Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

Poll inclusion criteria

What is the typical inclusion criteria for election polls? i.e. what is the standard for quality? When there are a variety of independent sources, why include those sponsored by a specific campaign, PAC, or other organization aligned with a specific candidate? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that we've ever discussed the general inclusion criteria for opinion polls, but I have instead seen discussions regarding this for the UK, for example, which IMO should also be followed for other countries. Every country has different polling standards: in some countries there are both high-quality and low-quality pollsters and in some there are only low-quality pollsters. Looking by your contributions, I assume that you want to know this because of the NYC Democratic primary mayoral polls that were commissioned by PACs and campaigns. IMO, for NYC, we should instead look at the quality of these polls (whether they only published the numbers, or did they also include more methodology data), and if they're high-quality, we should include them in the article. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

RfC on changing the article title format for local elections

People might want to give their input here. Cheers, Number 57 23:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Consular Agencies

So there is a series of articles I wrote called consular agencies of Belgium and consular agencies of Albania and they only include honorary consular agencies. Should I add the non-honorary ones or should I change the titles to specify? Vestrix (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the series. Either is good. Adding the non-honorary ones seems better. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC).

Possible uncompleted election article

2011 Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council election is missing a lot of the normal etceteras, and had a bunch of empty templates removed. Maybe this was never really finished? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:01, 29 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 this community. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Gain or Hold?

What is the consensus about when an incumbent candidate has switched parties since their election i.e. was elected as a member of Labour but then later defected to the Greens or the Liberal Democrats. Should it be a gain since it's a gain compared to the last election or a hold since the incumbent had already switched parties before the election TheHaloVeteran2 (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I personally would say a gain as the comparison should (IMO) be with the previous election. A sort of comparator is that seat change parameter in election infoboxes is meant to show seat changes compared to the previous election, not to the situation before the election (although I am also aware this is misused for a small number of countries). Number 57 20:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. The comparison is strictly with the most recent election, so what the incumbent does in the meantime is irrelevant.-- Earl Andrew - talk 20:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
We've always treated defections and by-elections as "in isolation", because general elections should always be treated 'like for like'. I've sometimes found myself in editing conflicts because some editors want to treat by-elections as the comparison. That is not standard practice outside Wiki and shouldn't be inside. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2025 Miami mayoral election#Requested move 2 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2025 Miami mayoral election#Requested move 2 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 07:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Blair Babe#Requested move 4 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Blair Babe#Requested move 4 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 08:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Should Special elections on the US house election in Infobox

Recently someone decided to remove the link to Special election on the US house elections.

Should We have Special elections in Infobox? Fad8229 (talk) 01:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, you added a link to all articles without any discussion, which was then contested. I do not support linking special elections because they are not standard practice. (But personally, I wouldn't have reverted the edits either.) —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:19, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Which infobox are we even talking about? Nevermore27 (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
This seems to be individual US House elections infoboxes, where aside from general elections on prev/next, special elections are linked. See this example.
I would've linked general elections to general elections, then special elections to general elections.
Also, shouldn't odd numbered elections be named differently? Howard the Duck (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
I would be interested in modifying how special elections are listed on Template:United States House of Representatives elections maybe, but adding them to every infobox seems a bit much. Nevermore27 (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
I asked the question because there was a guy that removed the house special elections off all the US house elections (The ones that were even numbered). He said it was because it only happens in a few districts, so they don’t deserve to be in the info box. Fad8229 (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
FWIW all election infobox prev/next links should link only to even numbered ones. I'd even suggest odd numbered election articles be renamed into something else. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Notice of last opportunity to weigh-in on discussion about Trump infobox photo for 2024 election article

At Talk:2024 United States presidential election, there is a discussion that was started in early June on the question of whether to use a January portrait of Trump in the infobox, or switch to a newer portrait from June. There was division between editors as to what photo should be used, and the what would be an appropriate rationale to justify either a change or retention of the status quo. However, this discussion seems to have died down.

I am posting notice here and other task forces and projects related to that article so editors un-familiar that it was taking place but interested in weighing-in can comment. After opportunity for any additional editors to comment has been given, I go to the admin notice board and will ask for any uninvolved admin to consider a closure. SecretName101 (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Previous and next elections in infoboxes

Lately I've ran into discussions with Yilku1 on previous/next elections. Yilku1 actually has a point, where the 1941 Philppine Senate election should have its previous election to the 1934 Philippine Senate elections and not to the 1938 Philippine legislative election. I said that the Senate's (and the House's) successor in 1935 was the National Assembly, which was the 1935 Philippine legislative election, then the 1938 Philippine legislative election, then a constitutional change restored bicameralism in 1941, so that the 1938 Philippine legislative election points to 2 next elections.

Now, YssaLang changed the next election in 1934 Philippine House of Representatives elections to two elections: the 1935 Philippine legislative election (for the National Assembly) and the 1941 Philippine House of Representatives elections (for the House of Representatives). (This is not YssaLang's first brain-bending edits. See, for example, the MOS disaster that is Nacionalista Party#1941–1971: Bicamercal Commonwealth to Third Republic.)

What's supposed to be the rule here? Howard the Duck (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Generally I think you would like to the next equivalent election, but lots of 'it depends' here I think. If a parliament went from being bicameral to unicameral but the single house was a continuation of one of the previous ones (e.g. keeping the lower house), I would say you'd link the one that was continued, but not the other (so you wouldn't link the last upper house election article to the first unicameral election article). If the new unicameral parliament was a completely new institution, then I think fair enough to link both. And vice versa if it was split in a way that neither of the new houses was an obvious continuation of the unicameral one.
On a similar note, I have seen an editor adding 'previous election' links in the first Czech and Slovak presidential election articles to the last Czechoslovak presidential election article. I'm not convinced this is a good idea as IMO it isn't a continuation of a series of elections. Views on this? Number 57 15:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
I can live with Yilku1's logic here and have the lower house elections link to 1934, 1935, 1938, 1941, 1943, 1946, etc., then upper house to 1934, 1941, 1946, etc. YssaLang's just doesn't make sense as it links to the name of the legislature/chamber.
Re: First post-divorse Czech Rep/Slovakia elections, I'd do it similarly on what was done on the first elections in West/East Germany post-WWII, which was linking to the last all-German election in 1938, which then links to the first West and East German elections post-WWII. But Czechoslovakiaphiles may think otherwise. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
"I can live with Yilku1's logic here and have the lower house elections link to 1934, 1935, 1938, 1941, 1943, 1946, etc., then upper house to 1934, 1941, 1946"
That is what I was thinking, but I don't know much about Philippine elections. Yilku1 (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
@Number 57, "If the new unicameral parliament was a completely new institution" can be open to interpretation. In the Philippines' case, the transition from 1934 bicameral Philippine Legislature, to 1935 unicameral National Assembly of the Philippines, then to 1941 bicameral Congress of the Philippines is arguably one "lineage". The wartime 1943 unicameral National Assembly (Second Philippine Republic) is not in this lineage for being a Japanese puppet republic. You can still argue to link 1934, 1935, 1938, 1941, 1943 and 1946 elections in sequence though, but you can argue that the two National Assemblies are distinct entities. You can argue that the 1943 body is a "completely new institution".
Another thing is the 1978 parliament. Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law in 1972 and ruled by decree until 1978. The old Congress was dissolved in 1972, and a new parliament was created in 1978. You can argue that while the 1987 bicameral Congress, although harkening back to the old pre-1972 Congress, is a direct descendant of the 1984 parliament.
Summary of succession suggestions:
Howard the Duck (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
The simplest solution is to have all unicameral and lower house elections linked exclusively, then upper house (Senate) elections are linked exclusively, just as in {{Philippine elections}}; i.e. Yilku1's suggestion. This avoids discussions on how a body is completely new, and avoids arbitrary linking by name just as what YssaLang did. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Secular Democratic Alliance#Requested move 12 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Secular Democratic Alliance#Requested move 12 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 11:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Lead

Recently, I've noticed a trend in election articles regarding the lead section wherein the bold text is being supplanted with very similar sentences. For example: Elections to select members of the House of Councillors were held in Japan on 20 July 2025, with 124 of the 248 members of the upper house of the National Diet to .... I don't, however, believe this to be the best way of starting articles: elections are not held to select someone, they are held to elect someone, so the sentence should technically read Elections to elect members of the House of Councillors .... But obviously an election is held to elect someone, so this feels redundant. I feel this can be resolved by simply using the standard bold method of introducing articles: The 2025 Japanese House of Councillors election was held on 20 July 2025 to elect 124 of the 248 members of the upper house of the National Diet of Japan to ...


But does anyone have any thoughts? Should the sentence or the bolding be used? DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 22:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I've been a part of a discussion last week about this. It's essentially WP:AVOIDBOLD, as election titles are essentially descriptive titles. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
How about Elections for the House of Councillors were held in Japan on 20 July 2025…? — Kawnhr (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
That would be better. I would very much avoid trying to shoehorn the article titles into opening sentences, as they tend to make them repetitive (the year and country usually gets repeated) and somewhat awkward. The 2022 article starts "House of Councillors elections were held in Japan on 10 July 2022 to elect 125 of the 248 members of the upper house of the National Diet, for a term of six years." Number 57 00:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes, this format is better (and I myself have adapted some election articles to this format during the past weeks to better comply with WP:SBE and MOS:BOLDAVOID). Impru20talk 07:42, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Query: order of candidates in two-round presidential elections

I wish to bring up an issue since I have seen there is some confusion (and, probably, a generalized lack of consistency across election articles). It involves the ordering of candidates in the "Results" section of articles for two-round presidential elections and, particularly, those cases in which the candidate coming out on top in the first round is not the same as the one securing the most votes in the run-off.

At 2025 Romanian presidential election there has been some back-and-forth, as a new "interpretation" by some users concluded that the candidate securing the most votes in the first round should be placed first, regardless of whether that candidate lost the second round. Past precedent in other articles for Romanian elections showed that it was the winner of the second round that was placed on top, then all other candidates (though some users were bold and changed these throughout June 2025; examples include 2014 Romanian presidential election and 2004 Romanian general election; also 1996 Romanian general election, which has remained in its original version without edits). Looking a little outside Romanian elections, the same precedent was applied for Polish elections (such as 2005 Polish presidential election), Argentine (2023 Argentine general election or 2015 Argentine general election) or Croatia (2014–15 Croatian presidential election, which was also re-edited in June 2025). This makes sense, as it's whoever wins the run-off that goes on to become president. However, some articles like those for some elections in France, Peru or other countries, show the losing first round candidate on top (sometimes, even when these lost by wide margins in the run-off).

So, my question is: how should this be sorted out so that it is both consistent across articles and logical in terms of what information is conveyed to readers? Any input is welcomed. Impru20talk 11:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

My standard for these are French presidential elections, where it is sorted by first round result, irregardless of who won the second round. See 1995 French presidential election for an example. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
See also 1925 German presidential election. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes, but what is the point of that? 1925 German presidential election is a perfect example: the first two candidates did not even run in the run-off (they are entirely absent from the infobox altogether!), and the candidate that ultimately won is placed last. Impru20talk 16:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Aren't the participants in the runoff the people you should see in the infobox anyway? I have seen non-participants in the runoffs in infoboxes, even on the first row and always thought of it as weird.
I would suggest to boldface the eventual winner in results tables of runoff elections though, or add colors to the rows. Pale yellow for runoff participants, then not-as-pale yellow for the eventual winner. Like this:
CandidatePartyFirst roundSecond round
Votes%Votes%
Karl JarresGerman People's Party10,416,65838.77
Otto BraunSocial Democratic Party7,802,49729.04
Wilhelm MarxCentre Party[a]3,887,73414.4713,751,60545.31
Ernst ThälmannCommunist Party1,871,8156.971,931,1516.36
Willy HellpachGerman Democratic Party1,568,3985.84
Heinrich HeldBavarian People's Party[b]1,007,4503.75
Erich LudendorffGerman Völkisch Freedom Party285,7931.06
Paul von HindenburgIndependent[c]14,655,64148.29
Other candidates25,7610.1013,4160.04
Total26,866,106100.0030,351,813100.00
Valid votes26,866,10699.4430,351,81399.29
Invalid/blank votes150,6540.56216,0610.71
Total votes27,016,760100.0030,567,874100.00
Registered voters/turnout39,226,13868.8739,414,31677.56
Source: Gonschior
Howard the Duck (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Also I think the other candidates should be listed invidually if there are stats on them. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
It's interesting though on how the actual source of this table presented the data. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
So, basically, the proposed table as per what the source states would be:
CandidatePartyFirst roundSecond round
Votes%Votes%
Paul von HindenburgIndependent[d]14,655,64148.29
Wilhelm MarxCentre Party[e]3,887,73414.4713,751,60545.31
Ernst ThälmannCommunist Party1,871,8156.971,931,1516.36
Karl JarresGerman People's Party10,416,65838.77
Otto BraunSocial Democratic Party7,802,49729.04
Willy HellpachGerman Democratic Party1,568,3985.84
Heinrich HeldBavarian People's Party[f]1,007,4503.75
Erich LudendorffGerman Völkisch Freedom Party285,7931.06
Other candidates25,7610.1013,4160.04
Total26,866,106100.0030,351,813100.00
Valid votes26,866,10699.4430,351,81399.29
Invalid/blank votes150,6540.56216,0610.71
Total votes27,016,760100.0030,567,874100.00
Registered voters/turnout39,226,13868.8739,414,31677.56
Source: Gonschior
I don't think it's a bad take: second round results order, then use first round results for all other candidates. Which is what the very same source uses. Impru20talk 09:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Should be sorted by first round results IMO, otherwise it just looks odd that the column with all the candidates (in nearly all cases) is not sorted as expected. It's also simpler as it only required one order of sorting, whereas sorting by second round means sorting twice. While a few examples have been found above of this not being followed, I think it is our standard practice to sort this way and suspect the vast majority of articles do. Number 57 20:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
    • Also worth noting that some of the examples given above as evidence of second round sorting being used were only very recently changed to that method (2014–15 Croatia, 2015 Argentina, 2023 Argentina and had been stable at first round sorting before that). Number 57 20:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
      • Well, if you are going to worth note some of these changes, you should also highlight that some did indeed show the method I mentioned and were later re-edited ([1])*, and that some of the very recent edits you show are merely re-reverts to the old method. In another case, the design was your own from the start ([2]) until it was later changed. The problem is: none of that is explained or justified (other than "first round order should prevail", as it should be somehow obvious to everybody when it isn't). As HTD mentions, sources themselves do highlight the actual winner of the election (see results for the 1925 German presidential election). I could see the usefulness of alternatives such as boldface the final winner, but a system which allows such winner to be shown in eighth place in a table is seriously flawed.
(* Note: funnily enough, here we have the same guy editing to either method in a timespan of barely seven months with no explanation whatsoever as to why.) Impru20talk 09:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
  • The 1925 German presidential election is incredibly unusual – it shouldn't be used to determine what we do in the other 99.9% of presidential elections where new candidates don't appear in the second round. It probably warrants a standalone discussion. Number 57 15:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Is this a case of "Hard cases make bad law"? Howard the Duck (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
The case is the same both for average presidential elections and for the 1925 German presidential election (which is: the winning candidate being shown in second or further places in the "Results" table having little sense); the latter just being an extreme case where the flaws of the system prioritizing first round order are exposed in the most crude way.
More than "hard cases make bad law", I would say this is a case of "not seeing the forest for the trees". Impru20talk 13:41, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
The "winner" of the election should always be in the most left section of the infobox, at least for Presidential elections. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes, no one disputes that. The discussion is on the results tables further down the article. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Oops. Well, in the same vain, the "winner" should be first on the results table. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
When reading a page, I read the first round first and the second round second. If I'm reading the first round first, then I'd expect them to be in order of votes. Wowzers122 (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
The problem is: unlike other elections (such as parliamentary ones, which see a mere distribution of seats among several candidacies), in presidential elections there is an actual winner, with the remaining candidates being losers. It makes little sense to prioritize the first round over the second, as it means you will be potentially prioritizing a loser over the candidate that actually wins the election (which is the scope of the article all along). Impru20talk 09:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
You haven't seen discussions on how parliamentary results are to be ranked. Is it via votes or seats? Howard the Duck (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Oh dear, I have even participated in those. And so far: it is typically seats in the infobox, votes in the Results table. Though I have yet to see a parliamentary election where a single winner is elected in a nationwide runoff (maybe the dissonance here is that some people are applying the logic of parliamentary elections into presidential elections?). Impru20talk 12:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Apparently for both it should be by vote.
Yet another discussion is if there are two votes, by constituency and by party-list; if we're ranking by vote, which type of vote?
FWIW, for IRV elections, it's always ranked by first preference, which is sorta the argument here for runoffs. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Funnily enough, several examples used at the IRV article use second round order to sort candidates... so does the 1990 Irish presidential election article where such system is used. Impru20talk 14:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
As well as the 'sort once' simplicity argument, for me the first round results not being in order draws the eye as an error. Of course we all see the world differently, but I can't get my head round the table on the right below being the 'right' way to do this. Number 57 15:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
First round sorting
CandidatePartyFirst roundSecond round
Votes%Votes%
Person 1Labour10,000,00022.2211,000,00047.83
Person 2Conservative9,000,00020.0012,000,00052.17
Person 3Liberal8,000,00017.78
Person 4National7,000,00015.56
Person 5People's6,000,00013.33
Person 6Alliance5,000,00011.11
Total45,000,000100.0023,000,000100.00
Second round sorting
CandidatePartyFirst roundSecond round
Votes%Votes%
Person 1Conservative9,000,00020.0012,000,00052.17
Person 2Labour10,000,00022.2211,000,00047.83
Person 3Liberal8,000,00017.78
Person 4National7,000,00015.56
Person 5People's6,000,00013.33
Person 6Alliance5,000,00011.11
Total45,000,000100.0023,000,000100.00
The one on the right seems better to me; who finished first in the first round is trivia, while the second-round winner is the only result most people will think of. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
So it turns out it was Irish constituencies election results that ordered candidates by first preference votes. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
@Number 57: You are right of course in that we may see the world differently, but in such a discrepancy, I believe we should stick to the view that sticks the most to the actual election dynamics (and to sources, of course). First round results are only relevant to determine who gets to the runoff, but the actual winner is determined by the second round result (unless he/she gets enough support in the first round, obviously). If a candidate gets 49.99% and a 20-point lead in the first round, but then goes on to lose the second round with the same 49.99%, he or she would still be the losing candidate and their result still be less relevant than the one winning the election with 50.01%, even if that candidate did not fare strongly in the first round.
On sources, take the 1925 German election one, it sorts candidates by second round results (sources for other elections are not so obvious since these tend to show separate tables for first and second round results, but in all of these sources the result depicting the final winner is prioritized). Prioritizing the first round is not only not strictly adherent to sources, but also inconsistent with the election workings and also with the article's design itself (the aforementioned issue of infoboxes prioritizing second round results). Impru20talk 09:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
France has to be the country with the most extensive experience with runoffs. Le Monde's per constituency results presented the results in two tables if the district needed a runoff. In fact, our constituency articles, such as Paris's 9th constituency presented this similarly. Now, I'd suggest to follow this way of presenting things, just take care not violate things such as MOS:COLHEAD. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
French interior ministry also presented the 2022 presidential election in two tables. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Would you consider having the second round results listed first, ordered by votes, then first round results, ordered by results of the non-participants from the 2nd round?
  • Options:
    • One table, first round results shown first, ordered by votes from first round
    • One table, first round results shown first, ordered by votes from first round, with colors
    • One table, first round results shown first, ordered by votes from second round
    • One table, second round results shown first, ordered by votes from second round
    • Two (or as many) tables, first round results shown first, ordered by votes from each round
One advantage of having two tables is that there are endorsements and jockeying in between rounds. If the "Results" section has lengthy prose, having just one results table messes up the story (i.e. "spoilers"). Howard the Duck (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I would favour one table, first round results shown first (because this is how the Template:Election results works, anyway), ordered by votes from second round. Impru20talk 07:45, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
I'd like to say we would not be restricted by current templates and ways of presentation here in Wikipedia. As demonstrated above, French elections show two tables instead of just one. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
For example 2022 United States Senate election in Georgia, where there are two results tables, one each round. There is even prose, polling and per county/district result per round. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
French elections show one table. You are mixing the sources with the articles here. Having two tables feels like an unnecessary duplication of information that can be easily displayed in a single table (and sincerely, splitting these into two tables just because some people can't stand a candidate order different from the one they would like does not feel right; there is no other purpose for such splitting other than that).
The US is its entirely separate ecosystem (they even use their own specific templates) and we shouldn't take these as models for elections in other countries. They do many things that aren't done (and mostly shouldn't) in election articles for other countries. Impru20talk 13:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
FWIW, there was just one family of election results tables until {{Election results}} was created. Even France (see Paris's 9th constituency for an example) still uses the old family of tables. I've been converting the old ones to {{Election results}} but is a chore LOL. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, but US elections typically use these (and others) as a general feature, and many design features of US election articles seem to come from how election articles were 15 to 20 years ago (but changing the consensus for formatting US election articles is, basically, a nightmare). That is one reason (not the only one) why extrapolating US elections elsewhere is typically not a good idea. Impru20talk 13:45, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
I'd agree on American exceptionalism (not just on elections articles) here at Wikipedia, but as demonstrated with French constituency articles, these present results virtually as two tables anyway. It's not just American ones. Writing prose in-between rounds can be tricky: where do you put the results table? At the beginning, middle or end? Having two tables sorts this out.
Also, we can also have two infoboxes stacked on top of each other for both rounds. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Reminder that this discussion is about presidential elections, not parliamentary ones (I highlight this to you because this one is not the only reply in which you are treating both indistinctly, despite the topic of this thread being more specific).
Why would you want to write prose-in between rounds? Unless these are very separated in time (and US ones typically do, which adds to the exceptionalism) it makes no sense.
Two infoboxes is also a very bad idea (first round results are not that relevant, they are only meant to determine the candidates going to the run-off, which is the key race of the election). We should avoid duplicating information as much as possible. Impru20talk 14:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
These are runoff elections. Runoffs are normally scheduled a month or so apart. Do you mean to say we'd have separate rules for runoff elections if it's an executive or legislative position? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
"order of candidates in two-round presidential elections" is the topic of this discussion. Parliamentary elections have their own dynamics when it comes to second round elections, namely:
  1. That there are very few of them.
  2. That the most commonly-known case of this, France, uses a particular system under which multiple candidates can pass into the run-off (the triangular, quadrangular, quinquangular or sexangular elections). These would allow for particular rules to be used there to adapt it to their particular situation, yes (worth noting: the possibility of withdrawal in French legislative elections would make this a very comparable case to the situation at 1925 German presidential election).
If I had to choose, I'd say let's apply the same for parliamentary elections at the constituency level (i.e. order candidates by second round results, then first round results, in a single table). But since this discussion does not revolve around legislative elections, and since I understand that particular situations may require particular solutions, I left them out of the discussion. Impru20talk 14:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Mathematically, French legislative runoffs can have up to 8 candidates, provided all candidates got 12.5% (that's impossible IRL, so possibly the most is 7). Withdrawals are also sort of different from the German one, as withdrawing French candidates cannot be replaced by another person, unlike that Weimar election.
Since there's very few of them, and even fewer that we have actual articles on, and I'd suggest we encompass all. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
If we encompass all, my criterion would be the same: order candidates by second round result, then the remaining ones by first round result, in a single table.
But maybe others may have different views depending on whether it is a presidential election or a parliamentary election, and I fear the issue will get dilluted (specially if US legislative elections come into play, which is definitely not the intention of this discussion), so I will still say to stick to presidential elections for now. Impru20talk 15:24, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
The templates we use are universal. If we're making exceptions we could, in theory, make exceptions for everything it no longer is universal.
It's tantamount to saying we have different rules on French presidential and Paris 9th constituency elections, and both are runoffs. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Who is speaking about templates here? We are discussing types of elections. I believe you are really mixing up things here.
Of course different elections under different electoral systems may use specific rules that better fit them, that has nothing to do with the templates. Factually, the discussion here revolves only on the precedence of candidates in a presidential election: whether to order them by first round or second round results. Impru20talk 16:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
You're the one who brought up templates above?
French presidential elections use two tables. I'd say order the candidates and present the results in the manner the reference presented it, for any multiple-round elections. That means the aforementioned German election has one table, ordered by second round, while the French elections have two tables. The root of this discussion, 2025 Romanian presidential election, (gasps) presents this on two tables as well. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
Only to highlighting that election templates allow to show both rounds combined into one table. I dunno what does "template universality" have to do with that. Precisely, if you can simplify results by having them all in one single table, what's the point of having two tables.
French presidential election articles use one table (?).
I also don't know why we keep arguing here. I just picked one of your options, then it's you seemingly attempting to push me into picking another one that comprises two tables. Again, for me it's one table, first round results shown first, ordered by votes from second round (if anything, more convinced than earlier on). Impru20talk 16:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I've presented an idea to have the Template:Infobox legislative election expanded upon

This is so it will be able to showcase both current seat figures and last election seat figures, due to Talk:Next Danish general election#Seat figures, and input would be very appreciated. Discussion is Thomediter (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Is this the place to discuss? On face of it an additional column of last election seat figures would be good iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply if you would be so kind) 09:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums/Archive_28&oldid=1308481386"