Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27

Inclusion of Vice Presidential Candidates in the United States Presidential elections before the 12th Amendment

I recently added "Vice Presidential" candidates in the infoboxes for the US Presidential Elections between 1788-1800. This was due to:

A: All candidates for either offices received the exact same electoral votes, with no distinction being made for either office, making them all legally equal contenders for the office.

B: In both 1796 and 1800 a VP candidate was viewed as a potential Presidential option by the electors (therefore the VPs didn't really play in de-facto submission to the "top of the (extremely vague and loosely defined) ticket", as was the case with Pickney in the former election being supported by Hamilton as a candidate to be president, and (less definitively) Aaron Burr's (potential) run at the Presidency.

C: Specifically in the case of 1800, the infobox does a poor job conveying why a contingent election was needed, showing a Jefferson and Burr tie in the infobox (reflecting the way the Electoral College truly worked at the time) would make it easily apparent why the contingent election was needed to viewers who only glance at the page.

D: Excluding the "Vice Presidential" candidates from the infobox attempts to mold these first four elections as working the exact same as modern ones, which is objectively not the case.

E: Some State pages (for example: the 1788 election in Virginia) shows the election with Vice Presidential contenders in line with my edits.

For these reasons I am reverting the past reversion by @Gelid Lagopus and seeking that further discussion on this topic take place here.

Thanks, Zed381 Zed3811 (talk) 04:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I reverted those un-discussed changes. The 1788, 1792, 1796 & 1800 US presidential election pages' infoboxes have been stable for quite some time. I disagree with adding candidates who got elected vice president. GoodDay (talk) 04:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
I disagree with the notions of maintaining the pages' "stability" as a reason to avoid much needed changes to the format. The first four elections, in their current state, are not only incredibly over simplified but do not reflect the way elections at that time worked due a the modern view of US Presidential Elections being imposed on them.
Thnaks, Zed381 Zed3811 (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
We disagree then, as I still believe candidates who got elected veep, shouldn't be in the infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
No reasoning for keeping the article the way it was (in an objectively subpar state) had been given, just WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT Zed3811 (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
AGAIN, we shouldn't have candidates listed in the infobox, who were elected vice president, as presidential candidates. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
So why is Thomas Jefferson included in the 1796, this is completely arbitrary, there was legally no difference between the Presidential and Vice Presidential election, they were all competing in the same race. Zed3811 (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Jefferson was the designated presidential candidate of his party. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Yet the endorsement of the party had no actual effect on the way election worked, Adams "led the federalist ticket" yet there was a serious campaign to elect Pickney the "VP candidate" as President, the pre 12th amendment notions of "VP Candidate" were vague and loosely defined enough that it makes no sense to exclude candidates considered to be "running for the Vice Presidency" (a race that didn't legally exist). Zed3811 (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
I think the "Vice Presidential" candidates should be included in the infobox, even when the congressional nominating causes specifically designated Burr and Pinckney as the junior partners of the ticket. There was no separate vice-presidential election at the time, as separate presidential and vice-presidential balloting didn't begin until 1804. All votes were cast for the presidential election, with the runner-up in that presidential balloting becoming vice president. This system meant that any "Vice Presidential" candidate could potentially become president if they received enough electoral votes, and made it possible for the executive roles to be split between members from different tickets. This is why a contingency election was needed in 1800, as Jefferson and Burr tied in the presidential balloting (mainly due to the incompetence of the Democratic-Republicans) Wowzers122 (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
I think this proposal makes sense, but I'm afraid of making the infoboxes too confusing. I don't have a strong opinion on this either way, I think it all depends on how the infobox looks visually and whether it is too busy that should determine whether or not this change is implemented. BootsED (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
What are your thoughts on the info boxes that I created for including them, I agree they probably could be better and less confusing.
Perhaps by explaining the system a little more indepth at the top?
i.e. "132 members of the electoral college with 264 total votes
67 electoral votes needed to win" Zed3811 (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@BootsED, Aquillion, Muboshgu, Prcc27, HAL333, Slatersteven, and Bob K31416:, you input would be appreciated. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Well for the same reason as Wowzer I say they should not be, as they weren't in fact separate candidates, but rather candidates for the office of president. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
This isn't entirely accurate, In 1796 for example there was a serious effort to install Pickney as president through the works of prominent figures such as Alexander Hamilton, since there wasn't really any true "campaigning" at the time, this pretty amounted to a presidential campaign. Zed3811 (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
I support the proposed changes. The “second vote” was a de facto vote for vice president, but was a de jure vote for president. However, we need a footnote to explain the nuances so that our readers understand that the procedure used to be that the runner-up was elected vice-president. Prcc27 (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: Could you please clarify your comment? Wowzers122 seems to support the changes, but your comment seems to be against the change, even though you said your view is in line with Wowzers122. Prcc27 (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes I am against the change, but using the same reasons, that they were in fact, presidential candidates. Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  • For the curious, this is what the proposal looks like (vs. this current version.) I can understand where it is coming from, but if we're talking about that specific layout, I feel that it makes the infobox too confusing; few readers are going to understand the full context of how early US elections worked and the infobox can't really explain it, so at a glance it makes it look like eg. Jefferson was running against Burr, which is... sort of true but mostly not, not in the sense that a modern reader would understand it. It's simply not possible for an infobox to contain every possible detail about every election for president in a system that has changed its rules over time. I'm not averse to an alternative layout that conveys this in a less confusing manner but I'm not sure what it would look like. (One thing I'd suggest is avoiding putting the VP's pictures there, so there's no at-a-glance confusion with how we structure modern elections.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
    I agree an new layout could be made that's less confusion, Id be interested in seeing how a version where your proposal is put in place would look. Zed3811 (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, that suddenly we have a new editor restoring or making such changes to the infoboxes, without discussing it. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

what does that have to do with anything. Zed3811 (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

A compromise. For 1796 & 1800 elections, put the veep election bit into a footnote, next to the candidate. That way, it won't take up much space in the infobox & still give the fate of the (pre-12th amendment) presidential candidate runner-up. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Can you stop reverting the infobox to your preferred version? The "(elected Vice President)" bit under Jefferson in the 1796 article has been in the infobox for years and there has not been a consensus here to remove it. Wowzers122 (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wowzers122: I've opened an RFC, concerning the 1796 election page. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Reactions to the 2019 Conservative Party leadership election for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Reactions to the 2019 Conservative Party leadership election is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2019 Conservative Party leadership election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Gun Control (Firearms Legislation) Victorian (Australia) State Elections 1999

Electorate of Geelong changed from Government to Opposition by only 16 votes. This change was pivotal to the numbers of seats for change or survival of government. The small margin of votes made a particular electoral demographic pivotal for win or lose. In political terms various pressure groups or 'lobbies' cancel each other's influence in broad political terms. In this election, a particular and measurable demographic had been imposed with strong cause to chance electoral allegiance, recreational shooters and firearm owners (the nasty 'Gun Lobby'). The Port Arthur multi murder atrocity had provided occasion for the Australian Government to impose new conditions which required State Legislation for implementation. These conditions were and are still controversial but although implemented about 1996 were beginning to bite by 1999. There were other government electoral losses around the State that could be written off to 'other issues or minor parties' but if half of those 16 votes in Geelong had voted different - the government would have survived. 8 or 9 voters were pivotal and measurable in demonstrating the displeasure of a large demographic. 101.182.7.227 (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of 2028 United States presidential election for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2028 United States presidential election is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2028 United States presidential election (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Left guide (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Should we show successors in infobox of predecessor, before they take office.

Recently @Wellington Bay: has brought forward the argument that we should show the successors in the infoboxes of their predecessors, before they take office. A few years ago, we had an RFC on this (which I'm trying to find), which concluded we not show them. So, should this method be revisited? GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

No. The election could be overturned, the winning candidate could die, or civil war could break out and the entire government could fall, before the winner can take office. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
What about non-elected positions? GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's the RFC-in-question. Perhaps @Mandruss: should be notified. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Yes, the issue has been well settled by RfC, and there are no new arguments that I can see. That should be the end of this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Except that there are. The prior discussion considered only American politics, while not taking on board any consideration of the fact that political systems work differently in different places.
For instance, while the American system has a turnover time of a couple of months between election day and the actual inauguration or installation of the new holder of a political position, the transition in a Westminster system is completed in a matter of hours or days, depending on the country and the role. And the whole thing hinged on the turning on or off of the "incumbent" flag in the outgoing officeholder's infobox — in the American system, an outgoing officeholder is always still an incumbent holder of their office until the later date. But in a Westminster system, an outgoing MP or MLA is not still an incumbent MP or MLA for any temporary period after the election, so the "incumbent" flag is not applicable to the non-returning MP or MLA for even one further minute, and thus no consideration needs to be given to avoiding its turn-off at all.
A defeated or retiring member of the House of Commons of Canada or the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, for example, is not still an "incumbent" MP or MLA for any length of time after the election — their term in fact ceases with the issuance of the writ that started the election they retired or were defeated in, so the seat is vacant for the duration of the election campaign, and the newly elected MP or MLA is legally the new incumbent as soon as they've been declared elected, even if they haven't officially completed all of the formalities of the process yet. But, for example, people who don't understand how this works frequently make incorrect changes to the dates — I'm just now noticing that an American editor with no understanding of Canadian politics systematically went through all of the MLAs who were newly elected in the 2024 New Brunswick general election a few weeks ago changing their start dates from the correct "October 21" to the incorrect "November 2" on the basis of a source that was about the swearing-in of the premier and cabinet. But the "inauguration" of the new executive council isn't the same thing as the basic installation of the membership of the legislature — Luke Randall didn't become a member of the cabinet until he was sworn in as a member of the cabinet on November 2, but he did become a member of the legislature as of October 21. But since an editor who doesn't understand how Westminster politics works went and changed the start date of his and all of his other newly elected colleagues' service in the legislature to November 2 (also including changing "predecessor=" to "succeeding=" so that they wouldn't be flagged as incumbents at all), I now have to go through over a dozen articles to correct them (not least because it's now past November 2 yet they still aren't actually displaying the incumbent flag due to the predecessor→succeeding flip), which is a far, far bigger burden of followup work than I should have to undertake.
The reasons given in the discussion also largely don't wash.
  1. The person could possibly decline their election, or die, or otherwise not actually take the office for some other reason? Sure, that's possible, but it's rare, and it's much more likely to not happen than it is to happen — and in the event that it does happen, that's a change easily dealt with when we get there, not a difficult enough thing to fix that a complete ban on ever placing the presumed successor's name in their predecessor's infobox would be a logical solution to that profoundly rare problem. If one member-elect dies or disclaims their seat without taking the office, while 99 members-elect become full members without incident, then you've created excess work for the 99 non-exceptions just because of the possibility of the one exception, when the one exception could easily have been dealt with in other, much simpler ways that didn't unnecessarily complicate things for the 99 non-exceptions.
  2. It's a burden to have to go through the articles removing the "(elect)" flag after the replacements have officially assumed the office? Not nearly as much of a burden as going through the same articles having to add the successors' names at a later date in the first place, and not nearly as much of a burden as having to go through a couple dozen articles flipping succeeding back to predecessor because the start date was changed incorrectly by an editor who didn't know what they were doing. That's a much, much worse burden. This is a situation where I do get to play the "my problem is bigger than your problem" card — the fustercluck I now have to fix in New Brunswick because somebody did outright wrong things is a far bigger and far worse imposition on my time than removing "(elect)" from a few infoboxes later on has ever been on anybody else's.
Different countries' political systems work different ways, so this can't be a one-size-fits-all situation. Each country needs to have its own standards, based on its own circumstances and determined by editors with the most expertise in how their own country's political system works and what their own country's resulting needs are. It's fine for the US, where there's a two-month transition period and the outgoing rep is still the incumbent in the meantime — but it doesn't work in a country where the transition period is measured in hours or days and the outgoing MP isn't still an "incumbent" in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Also worth noting the last sentence at Template:Infobox officeholder#Usage. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

See related discussion, concerning parlimentary opposition leaders, taking place. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bearcat: please bring your arguments 'here'. GoodDay (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't take orders from you, dear. Bearcat (talk) 02:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
You're better than that. GoodDay (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
So are you. Bearcat (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
You want the last word (or insult)? go ahead. GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Since I said nothing wrong in the first place that anybody would need to be "better" than, the first insult here was thrown by you, and I never have any responsibility to ever let any insult thrown at me go unresponded to. And since "you want the last word?" is always a passive-aggressive way of trying to shut the other person up so that your word stands as the "last word", and never a genuinely productive contribution to any discussion, that's also not a thing I have a responsibility to take. Bearcat (talk) 12:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

We may be having an RFC take place concerning Canadian officeholders in general & opposition leaders in particular. I'll notify all previous RFC participants of the new RFC, when/where it opens. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  • My sense is generally no. My premise is that it creates confusion if the incumbent is still holding the office but the page suggests someone else is the current office holder. That said, some countries have different election systems - that once the election is called, the individual ceases to hold office. That said, in situations where the individual holds office from the certification of the election, we should be certain when the election is certified, rather than the moment the media "calls" a race. --Enos733 (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I think WP:CBALL rules apply. If we are reasonably confident (based on WP:RS) that the successor will be the successor, we should show them as the successor, even if they have not yet taken office. (Someone/thing can be the known successor before succeeding.) If there is realistic uncertainty about who the successor is, we don't show it. That would be in keeping with standard Wikipedia approaches. We shouldn't be applying specific US election practices everywhere, nor do we need complex WP:LOCALCONSENSUSes to arise. Enos733's argument that we should wait until the election is certified, rather than the moment the media "calls" a race contradicts Wikipedia policy on WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY because Wikipedia very explicitly favours the media (secondary sources) over certification (primary source). TLDR: we have Wikipedia rules for how to handle future events that we can already use. Bondegezou (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
To clarify. This isn't a dispute over who a successor is. Merely whether or not it's necessary to show them in their predecessor's infobox, before they take office. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
If we know who they are, we should show them. They are the successor whether or not they have yet taken office. Bondegezou (talk) 11:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
To me, and to the previous RFC, the infobox ought to be correct for readers - an incumbent should be seen as the incumbent, not of having a successor (especially if there are still months of their term). - Enos733 (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
The infobox should be correct for readers: it is correct that one person can be the incumbent while another person is the known successor. Bondegezou (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
But they're not the successor, yet. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
In the American system, sure. In lots of other systems, the incumbent has already left office, and the successor is already the new incumbent, the moment the successor's identity is known at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

If anybody wants to re-open the entire topic, for whatever reason? It's up to them. As for me? I'm merely carrying out (as best as I can) the aforementioned RFC's consensus. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 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. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:20, 27 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 Wikipedia-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)

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)

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)

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? reppoptalk 19:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I've always seen "term limited" (as is) here in Wikipedia 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)

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)

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)

'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)

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)

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[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 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. Reywas92Talk 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)
People who hold an office (specifically, the office being discussed) are referred to as an incumbent; people who do not are not. It's as simple as that. It is already consistent and makes complete and total sense. Star Garnet (talk) 05:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I give up. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 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)
It's not an "inconsistency." As has been explained to you multiple times, if you're talking about an election for a specific office, it makes sense to identify the person currently holding that office as the incumbent. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm wasting my time here. Do it the way yas want. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I strongly oppose this change. If you're talking about an election for governor, it makes sense to refer to the incumbent governor as the "incumbent governor." BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I give up. Make it all as inconsistent as you all wish. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Going by what I can understand what ya'll are telling me. I've done over the gubernatorial elections in 2025, 2026 & 2027, changing to "incumbent governor (....) & "incumbent lieutenant governor (....)", where incumbents are involved. GoodDay (talk) 05:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

GoodDay, are you also going to revert all the pages where you removed "former" from former officeholders? Because you lost that discussion as well. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I thought they were already reverted by others. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Elli:, @Star Garnet:, @Reywas92:, @Newystats:. Why did @BottleOfChocolateMilk: revert my change at the 2026 Ohio gubernatorial election page? I thought yas wanted "incumbent" added in & the office shown without the state? GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're trolling or if you still genuinely don't understand that we only use "incumbent" for the office that's up for election, even though this has been explained to you like 7 times. And stop saying "yas," it doesn't sound as cool as you think it does. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm not trolling. But by coming up with a diff (this time), it may clarify things for me. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I said it doesn't have to be pointed out when someone is an incumbent, but it's reasonable to do so only for the office being described when the incumbent may be running for reelection. Reywas92Talk 00:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

RfC on what information should be included in infoboxes about future parliamentary elections

Should infoboxes on parliamentary elections which will be held in the future continue to contain information on current political party makeup? Or should the infoboxes be removed/heavily trimmed down until the election has occurred? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 03:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


Comment/rationale The idea for this RfC emerged from a discussion on Talk:2025 Canadian federal election#Trudeau's not gone yet; Page protection about whether the article on the 2025 Canadian federal election should currently include Justin Trudeau's name in the infobox despite reliable sources stating that he won't be running in the election.

For elections which have already been held, infobox layouts tend to summarize the results of the election. This is reasonable, accurately summarizes the article, and is consistent with the guidelines of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. However, infoboxes on articles about elections which will be held in the future currently tend to primarily summarize the present composition of parliament, rather than information about the actual subject of the article (the election), and without clearly stating that that's what the infobox is doing. This doesn't appear to be in line with the goals of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE.

The present composition of parliament is often very different to what the election's results end up being- for an extreme example of this, look at the article on 2024 British Columbia general election and compare with the version of the article from December 2021, with almost every piece of information in the infobox of the December 2021 version not ending up being accurate information about the election.

As a result of this, I would suggest that a broad guideline for articles on future parliamentary elections is that any information about the present partisan composition of the parliament should instead be included in the form of a table in the Background section of the article rather than the main infobox, and that filling out an infobox should be reserved for when the election has already occurred.

Pinging the editors involved in the aforementioned discussion: @GoodDay:, @Trystan:, @G. Timothy Walton:, @Ivanvector:, @Patar knight:, @Simonm223:. Thanks Chessrat (talk, contributions) 03:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The closest any future election article can get to predicting the future is the current situation, something that deserves to be summarised in the most eyecatching part of the page when it first loads, and that's the infobox. Arguing that a three-year-old revision is not an accurate prediction of the eventual result is demanding that it be invalid unless it breaks WP:CRYSTAL. If the purpose of an article is to present information, then the infobox is easily the best place to put the current situation where it can easily be compared to the most useful past and future info, in this case the previous election's results and how many seats a party needs to gain the next election. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I endorse this, with one caveat which I brought up at the 2025 LPC page [1]: if a current leader is confirmed to be outgoing and the leadership race to replace them will end before the earliest date the election can be legally held, then we should no longer have them in the infobox once that threshold is reached. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
> The closest any future election article can get to predicting the future is the current situation
Not really. The closest you can get to a prediction is opinion polls, because that is what those are designed for. There are plenty of examples of a party performing very well which did not exist (or did not perform well) in the previous election, such as the 2017 French legislative election. Incidentally a few articles include an opinion polling graph in the infobox (see Next Israeli legislative election)- I feel that's easier to justify.
Information about the current parliamentary composition is useful and I support including it in the body of the article, but I'm not sure the infobox is the most appropriate place to include that information, because it is fundamentally background/contextual information about the runup to the election rather than information about the election itself. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 05:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Pretty sure G. Timothy Walton was speaking about the current arrangement of party leaders/parties/seats, which typically take up 1/3 of any election infobox and is easily verifiable, as opposed to the obviously incorrect belief that all elections have roughly similar results. There is no rule saying that non-incumbent parties cannot be added to the infobox and if the polling merits it, they definitely should be. For example, both LREM and LFI were in the infobox for the 2017 French legislative article before the first round, presumably based on their polling strength. [2] -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, that is an accurates summation, although I would leave out new parties unless they have seats in parliament through byelection or party splintering; I haven't thought about a party getting in polling data. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
This sort of thing demonstrates the issue- leaving out new parties would have meant that up until the 2017 French legislative election, En Marche would not have been included in the infobox at all despite consistently leading in the polls and sources indicating a victory was likely. Criteria based on current partisan makeup would have also meant BC United being included in the infobox on the 2024 BC election up until the election despite them not even standing in the election at all.
There will always be some sort of issues like that- which is why I really wonder what the purpose is of using an infobox format which is designed for election results, rather than simply including the information in question in the main body of the article. Does the infobox actually add anything useful to the article? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 16:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Again, there are no ironclad rules that only previously elected parties can be in the infobox. As I showed above, LREM and LFI were both in the 2017 French election before the 1st round despite having no seats. In the 2024 BC election, BC United was removed shortly after it ended its campaign. [3]
The infobox should, can, and has changed as facts changed. It highlights most of the key information that readers would be looking for and can be summarized in an infobox (the opinion polling chart interesting, I'll admit, though not visually appealing). -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
> "The closest you can get to a prediction is opinion polls"
Polls are a snapshot of the present, however. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
As this is about only Westminster system- election infoboxes. I'm curious as to if the proposed changes, will be accepted by all countries that are parliamentary based. GoodDay (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
After all these years, why suddenly do we need to change how it's done? Furthermore, how would such proposed changes be accepted? What might be allowed on Canadian elections, might not be on Australian elections, or New Zealand elections, or United Kingdom elections, etc. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • An article about an upcoming election is just that: an article on an election scheduled in the future. It is not an article about the results of a future election; obviously that's not possible. The best we can do, and what we always have done as far as I know, is to summarize significant results from the previous election and changes to the structure/membership of the elected body since that election, and included in that treatment is that we list in the infobox the current party leaders. I don't necessarily agree with Patar knight's suggestion: weird things can happen in Westminster parliaments. It's entirely possible, though extremely unlikely, that the governor general declines the prime minister's request to call an election and invites the leader of the opposition to form government instead - the Conservatives did take the popular vote in the last election, and almost this exact scenario with a minority government and a popular opposition has happened before. My suggestion is that we keep the current party leaders in the infobox, unless and until they are actually no longer the party leaders, regardless of any assumptions we try to make about dates and schedules and legal requirements. The fact of the matter is we have no idea what the Liberals might do if somehow an election were called tomorrow: would Trudeau run? Would they appoint someone leader just for the election? We can't make any assumptions beyond the facts on the table; wacky things happen in Canadian politics, and the Liberals did scramble to appoint a leader in the 2008 prorogation/coalition crisis. We've had three prime ministers who never held a seat in the House of Commons while prime minister, the most recent only seven premierships ago, and we've also had a parliament survive longer than the constitutional five-year limit because of special circumstances. In the 2025 election article we kept Erin O'Toole until Candice Bergen was appointed interim leader, then kept her until Poilievre's election. We also briefly had Amita Kuttner in the infobox after Annamie Paul ragequit the Greens, and currently have Elizabeth May as their formal leader although they're trying a co-leadership thing. Had we been writing the upcoming 1980 election article in 1979, we would have continued to list P.E. Trudeau as the Liberal leader expecting to replace him after the leadership election. The point is: we should go by facts that we know about the present, not by assumptions we make about the future. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Meighen was not an outgoing leader during King-Byng though, since he only stepped down as party leader (for the first time) after the loss post King-Byng. In any case, after King-Byng and The Dismissal in Australia, vice-regal powers are much more curtailed. Even during the 2008-2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, the GG agreed to a nakedly self-serving prorogation when there was a working opposition majority that appeared more durable than what Meighen had with the Progressives. For Trudeau specifically, he's leader of the governing party, so he would have to be the one to call an election as well.
    It's also my understanding that as a matter of convention elections are essentially never called to occur in the time frame when another major party's leadership race is about to conclude (though of course they are sometimes called shortly afterwards as a tactic). I think once the leadership election is set to end before an election can legally be held@before it's conclusion, it's safe enough to include I think, but should be assessed on a case by case basis. Obviously agree in general about keeping present day leaders in infoboxes, interim, acting, or not. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • There is no obligation to attempt to predict the future, or to fill unknowns with irrelevant information. Where an election may occur more than a year in the future, there simply is not sufficient connection between the current party leaders and the future election to make the context relevant. Was this list of leaders, or this one, relevant to the 2025 Canadian election? No. If they were, that information would still be in the article. If the election must happen within a year, there is a more reasonable presumption that the current leaders will bear some resemblance to the leaders when the election is held. But the presentation should make it explicitly clear what is being presented, and that the leaders may change (including where they are expected to change due to an announced resignation).--Trystan (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    At least for Westminster systems, the election can happen when scheduled or whenever the government calls, even if there is a fixed-term election act (e.g. the Tories simply passing another law saying it was okay to circumvent the Fixed Term Parliaments Act in 2019). The relevance is that if an election had been called then, that would've been the best snapshot of who the relevant parties and leaders in it would've been. These infoboxes also make it clear at the top that even if there is a fixed date, or a latest constitutional date, the actual election can occur before that (e.g. "On or before X", "No later than Y"). I think noting any outgoing leaders is already standard. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I am skeptical of the value of including information that is only conditionally relevant, particularly when the chances of an early election can range from very low to very high depending on a number of factors. At the very least, that conditional relevance ("this is who the leaders would be if the election were called today") is not obvious and should be explicitly stated for the reader.--Trystan (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I feel like it is generally understood as a function of how political parties work that their leaders right now would most likely be the leaders if an election is called today. The "On or before/No later than Y" is also bold and at the top of the infobox, so it's pretty clear from looking at it that there is some temporal uncertainty. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

FWIW - The Next United Kingdom general election doesn't show images, where's 2025 Australian federal election & Next New Zealand general election do. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that's just a reflection of the UK consistently having 10 or so parties with incumbent MPs because of the situation in Northern Ireland, whereas Australia, New Zealand, and Canada only have half that. I would oppose any numbers based rules that broadly apply, since each country has a different political landscape. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • If it's not broke, don't fix it. Different countries, different political systems - no need to be prescriptive in a "one size fits all" manner, when most countries' "next election" articles have an infobox in place that works for them. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC regarding 2025 German federal election

I've just opened an RfC over what parties to include in the infobox for the page, please contribute if interested V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The article's current infobox significantly deviates from practice on other election articles. I think this is an important discussion more broadly and further input would be valuable. Bondegezou (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
In elections with an election threshold, I would have included the:
  1. Parties which had surpassed the election threshold and won seats
  2. Parties which had surpassed the election threshold on the immediately preceding election and won seats, but did not pass this time and lost their seats
And excluded exceptions to thresholds, whether or not they had won seats. I'm not German, and Germans may know better. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums/Archive_27&oldid=1285614498"