2019-present)", yet this isn't - <br> "], incumbent ] (2023-present)? <br> ] (]) 05:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::As for the comments about the largeness of a more inclusive an infobox with both rounds, sure they can be larger than one with a single round, but I'd argue excluding the first round sacrifices significant substance in the presentation simply for the sake of style. ] (]) 18:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
::::::Correct, that would not match standard conventions, as the LG is not the incumbent for the office/election being discussed. 'Incumbent' is a largely redundant term, as former officeholders are generally given the 'former' qualifier, and without contextualization (like 'LG from 1995 to 1999' or 'in 1997, LG ABC') the lack of 'former', 'ex-', 'previous', etc. almost always implies somebody is an incumbent. Still, in the context of an election, the media and academics will generally refer to an office's current holder as an incumbent; frequently government sources (like election results) will as well. ] (]) 17:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I strongly oppose the creation of another infobox. If any changes are agreed, they should be to the existing infobox. I am also not convinced having two maps is a good idea – it will be another factor making the infobox too large. Maps (such as that of the first round results) can be placed elsewhere in the article, such as alongside the results table. ] ]] 18:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
:Of course, there don't need to be two maps in the infobox, we can work that concern out subsequently. The biggest issue at hand is whether the results data from the first round belongs in the infobox. ] (]) 18:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC) :::::::Why not change it to "], ] (2019–present)"? People would still see he's the incumbent. ] (]) 02:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:The current usage makes sense. It is only the incumbent in the office discussed that is so described. ] (]) 21:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::But it doesn't make sense why we're pushing inconsistencies even within the same page. ] (]) 02:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:22, 27 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Elections and Referendums and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27Auto-archiving period: 31 days 
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconElections and Referendums
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums


Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

US Presidential election pages, intros

See this discussion, concerning bolding in intros of US presidential election pages. GoodDay (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Guidance on "politicians from" categories

I was cleaning out Category:Politicians from Manila, to make sure that only people who became politicians while being residents of Manila are only inside this category. This is a part of cleaning of Category:People from Manila as a lot of people are said to be born in Manila, but it could be elsewhere in Metro Manila or even in Luzon. I chanced upon Dennis Apuan, who was said to be "born in Manila", emigrated to the US, lived in Los Angeles, and was a member of the Colorado House of Representatives. Now, he was said to be a politician from Manila, Los Angeles and Colorado Springs. Are all of these correct? Howard the Duck (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the 'People from X' categories are generally quite problematic due to the lack of a definition of what makes someone 'from' somewhere. On a personal level, the only place I would consider myself 'from' is the place I grew up, not where I was born (the nearest town that had a maternity hospital) or live now. This is a meta topic that should probably have a Misplaced Pages-wide discussion. Number 57 11:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
There was a good faith effort for someone else to trim down the aforementioned Category:People from Manila, and it then classified anyone who has worked in government as politicians; in presidential systems, this is not always the case. Also, again for some reason, a lot of notable Filipinos were said to have been "born in Manila" which caused this category to be very large. This would let some people who had been notable elsewhere to be as someone "from Manila".
FWIW, I could consider the place where I lived (and have lived at) as the places where I am from, but I'd also agree this needs wider discussion. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Personally, I add categories if (A) the person was born there or (B) the person lived there for a non trivial amount of time or (C) currently resides there. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm ok with this logic for "People from" categories. How about "Politicians from" ones? Some countries limit the candidates to actual residents of the area, for example. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
To me, it makes no difference. "Politicians from" would be a subcategory of "People from", so theoretically the same rules should apply.-- Earl Andrew - talk 15:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
This makes sense. Looking at Dick Cheney, and see as he is categorized to be a politician from Casper, Wyoming, and Lincoln, Nebraska... then is also categorized as a Texas Republican. Of course American politicians can be categorized down to the city and not have fear of being sent to CFD (LOL). FWIW, in Cheney's case, he is categorized as well as "Republican Party vmembers of the United States House of Representatives from Wyoming"; usually I remove the "politicians from Foo" if he is already categorized as "officeholder from/of Foo"... I suppose that's wrong LOL. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Categorization of elections and selection processes by politician eponymous categories

Does it make sense to add eponymous categories of those running in elections or in the selection process for a VP nom to such related categories? Examples:

Not only are these elections and selections not defined by all these individuals, it doesn't really seem the purpose of eponymous categories, leading to overcategorization. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 23:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I would say that elections should generally not be put into the main category of the participating candidates, except perhaps for major events like a presidential election. Vice presidential candidate selection should only be in the category of the vice presidential candidate. For the presidential candidate, it should be part of the campaign category. E.g. Category:Al Gore 2000 presidential campaign. Gust Justice (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm in line with your thinking. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 03:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Term limited wording on member lists

Hi, I've been working on California State Assembly district articles redoing the member lists, an in those districts (as well as in the State Senate), they have term limited legislators. I recently went through my contributions and reworded "Termed out" to "Retired due to term limits," but it might be a little too long for something that could be shorter. I've been wondering if there was anyone who would make it a preference to do one of these specific phrasings for people termed out of office (with an example of them running for another office afterwards as a combination):

  1. Termed out. / Termed out and ran for another office.
  2. Term limited. / Term limited and ran for another office.
  3. Term limited and retired. / Term limited and ran for another office. (replacing "retired" with another action)
  4. Retired due to term limits. / Retired due to term limits and ran for another office. (current usage)

I also see that some pages (such as 2024 California State Assembly election) use "term-limited" instead of "term limited," so if 2 is used, should it have the hyphen? reppop 19:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I've always seen "term limited" (as is) here in Misplaced Pages but have not seen it in real life. It's always "this person cannot run due to term limits" or something like that. Choice #4 is what is used IRL, but I kinda like #2 as it's shorter. "Retired" sounds something else, but can get the idea across in seven letter vs. "ran for another office". I'd probably be okay with "Retired" if you are short on space (such as tables). Howard the Duck (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

RfC ongoing at Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies#RFC: What Went Wrong in Ohio

There is a RfC ongoing at Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies#RFC: What Went Wrong in Ohio, an article within the scope of this WikiProject. All editors are invited to participate. Toa Nidhiki05 18:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2026 Maine gubernatorial election

Please comment at Talk:2026 Maine gubernatorial election regarding speculation that he might run as an independent.--User:Namiba 23:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

National election articles categorisation

I'd like to propose that we have a formal convention (similar to the WP:5% rule) regarding categorisation of national election articles, specifically that national elections (president or parliament) are included in the continental level election category for the year, as well as a national one (where they exist). This would mean making continental categories non-diffusing, in line with WP:ALLINCLUDED.

For example, 2025 German federal election would be in both Category:2025 elections in Europe and Category:2025 elections in Germany.

I think this would have two main benefits: Firstly it would create consistency of the continental category contents, as only some countries (I would estimate less than a fifth) have their own 'election by year' category series (for example, South Africa does, but Germany does not). Secondly, it is very useful for searching for national elections that took place in a particular year, as if articles for some countries are only located in the national category, it involves searching into potentially dozens of subcategories for each continent.

Thoughts on this welcome. Cheers, Number 57 19:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd support this but would need some guidance.
Some countries who have national elections on a specific day (mostly presidential systems) have separate general, presidential, and legislative elections, sometimes even local elections. In cases such as this the "primary" general election article only get to be included in the continental category. Is that right?
How about parliamentary republics where the president is not the head of government and is mostly a figurehead? Are their presidential elections classified into the continental ones, as well (assuming parliamentary elections already are)? How about semi-presidential countries like France? Howard the Duck (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I would suggest the full rule would be:
Articles on direct elections to national institutions (parliament and presidency) should be included in the continental-level election category for that year. Articles on sub-national elections (state/regional/local), indirect elections (such as presidential elections carried out by parliaments) or primary elections should be included only in national-level categories where they exist.
I wouldn't treat articles on direct president elections differently based on the powers of the person elected – it's more the method of election that I think makes it important here. Cheers, Number 57 21:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
In countries such as the United States, Taiwan and Philippines, there is a general, presidential and legislative (in cases of directly-elected bicameral chambers, separate articles for both elections) election articles exist. Should only the "main" general election be in the continental category, or some, or all? Howard the Duck (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
What do you think? I'm open to options in this case. Number 57 22:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I'd be in favor of letting in just the general election article if separate articles exist for other national level elections. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm not in favor of the current set up where continental categories only have subcategories. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
OK, happy to go with that. Amended suggestion below:
Articles on direct elections to national institutions (parliament and presidency) should be included in the continental-level election category for that year. Articles on sub-national elections (state/regional/local), indirect elections (such as presidential elections carried out by parliaments) or primary elections should be included only in national-level categories where they exist. If there are multiple articles on a general election (e.g. 2024 Taiwanese general election, 2024 Taiwanese presidential election, 2024 Taiwanese legislative election), only the main (general election) article should be in the continental category.
Number 57 19:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

UK Template: help needed

Please can someone assist at Talk:Ceredigion and Pembroke North (UK Parliament constituency)#1992 result? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The new {{Election results}} template should be able to handle these "multipartisan" candidates better than the old ones. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Nonpartisan blanket primary#Requested move 2 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nonpartisan blanket primary#Requested move 2 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 02:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

'Legislative' elections

For a small number of countries, parliamentary election articles are titled '2024 Foolandic legislative election' rather than '2024 Foolandic parliamentary/federal/general election'. There does not seem to be any logic to when this term is used, as it is used for both parliamentary republics and presidential republics (and some federal ones) – it seems to be almost accidental that some article series were started as 'parliamentary' and others as 'legislative'.

Following on from this RM of all the Czech articles from 'legislative' to 'parliamentary', does anyone have any objections to moving other national parliamentary election articles from legislative to parliamentary? The countries that would be affected are: Argentina, Austria, Cyprus, El Salvador, France, Greece, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Palestine, Portugal, Russia, South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam. It would be nice to eradicate what appears to be a quite glaring inconsistency. Cheers, Number 57 15:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I might agree when it comes to countries with a parliamentary system, like Israel or Portugal, but I would be vary of doing that for countries that are (semi-) presidential. In those cases, I think it would only be appropriate if reliable sources describes said elections as such. "Parliamentary" as a term feels more fitting when it's a standalone election, but might make less sense if it's an election that takes place simultaneously with a presidential election. Gust Justice (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Our article is at French Parliament but our articles for National Assembly (France) elections are entitled "legislative", maybe because in French it is called that way. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Re: Indonesia -- This country is in a presidential system. Currently its elections to the House of Representatives (Indonesia) are in a general election article together with the presidential election, but the presidential election itself has a separate article. As there's no separate election to its House of Representatives, this should be unaffected as the general election article both have the elections to the executive and legislative branches. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Re: El Salvador; this is also in a presidential system, and the unicameral legislature is called "Legislative Assembly of El Salvador". If anything, this is where "legislative" has a strong argument.
Re: South Korea; this is in a semi-presidential system, but I suppose the president is more powerful than the prime minister. The article is at National Assembly (South Korea). Yonhap calls the last election "general elections".
Re: Taiwan; this is a semi-presidential system, and its legislature is called the "Legislative Yuan". The Central News Agency (Taiwan) uses "presidential and legislative elections". The Premier of the Republic of China is appointed by the president without legislative approval. The Legislative Yuan elects its own president though, and our legislative elections articles shows the winner of the Legislative Yuan presidential election.
This actually is interesting and country-centric discussions should be made so that it'll surely be aligned with what the WP:RS are actually calling it.
I'd put into premium more into local English language sources; foreign ones such as Al Jazeera and Associated Press pander to their local audiences and use terms that are familiar to their intended audiences. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks both for the responses. I haven't noticed any particular trend in the media for parliamentary elections in presidential systems to be called 'legislative' rather than 'parliamentary' (despite being a presidential system, numerous news orgs refer to Indonesia's elections (which were held separately prior to 2019) as parliamentary (Reuters, BBC, ABC). However, I do suspect you are correct that the French ones are likely titled as they are due to the direct translation.
Based on the feedback, I'll start RMs for each article series. Cheers, Number 57 22:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Again with Indonesia and for other similar countries, I'd be interested what term local English WP:RS use. Indonesia, while not an English speaking country, has a sizable number of English speakers, and local English WP:RS exist. That's why I refrained from using foreign WP:RS such as AJ, AP, Reuters, AFP, CNN, BBC, etc. in determining what the actual term used is. This is something Indonesians can only answer. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

RfC on a new infobox

An editor started an rfc at Template talk:Infobox US political party#RFC on template usage for US political parties to replace the political party infobox with a new one for American parties. Wowzers122 (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Usage of 'Former", when start-end dates are used

Howdy. What is the purpose of using "former", when we already use start/end dates? For example - at the 2025 Virginia gubernatorial election page, we've got "Amanda Chase, former state senator (2016–2024)". Wouldn't it be more accurate to write

  • "Amanda Chase, former state senator" or
  • "Amanda Chase, state senator (2016–2024)"

We shouldn't be using both "former" & "(2016–2024)".
GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you. —CX Zoom 17:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
"Forrmer" is an accurate description of their job, they are a "former US Representative," whereas "U.S. Representative" would imply they are still incumbent, while the (2016-2024) is a description of their term in office, as they served from X date to Y date. Talthiel (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
We shouldn't be using both indicators, as each one already explains 'no longer in office'. GoodDay (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I dont really see a problem in it, I think its ultimately just a stylistic choice which has been being used for a long time across WP. Talthiel (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
As stated previously, I disagree with this change. Without the "former," people who don't look too closely at the start and end date will think the person is an incumbent. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Incumbent being inconsistently used in US gov election pages

I've come across US gubernatorial election pages that are inconsistent with usage of "incumbent". Some incumbent office holders have "incumbent" mentioned while others don't. What should we do? Include the word "Incumbent", or exclude. An example of the inconsistency is at 2026 Wisconsin gubernatorial election party primaries sections, where only the current governor has "incumbent" used, but other current officials don't. GoodDay (talk) 03:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

This isn't really inconsistent in a way that matters. We say "incumbent" when it's the person currently holding that office, and not otherwise. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
But that not the case at the exampled page. There, we got incumbent for the current governor, but don't have incumbent for the current lieutenant governor & other current office holders. GoodDay (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that is proper usage. If the LG wasn't current, they'd generally be referred to as the 'former' LG, as you see on the example page. In common parlance, 'incumbent' is almost exclusively used regarding the office/election being discussed, even if it may be technically applicable elsewhere. Star Garnet (talk) 05:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Agree with this. Since the article is about the gubernatorial election it's fair to point out that Evers is the incumbent for the same position here as indication he'd be running for reelection. Even if other people are technically also incumbents, it doesn't have to be pointed out the same way. Reywas92 05:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
This makes no sense to me. Yas are saying this is ok -
"Tony Evers, incumbent governor (2019-present)", yet this isn't -
"Sara Rodriguez, incumbent lieutenant governor (2023-present)?
GoodDay (talk) 05:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Correct, that would not match standard conventions, as the LG is not the incumbent for the office/election being discussed. 'Incumbent' is a largely redundant term, as former officeholders are generally given the 'former' qualifier, and without contextualization (like 'LG from 1995 to 1999' or 'in 1997, LG ABC') the lack of 'former', 'ex-', 'previous', etc. almost always implies somebody is an incumbent. Still, in the context of an election, the media and academics will generally refer to an office's current holder as an incumbent; frequently government sources (like election results) will as well. Star Garnet (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Why not change it to "Tony Evers, Governor of Wisconsin (2019–present)"? People would still see he's the incumbent. GoodDay (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
The current usage makes sense. It is only the incumbent in the office discussed that is so described. Newystats (talk) 21:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
But it doesn't make sense why we're pushing inconsistencies even within the same page. GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: