Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Proposed manual of style for election articles

Being one of the few editors who edits election articles across numerous countries, I'm growing increasingly frustrated with editors only interested in elections in their own countries trying to impose their particular style on said articles, ignoring common practice elsewhere. Currently we have no standard layout for election articles to refer them to, so as a result, I have created a proposed manual of style for election articles, specifically what headings such articles should have, these being:

• Background
• Electoral system
• Candidates (single-post elections only)
• Campaign
• Opinion polls
• Conduct
• Results
• Aftermath
• References
• External links

I have also proposed a common layout of results tables, as at the moment there are numerous tables and templates floating around out there, most of which are designed by individual editors who use them only on the articles they edit. As elections formats are too varied to produce a realistically workable template, I have proposed that we use simple wikitables as they can be manipulated in many different ways, and the coding is much simpler. In many cases editors have created off-article templates for a single transclusion, which I don't believe is good practice (and then actually transcluding the template onto the article leaves the now-redundant v-d-e coding present).

Thoughts on both sets of proposals are welcome. Cheers, Number 57 13:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this for "Elections in" articles, specific elections, or both? I ask because I think we should start standardizing formats for both. Editors like me simply don't have the time nor the patience to canvas current best practices. Int21h (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

This one is for elections, but if we can agree to have a Project manual of style, I think it would be useful to also have them for the "Elections in" and referendum articles (the latter would be heavily based on the election format I'd imagine). Number 57 17:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

How are we going to handle multiple round elections? Or elections with primaries? Would those be subsections of the "Candidates" section? (See e.g. New York City mayoral election, 2013.) Int21h (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I did have two-round elections in mind - I already had primaries in the "Candidates" section. The results tables page also has options for dealing with two round elections. Number 57 17:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that was a wikilink to an actual MOS proposal. Yes, I support this. Int21h (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Theres no need to 'standardise'. Timeshift (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not about standardising content, but about setting articles out in a consistent format - there can, in theory, be unlimited sub-sections beneath the ones suggested above. We have manuals of style all over Wikipedia (e.g. this one for national football teams or this one for novels), yet we have nothing for election articles. Because there are so few active editors in this field, it would be very useful to have something to refer back to when cleaning up articles, as it's almost impossible to get sufficient knowledgeable input to individual disputes every time they happen. Number 57 22:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It is about a proposed manual of style, which like all WP:MOS, are guidelines. So, in terms of "standardization", it would be like a standard where everything is prefaced with "should" or "may", but would lack any "must" terms. This comes up often, so to repeat: following a MOS is not a must. Int21h (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't we sorta follow this already? Seeing that we sorta do, there should be no problem in a MOS. I don't remember seeing a "conduct" section in many articles, though.... –HTD 19:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

We do, but I wanted to formalise it for reference. Number 57 20:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

At first glance I notice that missing from the proposed templates are election title & date, party colour/color and ± % (percentage change) - and plenty more that may be relevant to a particular political system. As a creator of election templates that are now found on several projects I must say I don't think this proposal is workable. If you think you can decide this issue globally then I'd invite you to post this proposal on every single Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_[Country]/politics page and see what sort of response you get. My guess is all you'll achieve is dispute, and if one particular standardisation was enforced, retirement of editors who've previously been passionate about editing in their own sphere of interest. Finally, I consider we already have standard layouts, you'll find them at Category:Election and referendum infobox templates - I notice it the proposed results tables there are no templates referenced - do you propose creating new templates and/or deprecating those that don't fit a new 'world-view'? FanN | talk | 21:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head about disputes, and why I started this discussion. I'm interested in elections around the world, and have been adding a standard results table to articles in pretty much every country for years with no problem (not a table of my own devising, but one I picked up when I started working on election articles). However, I recently had difficulties with an editor focussed on a single country and their particular style, which escalated into them following me to other articles on other countries where they had no previous interest and changing formats to their preferred style. Because there is no official standard, there's nothing to refer back to when this kind of problem comes up, and due to the relatively number of small people editing in this field, especially those not focussed on their own country (I would say there are fewer than 10 editors I know who edit articles on elections in more than one country), I'm beginning to pick up on some WP:OWNership issues for articles on certain countries. If editors with that problem retire because they can no longer get their way, then I have to confess that I don't see it being a problem. In other WikiProjects I'm a member of, there are agreed table formats, which are applied to articles across the globe regardless of the country.

With regards to the results tables, there is a long discussion on the talk page of that specific proposal, with the current result being this template, which does include party colours, but could have other optional features added to it. I am aware of the category of templates you link to, but as far as I am aware, they are used only to display single candidate election (i.e. constituencies or wards) rather than full national results, which is what this discussion is about. Number 57 22:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

No two countries have the same electoral system, let alone political one. Why should Wikipedia have a "one size fits all" election template? doktorb _words^deeds 22:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue is not about the shape of the election template, which can be easily manipulated to fit whatever system is in place, but about the style - i.e. colourings, number format etc. Number 57 22:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed jurisdictions have different systems, but this proposal is not one size. It is akin to a conversion to metric measurements, not a single metric number, but a metric measurement system. Its saying that everyone's clothes should not use different measurement systems. My analogy is not really solid, but it makes sense with respect to a one-size-fits-all analogy. Int21h (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I indeed think this proposal is workable globally. I also think your suggestion to post the proposal on every single national WikiProject politics subpage is good: it should be done. These are the editors that need to be aware of this. Of course certain types of progress (uniformity, standardization) is going to run into issues, and I think bringing problems up here should be enough to overcome minor WP:OWNERSHIP issues/disputes. I should also note, as I feel that I need to always reiterate this, a MoS is not be-all-end-all reflection of community standards; it is a moment-in-time reflection of views of those who were involved in the MoS's creation, not the community's. Int21h (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Help needed

See United States presidential election in Vermont, 1964 (and others in navigational template). See United States presidential election in Maine, 1984 (and others in navigational template). Student7 (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

See what? The obvious thing is that they are incorrectly named (they should be United States presidential election, 1984 (Maine) etc. Number 57 23:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed naming convention (UK Parliament constituencies)

Advertising the proposed Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies) here, as specified in Wikipedia:Article_titles#Proposed_naming_conventions_and_guidelines. PamD 13:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Names of candidates on election pages

Is there a policy or guideline that covers the names of candidates on election pages? Please see Talk:Oxfordshire County Council election, 2013#Full names. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Opinion poll overkill

A few election articles are getting rather large in size, pretty much entirely due to the opinion poll sections in them. Next Italian general election is an extreme version (>100k) and has 365(!) separate polls on it. There seems to be a small group of editors who constantly add opinion polls to articles. In moderation, I don't think this is a bad thing, but some of them are really looking like overkill (Next Greek legislative election has almost 130 separate polls and Next Portuguese legislative election has over 100). What do others think about this? Do we need to limit the number of polls to make it manageable? Number 57 22:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Next Canadian federal election has been splitting the article, when the polls overwhelm the article. 117Avenue (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I think these articles are becoming too large. Polls are not elections. The media wants us to think so in order to "sell time." There is no reason for an encyclopedia to "buy into" this commercial frame of mind. A couple of polls, at most, should do it.

You think you've got it bad, the US has 50 states, 50 sets of polls, and at least three levels of government. None of the polls agree, yet go on and on and on.

This is also a great opportunity for paid editors to "pad" articles with polls favoring their candidate or party.

The article is supposedly about Elections which consist of citizens casting votes, not a group of paid people "polling" other people over the phone to create "excitement" for the politician/party who benefits, or the media, who benefits. Student7 (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of discussion here is not to give our views over the desirability of opinion polls. Opinion polls have an obvious relevancy to elections articles. Where space becomes an issue the common practice seems to be to split the poll data off to "Opinion polling for the next X general election" articles like Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. The practice of placing opinion poll in scrolling boxes will break lots of browsers and hides content. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 11:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Strange election result in Mali

I've recently uncovered more detailed results from Mali's elections in the 1990s. One oddity is how the National Rally for Democracy won a seat in the July 1997 elections. The party did not receive any votes in the first round (it wasn't formed until 5 days afterwards), yet somehow appears to have won a seat. In this source it states that the seat they won was one of six "MV" seats. I have no idea what this is, so any help would be welcome - thanks! Number 57 20:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Minorité visible (Visible minority)? Int21h (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC) This source says "The National Assembly had 15 members from historically marginalized pastoralist and nomadic ethnic minorities..." so maybe it was 6 but now its 15? Int21h (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the context of that statement, I think that's referring to the actual makeup of the people elected to Parliament, not seats reserved for them. Number 57 07:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I may be misinterpreting you, but isn't the actual makeup of the people elected to Parliament based upon seats reserved for such people? Such that by referring to categories of the latter (reserved membership composition), you may also refer to categories of the former (actual membership composition)? In other words, if one referred to MV in the context of reservations, and another referred to MV in the context of actual members, would it not be plain that they were referring to the same concept because of the intrinsic relationship between reservations and actual membership? Its an intrinsic relationship because reservations determine (not entirely, but partially) actual membership. Int21h (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. What I meant was that 15 people who were ethnic minorities were elected to Parliament via the normal process, as would happen in the UK. I think the paper was just highlighting the success or otherwise of minorities (and women) in gaining political representation through the Malian electoral system, which does not have appear to have specific seats reserved for minorities (see current electoral system here and compare to Iran's or Jordan's which note the existence of reserved seats). Number 57 09:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you're saying now. Int21h (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Single-member constituencies without primaries?

How is a partisan candidate chosen to be on a general election ballot without the use of primaries? I am particularly interested in English-speaking/common law countries, e.g., the UK, Canada, and Australia. Do the leaders of the political parties choose who runs for their party in each constituency? Int21h (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It depends on the party involved. In the UK the most common way (for the larger parties) is for the local party group in a constituency to select their own candidate, usually from a shortlist approved by the central party. Occasionally candidates are imposed when there are considered to be problems with the local constituency party. Number 57 08:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Bolding of winners in election infoboxes

Please join the discussion here. Thanks, Number 57 08:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Elections and Referendums At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Tagging articles for inclusion in this WikiProject

I've tagged several articles that fall within the scope of this project with our WikiProject talk page banner. This (rather thankless) task has appeared to have been neglected for quite some time; for example, even though many articles relating to voting systems have been tagged, the article on voting itself was not. I'll continue to do this for other election-related articles I come across. I haven't assessed all of the articles I've tagged. Help from anyone in tagging or assessing election-related articles would be greatly appreciated! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Assessing importance/class for articles

Hello, I would like to know who assesses articles related to this WikiProject – is this something we can do ourselves, or does it have to be submitted to a WikiProject member for reassessment? The article Colombian presidential election, 2014 has been upgraded as the election has gone along, and now the result is known it certainly needs upgrading from its current stub-class rating. I would hope it meets the criteria for B-class. Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

All volunteer. People who have signed up as Project members. Once you have become a member, there are "techniques" and standards to help you to assess articles. Suggest joining and reassessing the article yourself. Student7 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I shall do that. Richard3120 (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

United_States_Senate_special_election_in_New_Jersey,_2013#Polling_3

(Cross-listed at the article's talk page.) There are some problems with the numbers, colors, and formatting of this table. Can somebody please fix the problems? Bearian (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed the problems. It appears to be the work of a couple of IP vandals. Thanks for the heads-up. Tiller54 (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Local election notability

A discussion relevant to this WikiProject has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Local Election Results (Particularly in Wales). Cheers, Number 57 22:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Referendums: allowing a description in navboxes

See: [1]

I made the above diff to easily differentiate between the two devolution referendums and the independence referendum. It was reverted citing a standard; can someone highlight this to me? And regardless, should we have a discussion on allowing them? In my opinion, navboxes should be clear and concise; clarity is lost, however, by just saying that there were three referendums without mentioning they were on two different issues. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The standard (not having referendums below the national level on these templates) is what all other navboxes like this look like. We really don't need a description next to each referendum - what are templates like {{Slovenian elections}} or {{Danish elections}} going to end up looking like, not to mention {{Swiss elections}} or {{Liechtenstein elections}}. Number 57 09:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Polling and what makes a candidate a candidate, part ?

I noticed the RFC occurring at Talk:United States Senate election in Virginia, 2014. Since my comments have far more to do with our United States election coverage in general than anything related to that election, I'm posting this here instead. There is an ongoing, years-long issue which has implications far beyond this one article.

The major part of the problem is twofold. First, it's plainly obvious that there are editors who devote themselves to marginalizing coverage of that portion of American politics which falls outside the two-party system. The second one is more specific to elections: a number of editors actively push the POV that filing for an office does not make you a candidate for that office, but making offhand remarks to a friendly reporter or issuing a press release does make you a candidate so long as a corporate media outlet deems it to be a news story, even when no other evidence of candidacy or potential candidacy exists. See Sarah Palin#Possible 2014 Senate campaign for a very good example; since the filing deadline in Alaska was on June 2, this has been shown to be little more than a news story which was apparently trending one day last year amongst the D.C. fanboy crowd, rather than a legitimate happening. The response on that article's talk page was agreeable to that point, but lukewarm to the idea that it's inappropriate coverage due to there being no factual basis for such a candidacy, as opposed to just being an offhand remark made to Sean Hannity.

The end result is that Wikipedia articles on United States elections are being aggressively maintained as POV forks for how the corporate media and pollsters view these elections, IN PLACE OF being a factually accurate representation. In 2014, a large part of maintaining this POV has been due to the activity of one editor, User:Tiller54. I also see various IPs making a similarly large number of edits to the same articles in the same vein, but it's not that important to me whether it's all the same person doing this or not. I previously attempted some resolution at Talk:Alaska gubernatorial election, 2014, which I had to abandon as it proves that "Wikipedia is ruled by people who have time for this shit" is no longer just a random snide remark. Afterwards, I had to wonder whether "original research" was the correct term to use. However, recent developments led me to believe that I was correct in that assumption. Namely, Tiller54 has insisted on repeatedly inserting Bill Walker's name into the infobox, based strictly upon polling data. Take a look at this webpage, if you would. Pay particular attention to "pending signature verification" following Walker's name. That means that as of this writing, Walker isn't even on the ballot, and won't be unless and until his nominating petition is certified. Ten days ago, Walker spent the entire day campaigning in downtown Fairbanks during our annual summer solstice street fair. A large part of this effort was in collecting signatures. Incidentally, even though Walker was here and his running mate, Craig Fleener, was not, far more people were signing Fleener's petition. So much for "Fairbanks Born" being anything other than advertising hype.

The infobox field says "Nominee". In Alaska, there are no nominees until after the primary election, which takes place seven weeks from today, which is why I originally cleared the names from the infobox of Alaska gubernatorial election, 2014 as a massive WP:CRYSTAL violation. Due to Tiller54's subsequent edits, that article's infobox is currently attempting to portray Walker as the "nominee of the Independent Party", whatever that is. Based upon his supporters, "nominee of the RINO Party" would be more accurate. Anyway, to repeat, Walker has filed for the office, but isn't on the ballot as of today. Moreover, there is another non-party candidate who is also out collecting signatures, but his name has been removed from the article due to the fact that he's not running a money campaign and is therefore being ignored by the corporate media and the pollsters. He is not the only candidate who has fallen victim to this practice.

In conclusion, "you get what you pay for" may be the best way to put it. The weight we're giving to candidates is not due to notability or viability, as Tiller54 has repeatedly asserted. Rather, it's due to the money they're raising and spending and the exposure it's buying them, evidently including right here on this ostensibly free, non-commercial website. This is merely parroting the corporate media and pollster agendas, backed by "consensus" shaped only by a few very active editors. In the end, any editors not agreeable to this agenda will simply fail to make positive contributions. I continue to be busy taking photos of candidates, including Bill Walker. I would be foolish to donate those photos simply to bolster this blatant POV, which is why you've seen very few (if any) of them on Commons, even though I continue to upload other photos I've taken. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, there are two issues here. The first is infoboxes, and they cause massive NPOV problems prior to elections as some editors try to limit who can go in them before they know the election results (the debate about UKIP being in the next UK general election article has been rumbling on forever). Either all candidates/parties should go in them, or they should not be used until the results are in (and even then it can be problematic determining the cut-off point).

The second is polls and lists of candidates/parties. For these I think it's pretty clear that all candidates/parties should be included - I can't see any justification for leaving out anyone running in the election from simple tables. Number 57 21:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"Talk" and campaign speeches shouldn't go into these articles. Nor "signatures," nor any non-election activity. I suppose we are forced to publish election results no matter how small on official candidates (but not write-ins with less than 1%? of the vote). If the party doesn't hold a primary, there is no reporting at that time. This leaves polls on which I would say under 1% shouldn't be reported. Probably a higher threshold should be used.

And yes, this is a place for recording data on candidates that don't need the publicity. This is not a place for "minor/unknown" candidates, per se. We may be ultimately forced to report the results, but we are not, nor should be, forced to publicize unknowns. It is up to them to get publicity. This is not WP:SPAM for minor parties.

We aren't talking articles with the Sarah Palin blurb above. She is already notable and has an article. Assuming she spent time "floating" her candidacy for the Senate, it probably should go into her article with failure noted. But this is a decision for the editors on her biography, not here. We would only be concerned if it fell under "Alaskan Senate Election 2014", where we might not want it, since nothing was actually done. Student7 (talk) 11:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't going to respond to this rubbish, but as he personally tagged me in it, I should probably do so. First of all, no-one has ever said that "filing for an office does not make you a candidate for that office". What it doesn't do is automatically guarantee notability as a candidate, which is why we only include candidates in the infobox if they're polling over 5%. Furthermore, self-declared candidacies by random people on their websites/wordpress blogs are not sufficient. You go on and on about "POV" and "OR" but you constantly ignore WP:RS. If there's no reliable source supporting something, it'll be removed.

As if that's not enough, you then argue against including Walker in the infobox even though he was polling in the high teens! So which is it? Either everyone's pushing a POV to ignore non-major party candidates, or everyone's pushing to include non-major party candidates. You can't have it both ways. As to your specific point about collecting signatures: so the petition filing deadline hadn't passed yet. And so what? Does that mean we should ignore a serious Independent candidate who was at the time polling in the high teens just because they hadn't submitted their signatures yet?

As for your claim that "that article's infobox is currently attempting to portray Walker as the "nominee of the Independent Party", whatever that is", that's just wrong. If you'd even bothered to look, you'd have seen that the link was to Independent (politician), which is what Walker is. The infobox can't be changed to list an Independent candidate as a "candidate" rather than a nominee of a non-existent "Independent Party", as illustrated [United States Senate election in Maine, 2012 here] and here, for example.

Finally, your comments that "The weight we're giving to candidates is not due to notability or viability, as Tiller54 has repeatedly asserted. Rather, it's due to the money they're raising and spending and the exposure it's buying them, evidently including right here on this ostensibly free, non-commercial website." How about you assume good faith for a change? The only criteria relied upon to determine appropriate weight given to candidates are their coverage in reliable sources and their performance in opinion polls. Tiller54 (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)