Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Requested move notice

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:43rd Canadian federal election#Requested move 9 February 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, AusLondonder (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

US presidential primaries delegate count in {{Infobox election}}

I made a suggestion on Template talk:Infobox election#"Delegate count" regarding the delegate count for ongoing US presidential primaries. This suggestion is for a protected template, therefore I invite those interested to comment on the proposal. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 16:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Mixed voting system

Hi! There a re quite a few mentions of "mixed voting system" over several articles, but there is no Mixed voting system article itself. I hope someone would create it, even if as a simple redirect. I was tempted to redirect to Mixed-Member Systems but the concept is possibly wider. There is a definition under Mixed-member proportional representation, that "An electoral system is "mixed" if more than one formula is employed to distribute legislative seats." (Ferrara, Federico. "Mixed Electoral Systems"). Which by the way probably belongs elsewhere - on the new article? - and not there, as it discusses a general feature. Thanks! - Nabla (talk) 09:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

New type for {{Infobox election}}

I've made a proposal over at Template talk:Infobox election#New type for primaries for the creation of a new type of elections to be called primary. Please come and comment. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 14:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, the approaching EU Referendum in the UK with the two voting choices of "remain" or "leave" mean that the {{Infobox referendum}} won't be totally accurate, as it currently only allows the choices "yes" or "no". Would it be possible to have someone change this please? Something like where you can choose what the responses are or something? Thank you! There have already been requests at the infobox's talk page here and the referendum's talk page here. Thanks again. Seagull123 Φ 17:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Seagull123: This is already possible. See Template:Infobox referendum#Multichoice referendums. Number 5 7 19:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016#Proposal for an WP:Editnotice

I suggested the inclusion of an WP:Editnotice for US primary articles in order to limit last-minute temporary results from being included in the articles. In my experience with other election articles, we've tried to limit ourselves to final results instead of reporting partial results when as little as 5% of the total is available. Please come and comment. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 20:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Adding/Excluding popular vote for the Democratic presidential primaries?

See Template talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016#Exclusion of popular vote. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 05:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Accessibility: Scroll boxes

User:Number 57 has informed me this project is using the banned {{scroll box}} for its tables (examples). Please don't use this template or hard code overflow:auto as it causes accessibility issues. See archived discussion for details. — Dispenser 19:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Er, that discussion has not resulted in a consensus not to use scroll boxes. Number 5 7 21:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:Scroll box: "This template should not be used in main article space, as it renders any content obscured within the template unprintable. This is especially true with text content, such as citations, according to a June 2007 discussion. Please, if you see a scroll box in article space, remove it and put a hidden warning." — Dispenser 12:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The template isn't being used, so that's not relevant. Number 5 7 23:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

You've effectively subst'ed the template. — Dispenser 02:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Trouble finding references? The Wikipedia Library is proud to announce ...

The Wikipedia Library

Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online: Premium collection" includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (like 60 minutes) and newsreels, music and theatre, speeches and lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. This collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, engineering, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. For more topics see their website.

There are up to 30 one-year ASP accounts available to experienced Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Brokered convention

I have rated this article as C in quality and given the real possibility of a brokered convention for the first time in 64 years, I have rated the article importance as High. For reasons unknown to me the importance grading is not showing on the talk page. In any event this article could become very important on the project in the coming months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: As far as I am aware, there is no importance grading for this WikiProject's articles, only class. I assume this is because arguably all national elections and referendums are of high importance to the nation in question, and it would probably be systematic bias to rank some as more important than others. Number 5 7 10:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Aaahh. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Election results on riding and candidate pages - ascending or descending order?

Hello, I've seen election results go both ways by year on different pages. I've looked for a standard, but I can't find one. Can anyone point me in the right direction? To be clear, I'm just looking for whether election results should be listed with most recent election first, or with first election first. Thanks, Ajraddatz (talk) 05:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is one, but I believe it's more common to have the most recent ones first (that's how I've done some Solomon Islands constituencies I started writing recently). Number 5 7 07:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Results of the United Kingdom general election, 2015 by parliamentary constituency

Reminder that Results of the United Kingdom general election, 2015 by parliamentary constituency article is unfinished yet important to many.

James Tamim (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Help - wrong infobox template at United Kingdom general election, 2015 and Next United Kingdom general election

Edit warring happening, help please - it seems the Israeli/Dutch only (extremely multi-member) infobox is strangely being forced upon the two UK election articles where the results don't even compare, rather than the internationally-used infobox seen at United Kingdom general election, 2010 and all prior. - see Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015#Lead infobox - I replaced the lead table with the table used at United Kingdom general election, 2010 and prior elections as well as used internationally. if the concern is having LibDem but not SNP, see United Kingdom general election, 1951 or prior for exact precedent − every UK election, regardless of other parties' votes or seats, has three and only three parties − Tory, Labour and LibDem. Unlike the SNP and the rest of the minor parties, history continues in that the LibDems like Labour and Tories are the three parties of government. There should be no reason for this election article to have a different infobox. The consensus, by way of what is used in all the previous UK elections, is to use the full 'Infobox election' infobox - anyone claiming consensus for the 'Infobox legislative election' infobox is incorrect. There is no "strong consensus" or even "consensus" to include SNP. I've searched for SNP on this talk page and found barely any mentions for support at all! It is also the best compromise choice to ensure the prior israeli-only infobox is kept out however - instead of debating an infobox with 4 or 9 or whatever number of included parties and disagree, we should keep what the consensus for previous elections has been - that is, only the parties of government are included - Tory, Labour, LibDem. We should start from this point. Then, if people want to discuss adding parties beyond that, they can do so. I fail to see discussion which indicates any form of consensus for the Istaeli-style infobox being reverted to - as another user said "I agree that there is no consensus for the israeli-only infobox though". Up until now, the parties included in the infobox for all previous UK elections have been those parties which have formed or had a history of forming government - Labour, Tory, LibDem - so we can start there where there's actually an existing consensus and see what happens. Timeshift (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Timeshift9's description is somewhat flawed. There has been years of discussion around the election infoboxes. This is an area where we have struggled to find agreement with good reasons for different but incompatible approaches. Archive 3 of the 2015 article's Talk page has the main discussion of late.

After much discussion, it was agreed to switch the Next... article to the Dutch/Israeli-style infobox, while leaving the 2015 article with the traditional infobox used on earlier UK general election articles. More recently, around January, as per discussion at the top of the 2015 article's Talk page, we just about reached agreement to switch the 2015 article also to the Dutch-style infobox, but the requisite changes only came slowly (waiting on infobox template development) and by the time th changes were made, there were more voices favouring the earlier infobox style, but enlarged to cover more parties. There was an ongoing discussion about that when Timeshift9 started changing both articles to a version of the old infobox but with a selection of parties that no one had been arguing for. The infobox Timeshift9 is now pushing has never been used for either article.

I suggest we return to the Talk page discussion for the 2015 article that was ongoing and see if we can reach a conclusion on that before making any changes. Bondegezou (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) This is really a quite flagrant violation of WP:CANVASS. Also, if you revert on that article again, you'll be blocked for violating WP:3RR. Number 5 7 19:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am on the opposite side of the debate to Bondegozou and Number 57, but Timeshift's summary is nonsense, and he is advocating a form of infobox that is totally non-standard - it is neither the current one (which Bondegozou, Number 57 and others favour), nor the more standard form (which I and others favour).

That said, any comment on the 2015 article would be widely appreciated by all concerned: there is currently a discussion ongoing, in the hope of reaching a consensus on which forms of infobox we might eliminate from consideration. Dionysodorus (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

at Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015#Infobox controversy again. Dionysodorus (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The description above is wrong the correct disruption of past uk election coverage is that the most significant parties are covered in the info box for ensample a 2 parte info box is used on the elerly elections form the 1800’s while 3 party info box of lib, con and Irish nanolist for the end of the 19th century canging to 4 party’s when lab began contesting elections even sin fain is fettered in the 1918 election info box while the 1931 election where lab and lib had significant splits a 6 party info box is used 2.28.220.166 (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

<reduced indent> Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom#UK General Election Infobox Discussion (From United Kingdom general election, 2015), where I've tried to summarise the debate and put forward a suggestion for moving forward.

UK EU edit-a-thon 14 May

I’m a volunteer with Full Fact, the UK’s independent, non-partisan factchecking charity, and organising an edit-a-thon to update and improve wikipedia’s content on the European Union and referendum campaign before the upcoming referendum. It would be great to have your help and suggestions, either in person on the day or discussed on wikipedia. The meetup page is here UK EU edit-a-thon. Thank you. Whilomish (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hidden category

I was thinking about creating a hidden category (i.e. one that doesn't appear in the category list at the bottom of the page) for articles with incomplete election results. Any objections? Cheers, Number 5 7 11:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Good idea! Dionysodorus (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Done at Category:Election and referendum articles with incomplete results. Number 5 7 11:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Superdelegate

Hello everyone. We have been having an ongoing discussion over at Superdelegate about the inclusion of an opinion of a prominent person in the lede. I'd appreciate more eyes on this. Thanks! Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Template help

I'm adding the results of the Surrey PCC election to England and Wales police and crime commissioner elections, 2016, but I can't see any documentation on how to use the templates (in this case, the Election box supplementary vote series). It would definitely be useful for someone to put some together. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Important article infinished

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015_by_parliamentary_constituency

James Tamim (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment: Order of the list of candidates in the infobox

What should the order of the list of candidates in the infobox be? See Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Order of the list of candidates in the infobox Sparkie82 (t•c) 11:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Problematic listings

The three "campaign endorsement lists" (see: Bernie, Donald and Hillary) are (IMO) problematic. I've opened up article talk page discussions on each of them. I hope Project members will comment. – S. Rich (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Auto-assessment of article classes

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ Rob^Talk 22:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC on Philippine election canvass articles

Hello, all. I've started an RfC about Congressional canvass for the Philippine presidential election, 2016 and Congressional canvass for the Philippine presidential election, 2010 at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#RfC on election canvass articles on whether these are violations of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Please feel free to engage in discussion there. Thanks.Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 07:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Accessibility and colours for referendums

It has been noted a few times with regards to the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 that the use of red and green causes issues for colour-blind readers, and an alternative palette should be sought. The various graphics on that article and associated articles (eg maps, chart of opinion polls and results bars) are all awful when viewed from the accessibility viewpoint.

Template:Referendum, Template:Infobox referendum and so on introduce and , and I think this may be the start of the issue. Once you have introduced some colour, that usage gets expanded.

I would like to see a new colour palette designed to avoid green and red entirely. As for what those colours are... pass.--Nilf anion (talk) 08:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Edo Governorship Election

I don't think it is right to redirect 2016 gubernatorial election to Edo State gubernatorial election, 2016. Even in Nigeria, there are so many governorship elections in 2016. And certainly, in other parts of the world. Can someone look into this? Darreg (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myanmar constitutional referendum, 2015

This AfD has been relisted three times. Would anyone care to comment? Cheers, Number 5 7 16:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with those who want to keep the article and would also support a name change to "Proposed...". Bondegezou (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

What endorsements to list & other issues

Input would be appreciated from other editors at Talk:Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2016. Bondegezou (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary wall of text

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

(Note that the below was cut & pasted by RogerGLewis whole from Talk:Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales_leadership_election,_2016#COI_concerns._regarding_Bondegezou and is not an organic conversation here. It also includes material cut & pasted from elsewhere, including material 10 years old. Bondegezou (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC))

I am a member of the Liberal Democrats and have in the past stood for election at a local level, although I never came close to winning. Bondegezou (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou how would you like to proceed with the complaint I wish to make regarding a clear conflict of interest? edit warring or sock puppetry WP:COI  Bbb23  (talk  talk   RogerGLewis (talk) 07:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I see no problem under WP:COIPOLITICAL. I've never sock'ed. Sock-puppetry is a serious allegation: what evidence are you presenting? This all appears to be a ploy to distract from the fact that you admit to having been in regular contact with David Malone over his candidacy. Bondegezou (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou (talk Your activity on the UKIP entry and this entry alone is highly questionable. This is not a ploy I am happy to continue to answer your allegations that is on going. This is a seperate matter and it is not for me to act as inquisitor. Other editors who have already commented could perhaps see what they think. On evidence here is the result of the 2010 election you stood as a candidate for the Lib Dems in ^[1]Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). this comment from you in 2006 seems to suggest you have been operating under a double standard since then. I expect inquiry into your editing activity in 2010 will be of some interest to others. Why are half the people working on this page also Doctor Who fans? Bondegezou 22:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC) Because many of those editing here are Liberal Democrats (contributing their expertise while trying to retain a NPOV, of course), and geeky LibDems tend, for some reason, also to be Doctor Who fans. --Whouk (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC) I'm not sure what to make of that above comment, being a Lib Dem supporter myself. (Jamandell (d69) 00:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)) Guilty as charged =) LibDem and Doctor Who fan. Also quite a fan of following boundary commission decisions...er.... doktorb | words 07:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC) I can't say how common this is, but I definitely fit the description of a 'geeky LibDem Doctor Who fan' :). Maybe it's to do with the sci-fi-like hope that the party will be Government? -UK-Logician-2006 16:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC) Well for balance I'm a Doctor Who fan but most definitely not a supporter of the Lib Dems! Timrollpickering 16:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)^[2] I think this is ample evidence of gross hypocrisy, how it is dealt with is a matter for others, I am of course happy for you to turn yourself in as it were But with regard to our own dispute on this article your conflict is quite clear and you have not addressed the facts yet again but resorted to ad hominem with no evidence. At this point I think I am justified in claiming that you have acted in bad faith and cetainly not on good faith.08:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)RogerGLewis (talk)

I refer you to the answer I gave previously. Bondegezou (talk) 08:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou (talk Very well, I will initiate the formal procedures and prepare the full case against you, Meanwhile I trust you will refrain from Intervening on this or any other UKIP or Green Party Article until the formal process is completed. I will also advise the Green Party whose interests have possibly been damaged by your actions as have the tenets of electroal law. RogerGLewis (talk) 08:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

(End section. RogerGLewis has been warned of WP:LEGAL at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:RogerGLewis_editwarring_against_consensus.2C_possible_COI. Bondegezou (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC))]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016

This AfD within the scope of this project; interested editors are invited to participate. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Infobox for United States presidential elections by state.

I have been creating lists of presidential elections by state, an example being United States presidential elections in New York. I would like for there to be a custom infobox for these 51 pages, containing a location map of the state, state flag/seal, and blanks for the set of parameters set forth at Draft:Template:Infobox elections by state‎. The help of anyone with the wiki-fu to create such an infobox would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Ballot proposition articles

I recently noticed a large number of articles being created on ballot propositions in California (there are already 17 for 2016 alone). My view is that it's not a great idea to have a separate article on every individual proposition given how many there are, and it may be more sensible to have a single article covering all the propositions in a single year. Similar to this, Switzerland holds multiple referendums every year, and the solution is the same – we simply have an article for each year (e.g. Swiss referendums, 2015, Swiss referendums, 2016). What are people's thoughts? Pinging @LauraHW: as she has created several of the Californian articles, and I will also notify the US politics and California WikiProjects as this may be relevant to other states. Cheers, Number 5 7 16:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Opinions sought

If anyone has time to offer an opinion at Talk:Colombian peace agreement referendum, 2016#Voting age population, it would be appreciated. Cheers, Number 5 7 07:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I, too, would like to invite everyone to share their thoughts, at Talk:Colombian peace agreement referendum, 2016#Voting age population. Thanks. Pristino (talk) 08:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Florida Amendment 2 (2016)

I've updated Florida Amendment 2 (2016) for a class project, could it be taken off the stub list, please? Thanks, Tkratzer (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Tkratzer: You can take it off yourself by re-rating it on the talk page. Number 5 7 12:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment on United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016

Please provide input on the RfC at the talk page of United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016. This issue has been unresolved since Summer 2016 and requires community input. -- Dane2007 ^talk 01:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for help - links to New South Wales 2015 Electoral Commission results

I've just edited Electoral district of Ballina because the link to the New South Wales electoral commisison's site for results changed from

http://pastvtr.elections.nsw.gov.au/SGE2015/la/ballina/cc/fp_summary to http://pastvtr.elections.nsw.gov.au/SGE2015/la/ballina/cc/fp_summary/

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electoral_district_of_Ballina&oldid=752858012

I've checked the first few districts in the alphabetical list of NSW electoral districts and they all have links to the vtr... site. Is there an automated tool that can move all of these?

You could make a request at WP:BOTREQUESTS. Number 5 7 22:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've asked there Newystats (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing Ballotpedia

Hi! So recently I've been creating wiki pages for state legislative elections (Delaware elections, 2016, Wyoming elections, 2016, and North Carolina elections, 2016 are what I've done so far). The actual numerical data comes from the actual state elections board, but I do use Ballotpedia to see who was the incumbent, who retired, who was defeated, etc.

The question isn't whether Ballotpedia is reliable - they're widely cited and regarded as credible - but whether I should just be using their work in this manner; my understanding is that they're a pretty small-scale, tight-budget operation. I do cite them at the bottom of the results table and link to the appropriate article(s) - is this enough?

Thanks for the advice. Chuborno (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Independence Party Colors

I am working on a map for the California gubernatorial election, 1906. One county (Inyo County) was won by the Independence Party (United States). Is there an SVG color scheme for a whose official color is bronze? Teak the Kiwi (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Parliamentary elections in Serbia

The redirect Next Serbian parliamentary election has been nominated at RfD, noting that there is no obvious target at present. Your comments in the discussion are invited. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Next Basque parliamentary election

The Next Basque parliamentary election redirect has been nominated at RfD, because there is currently nowhere suitable that I can find to target it, and not enough information in relevant articles for me to write something about it. Your comments are welcome in the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 12#Next Basque parliamentary election. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Attempt to change MOS to prevent italics being used to signify future elections on templates

An editor has started a discussion here with the objective of preventing italics being used on election and referendum year templates (e.g. {{United States presidential elections}}) to signify future elections. Input is welcome. Number 5 7 13:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment is invited...

...here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Marsy's Law in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota

Hello, I am looking for editors interested in elections and referendum-related articles. I posted an edit request on the Talk page for Marsy's Law, as voters in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota approved referenda in November to their state constitutions to include so-called Marsy's Laws. I'm asking for a couple small updates to reflect this. I have a financial conflict of interest (I work at Mac Strategies Group and am posting as part of my work there on behalf of Marsy's Law For All) so I am aware I should not edit the article. Can someone look at my request and add this new detail to the article? Thank you. JulieMSG (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Notification of requested move for Voting system

Hi all

There is a requested move discussion open at Talk:Voting system#Requested move 11 February 2017, which is of interest to this WikiProject. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This discussion is still not fully resolved; there seems to a clear asymptotic consensus that a move is needed, but not yet clear agreement on what the target of the move should be. Please join us and don't be afraid to be opinionated, in whatever direction; we need resolution, not equivocation. Homunq (࿓) 17:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

MOS:DASH in opinion polling tables

We need some input on an RfC issue explained here, but we believe this is a better place for the discussion to take place since it affects a wide range of election opinion polling articles. To sum it up: the issue is whether MOS:DASH should be applied to opinion polling tables (it very frequently hasn't for years) and, consequently, en dashes between two dates with at least one space should be spaced (as opposed to the rest of dates in the tables, which would be unspaced). There was a "little" conflict between user Mélencron and myself tonight on this issue (he argued for strict and immediate application of MOS:DASH, I defended for discussion to take place before changes be made due to it affecting many articles), but I'm actually not opposed to it as long as there's consensus to implement such a change in all articles to maintain consistency. So, both Mélencron and myself would appreciate further input on this issue from other users so as to achieve a wide (and clear) consensus on the issue from now on to prevent doubts from arising in the future. Impru20 (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Use of composition bars in election result tables

Hi all! I recently made some edits to include composition bars in eleciton result tables, leaving them like this. The user Number 57 reverted those edits, stating it was "awful" and that I had to obtain consensus approval here before moving to include the composition bars in result tables. I understand that the bars might not suit everyone's taste – it adds a lot of color, in addition to making the tables a little less like tables, and a little more like diagrams. However, I sincerely believe that the inclusion of the composition bars greatly helps the reader get an idea of the legislature's actual composition, in the form of a visual image of the parties' relative strength. For instance, I often find myself having to mentally count the seats for each party in a table and convert them into percentges in order to get an idea of how big a seat share each party has. The inclusion of the composition bar would make this unnecessary.

Wikipedia in a multitute of other languages already use bars like this in result tables (like this). If the use of colors is the reason for Number 57's rejection, then I could absolutely settle on uniformly using the color grey for all parties. Further, this issue is not of great importance to me, but I still believe that with the revival of the classic-style composition bar, we have an opportunity to improve the election articles.

I am not suggesting we force this change on every single election article ever made, but that it be left to the discretion of each individual contributor. Naturally, election articles already vary from country to country and year to year, with different types of summary infoboxes, charts and result tables in place. I found it especially strange that Number 57 removed the bars from articles that had included composition bars for some time, before I expanded their use today. That in a manner as if there were some rule explicitly against their inclusion, which, as far as I know, there is not. If it actually happens to be discouraged as the result of established consensus, then please direct me to the discussion where the matter was settled.

Though, again, this might simply be a matter of taste, considering the bars do not actually change the data displayed or similar; for the record, Number 57 and I rarely agree on matters of style and aesthetics, and such issues can be difficult to solve, as there is often little other than personal taste that affects each user's stance. Thus, I came here on his recommendation, to hear the opinion of other users. Please share your thoughts. Μαρκος Δ (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Colour wasn't the reason for rejection, it was the fact that a bar chart is being added to a cell in a table, which I think is completely inappropriate. I did however suggest to Markos that they may be appropriate in the infobox.

As for the comment "I found it especially strange that Number 57 removed the bars from articles that had included composition bars for some time", the only article (not articles) that I removed a composition bar from that wasn't one Markos added today was Hungarian parliamentary election, 2010. I have no idea when this was added, but no other Hungarian election article has them, so it seems to be a one-off (edit: Just checked the article history, and it turns out it was Markos who added it a while ago). Number 5 7 22:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Good job on the investigation, but I took it for granted you'd understand I was the one who included it, we are, after all, talking about my edits. Μαρκος Δ (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The edit summary "If you want to roll it out across multiple election articles, I think you'll need to start a discussion at WP:E&R. I'll shortly be rollbacking the rest" is essentially the same as "Please clear this with WikiProject Z first", which the policy Ownership of content gives as an example of a possible pattern of ownership behavior. Similarly, claiming "the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article", especially in areas of "minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording" is a violation of the ownership policy. There would be a little more ground to stand on if this project had proposed and found local consensus for a manual of style advice page saying the bars should not be used. You could at least say "9 editors signed on to this". But even then, WP:ADVICEPAGE makes clear that WikiProject consensus is not binding beyond being the opinions of some editors.
Policy forbids acting as a gatekeeper, or saying any deviation from an article style must receive permission before being made. Particularly when this style is not written down, and has never been formally agreed upon. You have to use the process of finding consensus that applies in any other editing dispute. An argument like "X is better than Y because X is consistent with other articles in this series" has its merits, and you can make that argument, but it's not a trump card and the outcome could go the other way. Other arguments might be better, and Editing policy generally supports incremental changes. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- So you don't think something that involves a major change to the appearance of results table is not something that needs discussion? Also, I find the idea that suggesting this needs to be discussed at the relevant WikiProject is an OWNership issue bizarre; it's opening up the debate to the wider community of editors in the topic sphere rather than keeping the issue between two editors. This is a pretty standard was of resolving disputes. Number 57 23:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  - I believe the reason why Dennis thought your actions resembled ownership behavior, is that you went on a spree of reverting edits on 15–20 articles because you personally didn't like the changes, and doing it in a way that made it appear as if you held any more authority than me, your theoretical equal, on the matter – as if you were a "gatekeeper". Now we know, however, that there is no rule or consensus regarding the inclusion of composition bars in result tables, which makes it clear that you acted the way you did because of personal taste – as if your taste should matter more than anyone else's, and as if you had the authority to decide how result tables across Wikipedia should look. I believe it would have been wiser of you to begin this discussion before you reverted my edits because, after all, it's pretty clear what my intentions were with including the composition bars, but you, never stated any reason for your wide-reaching reversions, and it still remains unclear why you think it's acceptable to unilaterally ban their use in tables across Wikipedia. Μαρκος Δ 00:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Μαρκος Δ (talk • contribs)

I'm sure you're familiar with WP:BRD? You made a major change to how the election results were presented and had been for years and appeared to be trying to roll it out on a fairly major scale; I think it's perfectly reasonable to restore the status quo whilst further input is gathered. Number 5 7 12:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't say I'm thrilled with the use of the bar graph in this case, but I have to object to the own-ish rhetoric. Permission or clearance for such a change is not required. The example "Please clear this with WikiProject Z first" isn't something I made up; it's written right there in the WP:OWN policy. Nothing bizarre about it.

Propose an advice or info page with for an Elections and Referendums MOS. That's constructive and will probably win some support. Mass reverts are your prerogative, to a point, but they are not mandated by any WikiProject jurisdiction. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, whoever wrote that essay obviously wasn't familiar with the wider community; requesting someone brings major format changes to the relevant WikiProject for discussion is fairly standard for the projects I'm a member of. But anyway, I did actually suggest an MOS (see here) a while back based on the usual layout of articles that had developed, but unfortunately it didn't really elicit much discussion and whilst it appeared to be supported by the majority of editors who contributed to the debate, it was only a small number. Number 5 7 12:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

"...whoever wrote that essay"? Are you joking? Are we totally failing to understand one another? Which essay are you referring to? I'm talking about Wikipedia:Ownership of content. It's not an essay some guy wrote. It's a policy.

The "whoever" that wrote it is Pigsonthewing who inserted the phrase seven years ago, April 2010. If this was not consistent with the policy it's extraordinary that it has remained for so long. If Pigsonthewing isn't "familiar with the wider community", then nobody is. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Not joking at all. Requesting an editor get consensus at the relevant WikiProject is very common and I see no problem with it. I guess the inclusion of this at WP:OWN is an oversight that has been WP:UNCHALLENGED by those who are familiar with it. Number 5 7 20:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't care if I'm accused of ownership issues. The bar charts look awful in that context. I'm happy to see the changes reverted. Many new editors come here trying to change much that has been perfectly fine and acceptable over many, many years. This project is, I think, one of the oldest on Wiki and we're exceptionally proud of the systems and conventions we have here, very few projects are as stable as this. If it's "ownership" to want to avoid wholesale changes implemented without discussion, label it all over my user page. doktorb _words^deeds 14:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

You're within your rights to disagree with a change, and reverting an edit is fine, to a point. But when you say "Many new editors come here trying to change much that has been perfectly fine and acceptable over many, many years" that is a ownership of articles. Wanting "to avoid wholesale changes implemented without discussion" is ownership. It's fine to say one version is better than another because of the merits of the version you favor. But when you're rejecting edits because 1) the editor is new 2) the editor is not a member of your group or 3) your preferred version is old, that's a blatant violation of the WP:OWN policy. I don't have any interest in what is or isn't written at your talk page, but I've seen editors blocked from editing for this sort of thing.

I would consider that if you and your group are such experienced experts in election articles, then you ought to be able to draw on that experience to cite valid reasons for your favored version, and not have to lean on fallacies like "you're not one of us and we've always done it this way".

In this entire discussion, the following reasons have been given for removing the bars:

"I think is completely inappropriate."
"The bar charts look awful in that context"

Shorter version WP:IJDLI. Those are some pretty weak arguments, devoid of facts, coming from editors who supposedly have such great experience with this topic. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point of the dispute itself – it's about the aesthetics of the table, so how it looks is the crux of the matter. There isn't going to be some great policy-based reason for its inclusion or exclusion, it will just come down to how most editors feel.

Also, if people have been blocked for referring another editor to a WikiProject to get consensus for a significant change, then I think there's been a very serious miscarriage of justice. Number 5 7 20:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Poorly sourced information about living people must be reverted immediately. Clear falsehoods about anything, whether ancient history or descriptions of fiction, should be reverted quickly. You're claiming that aesthetics is a reason for mass reverts. Aesthetic changes have to be submitted to a WikiProject for pre-approval. But then again... this "aesthetic" change has become a "significant change" in your second sentence. Which is it? Significant or aesthetic? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

It's both, a significant change to how something looks. Not sure why that needed explaining? Number 5 7 21:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment Election result tables rely mostly on aesthetics and readability, since they're purposed to show a given set of data (which may sometimes be massive). So, for election articles, I must support both Number 57 and doktorb: aesthetics are significant in this case. Also, you bring up WP:IJDLI but overlook the fact that user Μαρκος Δ himself has stated in this very same page that his changes were motivated out of personal taste (and he himself acknowledges this in the first lines of this section, saying that these changes could be controversial and why, i.e I understand that the bars might not suit everyone's taste – it adds a lot of color, in addition to making the tables a little less like tables, and a little more like diagrams). And his basis for making the change was a belief that the inclusion of the composition bars greatly helps the reader get an idea of the legislature's actual composition, in the form of a visual image of the parties' relative strength, yet this very same thing has been opposed by others when his edits have been reverted (I myself also oppose such changes, since I don't think those help the reader). So, aesthetics can't be considered as secondary here, given the nature of the changes and the fact that the controversy itself is on aesthetics.

I don't know if Number 57's comments when reverting were appropiate or not and could consistute WP:OWN or not, but I'm sure as hell that I've been editing election articles for 6 years now and that, when edits in those have been disputed, what has been usually done is to revert those edits to the status quo version of the article and discuss the issue in order to reach a consensus. In this case, given, that the changes did not affect a single article, but rather, a large number of articles belonging to this WikiProject (and, indeed, the ultimate purpose seemingly was to make the change in all articles in this WP), I only find it natural to ask for a discussion to take place here rather than in any one of those article's talk pages. I myself think that, probably, the way to go wasn't to wholly insert these changes in 15–20 election articles of different countries without consensus, despite the fact the user knew this could get controversial.

On the issue itself, I will say that there are other visual ways to help the reader get a wider idea of the legislature's composition without having to substantially modify the tables, such as using separate composition bars, use parliament diagrams, or both. My two cents. Impru20 (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

David, you clearly are not a newbie so you know the way things work. Convention, agreement, acceptance, arguement, votes, implementations: all part of the Wikipedia model. Give and take, push and shove. Often more push than shove. We both agree, I hope, that editors who come along to change long agreed conventions should not be encouraged. The whole point about projects on Wiki is to gather editors together, not to just put together groups on a whim. If editors want to make changes without discussion, they could be accused of vandalism. WP:OWN isn't the one and only rule in play here. Wanting articles to look their best without interference isn't WP:OWN either; we all want to keep articles free from superfluous information or trivia. There's a Wikipedia guideline for everything for a good reason. We use what we know, what we agree, what we disagree, and come together for the greater good. But sometimes we ignore all rules, and there's a rule for that too, because rules are not always there for the better. I have experience with this topic. I've created articles for this topic. I've created election results boxes for this topic. I've edited more than you realise. My experience, and lack of reverts, is my justification for rejecting these changes. doktorb _words^deeds 21:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The contents of WP:OWN are a long agreed upon convention. The policy is widely accepted and has stood the test of time. It's ironic to have such an important policy dismissed, yet claim that some obscure election articles must be treated with great reverence. The purpose of wikiprojects is collaboration, not control, not setting domains of authority. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide.

" Wanting articles to look their best without interference". False. Any desire to avoid "interference" on any article is a violation of the ownership policy, and Wikipedia's core values. Editing policy gives a good overview of why Wikipedia is open to change, even if it sometimes makes a mess.

"editors who come along to change long agreed conventions should not be encouraged." False on two points. You have no long-agreed upon convention. As Number 57 has just pointed out, an attempt to create an Elections MOS went nowhere. No convention exists. Second, new editors should always be encouraged if the change is an improvement, whether they are changing content that is old or is new. Per Editing policy, even changes that are flawed, but moving in a good direction, should be encouraged rather than vetoed by old timers and gatekeepers.

As far as your long experience, congratulations. Citing your experience alone begs the question: what facts and reasoned arguments do you have against this change? It only underscores your lack of valid reasons. Citing WP:IAR is a classic tell-tale of a point of view lacking evidence or sound arguments. IAR is what gets trotted out in desperation when there is nothing left.

There's still nothing wrong with discussion the merits of this change, but these reasons given so far are fallacies. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

New editors can be encouraged to participate. Yes. They should not be encouraged to vandalise. Edits which create confusion, difficulty in understanding or potential obstructing of facts should be reverted or clarified as soon as possible. That, too, is Wikipedia policy. I will do my best, as should you, to ensure this project retains Wikipedia's founding principle of showing information as clearly as it can, not merely as prettily. As I am sure you agree, if people care about the colour of the fence more than they do the location of the fire escape, they are doing something wrong. doktorb _words^deeds 00:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The merits of composition bars

Party	Votes	%	Seats	+/–
Republican Turkish Party	477,209	38.38	21 / 50	+6
National Unity Party	339,864	27.33	14 / 50	–12
Democratic Party	288,021	23.16	12 / 50	+7
Communal Democracy Party	92,110	7.41	3 / 50	+1
United Cyprus Party	39,127	3.15	0 / 50	0
Independents	7,110	0.57	0 / 50	0
Total	1,243,441	100	50 / 50	0

The idea behind adding these bars is good: it communicates graphically the composition of the legislative body. The seat illustration in Template:Infobox legislature exists for the same reason. MOS:PERTINENCE explains why we want images alongside text and numbers: repeating the same data in different ways aids all readers, and particularly serves those who favor one mode over others. The MOS refers to multimedia learning for fuller coverage.

I don't see any harm in keeping it, since it is accurate and doesn't prevent anyone from seeing the underlying data. My problem with it is the way the bars are spread out, one line per party. This means that there is a void to the right of the colored bar. The reader has to stop and orient themselves to understand what's going on. The void would be filled if you imagined the bars from the other parties stacked and moved into that void. So you're seeing the seat illustration repeated four times, each time highlighting one party. That's why we should want to improve on this, even if we aren't obliged to revert it immediately.

Something like a progression rainbow fixes some of these issues:

inf% List-Class
inf% Stub-Class
inf% Start-Class
inf% C-Class

You get a stacked bar, but you don't get control over the color choice, and it extends full width with that extra gray bar, when you need it to stop. I know at this point everybody starts asking for a pie chart, but pie charts suck. Module:Chart does let us create stacked bars:

10

20

30

40

50

If placed over on the right, and if the x axis could be removed, it would work for this purpose. An image like File:TRNCAssemly.svg would be great, but an SVG file like this, and this kind of graphic, is difficult to create and a nightmare to maintain. The semicircle wastes a lot of space, though not as much as a pie. The use of dots this way is not likely to lead to readers being able to tell accurately the relative numbers of seats. The whole point is to convey the tabular data visually, but if you have to go read the table to correct the errors introduced by the graph, you shouldn't even have a graph. The most efficient option, and the most likely to communicate accurately to readers, is a tree map. The disadvantage is that it's an image, so you can't create and maintain it in Wiki Markup. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

But this is something that already exists; but not in the way you propose. All of what you propose can be achieved through external composition bar and/or parliament diagrams, without physically altering the tables in a radical way. See this or this. Those are very visual (in fact, I think is more visual than merely the square post you post) and are without the issues you yourself point out. And it's not difficult to create at all, just use this, which is very user-friendly. Impru20 (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

OK then. Seems like the best solution if it achieves what everyone wanted. I went ahead and added it to the Cyprus 2013 article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Much better indeed. Ideally, those could be represented by party ideology (from left to right), since that also allows for easier comparisons between different articles once all of them have their own diagrams. For now it's fine though. Impru20 (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

When describing opinion polls, let's leave the background colour in the "Lead" column grey if differences are smaller than the stated polling uncertainty

We have plenty of "opinion polling" articles, for example, Opinion polling for the German federal election, 2017. In those, we often colour the last column by winning candidate, along with the percentage difference.

Many opinion polls publish an uncertainty margin. I propose that, if the difference between the two leading parties or candidates is smaller than the margin of uncertainty, we leave the background colour for the Lead column grey to reflect this.

Thoughts?

--Gerrit ^CUTEDH 15:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose The uncertainty margin that polls publish refer to the whole sample size, not to the individual party samples. For example, a poll that provides a margin of error of 3 pp and party data of 50%, 35% and 5%. The margin of error for the whole sample does not mean that the margin of error for each party is equal (proportionaly, 3 pp margin for the 50% party mean much less proportionally than for the 5% party).

Furthermore, this would raise doubts on what to do with polls that don't publish their margin of error. And could also constitute WP:OR, since pollsters themselves don't usually make a difference between parties within the margin of error and those not within. Impru20 (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Agree with Impru20. There is a tendency with opinion polling articles to keep wanting to add interpretation to the figures in one way or another, but doing so violates WP:OR, which limits us to only basic mathematical calculations. If people want more interpretation in such articles, the better approach is to write some prose text to accompany the tables that cites reliable sources' interpretation of poll movements. Bondegezou (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The column "Lead" is already adding information that is not included in the original polls, so if we strictly interpret rules against WP:OR that would speak for removing the "Lead" column entirely (unless included in the source). --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 14:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The "Lead" column just shows the distance between the first and the second most voted party, which is a mere mathematical calculation. Routine calculations do not count as original research. Btw, the Lead columns are also the result of a mostly wide consensus throughout Wikipedia articles. Impru20 (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Sammarinese general election, 2016

Further input at Talk:Sammarinese general election, 2016 on whether the initial distribution of seats in the elections should be shown in the table would be welcome as there is an impasse. Cheers, Number 5 7 22:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

[1] ttps://www.aldc.org/by-election-results/camden-lbc-highgate/

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Liberal_Democrats_leadership_election,_2006#Miscellanea

[1]

[2]