Template talk:Infobox election/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Counties

(Last modification for now I promise!) Should the "Counties won" and "Counties with 25% vote" fields (template parameters being counties_wonX and counties_thresholdX) be removed? My reasoning is that including the number of counties won is too niche of a thing to include in the infobox, or just generally because it's unnecessary – counties won aren't like "states carried" because that's just not what counties do.

It's probably for this reason it is only used on one article, 2013 Kenyan general election and in no preceding or subsequent articles. The counterpoint to this is obviously that information that cannot be put anywhere else in an article, like the leader's seat parameter DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 23:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

It would probably make more sense to combine the parameter for counties and states won into a single parameter where you can define the name of the subdivision in question. Number 57 23:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Number 57 That's an interesting idea – I would think that would entail removing the counties_thresholdX parameter and renaming the counties_wonX parameter to something like subdivisions_wonX, as well as adding a subdivisions_name parameter. That would definitely allow more flexibility but I'm not sure how that would be squared with the existing states_carried functionality which would need to be retained DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 00:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

The idea is to replace them both with a subdivisions_won parameter and add a new parameter to define the subdivision. A bot could be programmed to replace all instances of states_carried with 'subdivisions_won' and 'subdivision=state' or something similar. Number 57 00:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Whilst porting things over to a new functionality would probably be ideal, it might be better practise to retain the states_carried and just add it seperately DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 19:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 June 2025

Add first and final round parameters as performed in sandbox diff. Testcase "Two round primary (found here) shows it works as intended DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 22:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@DimensionalFusion:  Done. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 13:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 June 2025 (2)

Update row template as performed in sandbox diff to add first and final round templates. Works in testcases as at Template:Infobox election/testcases DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 22:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@DimensionalFusion:  Done. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 13:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Election Infobox Color Bar

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Election Infobox Color Bar that might be of interest to the watchers of this template. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 08:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Implementing Template:Infobox election/row in Lua

There are many pages where multiple uses of this template causes the page to exceed the post-expand include size that I've had to fix in the past few years (as I write this, 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in California is the current culprit, but I recently had an issue with 2021 New York City Council election that resulted in having to revert a lot of otherwise good content). One way to reduce the include size is to reduce nested templates. To this end, I have created Module:Infobox election, which means you can use {{#invoke:Infobox election|row}} as a drop-in replacement for {{Infobox election/row}}. I've implemented this in Template:infobox election/sandbox, all the testcases seem to produce identical results, and on average it seems to reduce the include size of the template by approximately 1/3. If there is no objection, I will go ahead and implement this in the main template.

On a related issue, I'm working on rewriting the entire template entirely in Lua, which has the potential to reduce the include size by up to a further 75% (since instead of having {{Infobox election/row}} nested inside {{#invoke:Infobox|infoboxTemplate}} nested inside {{Infobox election}}, there could be just a single-level {{#invoke:Infobox election|infobox}} call), but that's going to be significantly more work. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

No objection to the implementation of the new row function in the main row template. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 July 2025

Add final_round_label param. Change works in sandbox and on test case Template:Infobox election/testcases#Two-round primary Change performed DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 10:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Next next election parameter

In March a new parameter was added to the infobox (without discussion) to display an additional previous/next election link for elections held on a partial basis. It looks like this.

I think this is going to be pretty confusing to most readers given there is no explanation as to why there are two next/previous links – they will need to work out for themselves that one is for the next election to the same body and one for the next election with the same seats being elected (it took me some time to work it out).

So, questions: (a) was adding this parameter a good idea, and (b) if people want to keep it, how can it be concisely explained what the two different next/previous links mean? Cheers, Number 57 00:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

@Number 57 I think adding the parameter was a good idea, as it allows people to quickly navigate to the next/previous "sets" of elections whilst retaining the ability to go to the next chronological election, even if not to the same seat.

I do think it a way of concisely explaining could be helpful. However, it's important to note that a second row of arrows is also used outside of the scenario of seat cycles, being used in articles such as 2020 Colorado Democratic presidential primary to link to the preceding and next primaries (CA/ME) to take place, as well as to link to the preceding and next instances of the same election (2016/2024) DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 15:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

In my view:

• (a) No, it was not a good idea. As Number 57 says, it is incredibly confusing, while I also cannot discern the usefulness of having a link to the election "next after the next" and the "previous before the previous". For navigating across the whole set of elections you typically have a template at the bottom of the article (which shows the full set of elections of a given country), whereas for individual "next/previous" elections just go to the article on the next/previous election to access the link to the election next/previous to that one.
• (b) I cannot see how it can, really.

Cheers. Impru20^talk 15:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)