Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 3

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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.

→

Wikipedia:Templates with red links subpages

I believe these belong to you:

Enjoy! bd2412 T 06:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure has been formed

I just wanted to let everyone know about the formation of WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure. We hope to cover all the major motions and parliamentary procedure terms. There will probably be a certain amount of overlap with Wikipedia:WikiProject Voting systems and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referenda. As mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Parliamentary_Procedure#Voting_methods, voting-related topics are being classified under the headings of:

voting method – Voice vote, show of hands, rising vote, etc.
voting system – Majority, plurality, preferential voting, etc.
voting basis – Majority, two-thirds, majority of entire membership, etc.

There is a bit of overlap between voting system and voting basis, of course. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

National Initiative

Should the National Initiative be included as part of this WikiProject? EPM (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

List of election results

Chronological order

I believe that lists of election results should be in chronological order from earliest to latest. In some articles, I see it in reverse order. What's the consensus?—Markles 12:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

ongoing elections and prominence given to candidates

I have once mediated a dispute between Steelbeard1 (talk · contribs) and Dr who1975 (talk · contribs) relating to which types of candidates should be mentioned on election pages. The same dispute has come up again because my "compromise" last time was intended specifically to reset the discussion, as it was heading towards arbcom, which was overkill. See Talk:United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008#dispute resolution for background.

So, I am starting a group discussion here as this appears to be most relevant wikiproject. Depending on how the discussion goes here, it may be necessary to elevate this to a WP:RFC.

At the heart of the dispute/discussion is how to present the candidates at various times through an election campaign, such as potential candidates, "declined" candidates, withdrawn candidates, etc. On many articles relating to elections, there is usually a "Candidates" section which lists the candidates. This section is usually a table or list of the current candidates, without prose. As a result it is a prominent element of an ongoing election article: the simple format of the section attracts readers to it, as it involves less comprehension -- the reader will probably follow the links to the candidates biographies rather than read lots of prose about the election campaign.

So, who should be prominently mentioned for an ongoing election ?

In my opinion, while the election is ongoing, the candidates section should only list "serious" candidates - people who are very likely to be in the race until the end. All other candidates should probably relegated to only minor mentions in the prose of the election article, where the specifics of how they entered and exited the race can be more fully explained, with reliable sources attached to them.

As the dispute is about ongoing elections more than elections from last century, WP:BLP plays an important part. To give an example of how this comes into play, the biography of a potential/declined candidate probably should not state that the person is even slightly interested in running in the election until there is some very clear wording in reliable sources to that effect --- on the other hand, the article about the election would benefit from mentioning potential candidates based on less strict sourcing requirements, as the wheeling and dealing that goes on before an election are an important part of documenting the election. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree I generally agree with the overall scheme put forth. I would've prefered all names listed in bullet points with apropriate headings because I beleive that if an indivicual is prominent enough to be speculated upon then it says something about that person's overall notability that would otherwise fail to register with people reading the page. However... I'm willing to compromise on this. Above all, I want to stress that properly cited potential candidates do deserve mention somewhere in the page. Some editors feel that speculative candidates should not be mentioned at all in the election articles which I feel goes against wikipedia policies on properly sourced speculation.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Jayvdb. Personally, I don't think persons should be listed as candidates (even if qualified by weaselly terms like "speculated" or "potential") unless the individuals have given clear, publicly documented indications of interest in running. Coverage of activities leading up to the election may include discussing possible candidates, as these unannounced candidates can often exert considerable influence. But I think such speculative statements should be clearly contextualized as speculative, and further should give some indication of both who is doing the speculation. While the sourcing might be somewhat less strict that BLP standards, there still needs to be some standards. That is, random musings by Joe Blogger should not be acceptable. Partisan rumor mills should also be avoided. Ideally, such speculative statements would have multiple sources (indicating they have reached some level of notability) rather than derived from a single incident. And even better, the text and sources should attempt to present the significance of whether a given individual runs or not, rather then simply presenting isolated mentions that so-and-so might run. older ≠ wiser 02:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree--but strictly enforced so that only those who decided to run for office get bullet points. All speculation as to who should run and those who were asked to run but declined should only get minor mention in the body of the article and must, and I stress must be property sourced with linked citations from bonafide journalistic sources (i.e. no blogs). As for the format of the bulleted candidates' lists, they are to be listed by party with the two major parties listed first, followed by minor parties, then independent candidates. My suggestion for the order of the two major parties is based on the party affilation for the incumbent, or in case of a vacancy, the party of the departed person. That party would be listed first. After the election, the party of the winner would be listed first. As the race progresses, subheadings can be included within the party headings indicating who failed to qualify, withdrew, were defeated in primary (or party convention if that's the case), defeated in primary runoff election, defeated in general election and/or defeated in runoff election. The bulleted candidates' names can also include their home cities, occupations and possibly the fate of their candidacies if the aforementioned fate subheading doesn't prevail, but nothing else. Official campaign websites belong in the external links section of the article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow,I am impressed with the quick responses from the people I have notified directly. As a point of order in this discussion, please wait for input from WikiProject members who are probably only going to see this discussion on their watchlist; they may be slower coming up to speed and forming an opinion. We need their opinions in order to fully explore this subject

I think that using "===Withdrawn===" would be a distraction. The intent of a "Candidates" section is to be a quick overview :- sub-sections take up a lot of space, and require the reader to comprehend the meaning of the subheadings.

Instead I would use ';Withdrawn:', which takes much less space.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I carried out your subheading suggestion in the articles Louisiana's 1st congressional district special election, 2008, Louisiana's 6th congressional district special election, 2008 and United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008‎. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And I have removed the single quotes and wrapped the colons in nowiki tags so that they are formatted the way I think you intended... this suggestion is in-line with the way I have tried to format the subeadings (agree that wrapping them in equal sign tags is too much). I always prefered to wrap the subheadings in double single quotes so that they were merely italicized because I felt that the bold face still distracted from the party headings too much. Jayvdb, does this look the way you intended? --Dr who1975 (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is looking better. The list on Louisiana's 1st congressional district special election, 2008#Candidates and Louisiana's 6th congressional district special election, 2008#Candidates are still very hard to quickly comprehend - they are too "busy". Perhaps try a table design; rather than experiment on the articles, I suggest that we work together on a project page "Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referenda/Candidates table" which we can discuss and improve. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If no one else starts it by June 1 then I will.--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Jack Kemp Congressional primary results

Where can I find a record of Jack Kemp's primary election results?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Jesse Jackson, Jr. election results

I do not have the official 1995 special election results for Jesse Jackson, Jr.. All I have is the results with 93% of the precincts reporting. I can not find the 1996 primary results either.

Peer review requested

I would like to eventually get Valencia (Spanish Congress Electoral District) to GA status and with that in mind would appreciate some constructive criticism of the article as to what is missing/ what could go in/ what should be excluded/expanded etc. As the article is part of 52 similar articles on the Spanish electoral districts, it would also serve as a template for expanding the others. Valenciano (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete-tag on local elections in Japan

Hi all

I've been adding results of local elections in Japan for the past six months, sometimes also with comments on the local issues and candidates. As there are no english resources avalible on the net I think it's important to add theese. However now the user CalendarWatcher have started adding delete-tags to the articles, for start with Fujimi mayoral election, 2008 and Minato mayoral election, 2008. As we have lots of articles on local elections I think it is important that theese articles are to remain - wikipedia really lacks political results and comments on local elections in many countries, including Japan. As you can see here there are quite many articles added - for me it seems like a real waste to delete all thoose articles. I am planning to open up a vote because he/she dosen't seem to understand my arguments. Could you please support me? Also perhaps leave a comment on his/her talk page. Best regards --Jonte-- (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: There is now a vote open here (for Fujimi) and here (for Minato), please give your support. --Jonte-- (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Inactive?

User:MBisanz tagged the project page as inactive and historical; the page hasn't been edited since 2006. But with the ongoing discussion here on the talk page, it seems that the project is still pretty much alive. Shouldn't the tag be removed? --Paul_012 ^(talk) 08:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What ongoing discussion? Numerous people above, myself included, have asked for assistance above and got none so it seems deader than the dodo to me. Valenciano (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out; it seems I haven't been scanning the page attentively enough. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 17:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm still doing stuff, mostly creating election templates and creating pages and links. Don't have the time to focus on the Project much, but I'm working on the pages. Chadlupkes (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

In an effort to revive this WikiProject, which covers a very timely subject, I propose to merge it into Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics. If this project is still active, then there is no need to merge it. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It might also be a good idea to notify people (such as myself) who work on election articles but whose primary focus isn't on the elections themselves. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever works to revive the project

. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Templates

For many months from now User:CieloEstrellado is changing the format of many many electoral templates (see for instance this). Other users and I have been very tired of this, also because CieloEstrellado is not interested in discussing the issue. What can we do about it? Do you agree with CieloEstrellado's edits? --Checco (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Checco. CieloEstrellado is very annoying in changing his templates and offers little or no reason to do so, except perhaps his personal aesthetic tastes. In addition, he refuses to discuss this and fails to answer any message left on his talkpage. I hope we can do something to make him stop. --Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a dialog is critical. If he continues, call for admin help. Chadlupkes (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Dialogue has not been possible because CieloEstrellado refuses to discuss. We definitely need an admin help now, but we need also that the users working on elections and election templates take a clear position on the issue. --Checco (talk) 07:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to talk to Cielo many times on his talk page, but he has never answered back to me in any kind of way. --Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)