Template talk:Infobox Election Campaign

This template was considered for deletion on 2014 November 29. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

Major party leader boxes

Moved discussion from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics. Joestella 10:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Party	Hold	Gain	Lose	Result

New South Wales Legislative Assembly 2007 election
■ Labor	55	–	–	–
■ Liberal	19	–	–	–
■ National	12	–	–	–
■ Independents	7	–	–	–

I note that some elections pages feature a red and blue infobox with photos and personal details for the MPs vying to become premier. This template has a couple of problems, so I've replaced it on the NSW election pages. The reasons:

voters don't vote for premier candidates, they vote for local MPs
the personal particulars of premiers and opposition leaders do not speak to the elections process
the key elections process is the changing seats total between parties in the state's lower house
black text on a blue background (on the Liberal side) is poor design
there are more than two parties

I'd say that the table is too "American" in that it assumes a presidential-style contest, but even American election articles lack this sort of thing. Examples, some not filled in yet, can be found here:

Suggestions for improvements appreciated. Joestella 16:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Talk:New South Wales state election, 2007 - Joestella is insisting on deviating from the standard Major Party Leader table which is the standard for all federal and state wikipedia pages. I do not want to have to get in to an edit war with this user, it is not worth anyone's time. My response was

I think people are being too politically correct here. It is widely known that it's either going to be one leader or the other that will be representing the state after the elections, and it is also widely known that people vote for the party's ideology or their leader, seldom the candidate; it's simply how Australian politics works. Technically people vote for their local MP, which is why more detail should be put in to the body of the article (see 06 SA election which is a Featured Article for a good basis on a state election page), but overwhelmingly swinging voters decide on the party's leader. You do get some exceptions for some sitting members who build up a base of personal support over time, but certainly most seats do not have this or very little of it. In Tasmania, the Greens hold major party status with 4 lower house seats, and as such have a place in the MPL table on their page. In regards to the colour issue, fixed. Unless there is mass support for changing the MPL tables as the standard throughout the WikiProject Australian politics community for all state and federal elections, please do not change the table. Thankyou. Timeshift 15:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this user insists on making his changes which are already represented in the article, he is simply placing redundant information there. Timeshift 16:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I was invited to join in by Timeshift9)

I encourage you both to sit back and look from a distance.

The table is smaller and neater, but rather boring for the top of an article. It is easier to read than the text or pendulum in the "prospects" section, and should be included somewhere (I haven't read the whole article yet).
The leader box is bright and garish. I don't know about New South Wales elections, but both national and my state, the party leaders do most of the talking and get quoted on television, radio and print media. They do their best not to let individual candidates comment on anything more serious than the weather in their local electorate.

For example, the article says that "The government is campaigning on the basis of its plan to secure Sydney's dwindling water supply..." but doesn't say if this is the leader's voice, or the minister for water resources. If it's the leaders "debating" in public, that would be an argument for the leader box. If it's the Minister vs the Liberal spokesman for Water, or each candidate speaking about water in their own electorate, being responded to by their own local opponent, that's an argument that NSW is different and doesn't need the leader box. --Scott Davis ^Talk 21:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Disclosure: (1) Timeshift9 invited me to offer an opinion; (2) I am a Family First member). I'm not a big fan of the red/blue infoboxes. They imply a presidential-style election. While it is true that the people are in effect choosing between the Labor and Liberal leaders as PM or premier, they are also choosing an upper house (in most states), and in some cases choosing independents also. The "two infoboxes" summary neglects this. OTOH, I think it's important to have some picture at the top of the article, so in the absence of a better idea they might as well stay. Kind of a "least worst" option. BTW I think having 3 infoboxes for the Tasmanian election is the worst of both worlds: not only does it neglect the Tasmanian minor parties, but it gives the impression that the Greens leader has some chance of becoming Premier, which she does not. Rocksong 02:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was decided to leave the Greens there due to a) their unique electoral system allowing more Green representation and b) holding four seats which qualifies their status as a major party in the Tasmanian electoral system. If they lost a seat, they would have lost their status as a major party and would lose financial resources, offices and support staff. It is the fact that they are a major party that it was decided they would be left in the major party table. In regards to the MPL table looking garish, I did provide an alternative if you want to take a squiz at this revision. Timeshift 05:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point about making it look nice is well taken - photos, at least, would be more visually engaging. However, a still from a particularly noteworthy election ad or even just a photo of the incumbent could work just as well. A picture of the chamber would work. Or even (as above) the state parliament's logo. Joestella 06:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then put it in the page - but for as long as there is no majority support to remove the MPL table from state and federal election pages, I will ensure the status quo is maintained for as long as it takes. Timeshift 07:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd encourage both of you to refrain from editing any election article whilst this dispute is ongoing; edit warring is never constructive. On the dispute itself, I'm inclined to agree with Joestella that the appropriateness of the 'MPL boxes' is not certain, both in terms of design and accurateness. I'm glad to see that some of the design issues have already been addressed, but the box remains fairly obtrusive. One significant issue that needs to be addressed is the use of copyright photographs; this use, by my understanding, does not meet fair use criteria as it is currently enforced. Ultimately, however, æsthetic issues are irrelevant if the purpose of the box is incorrect; no matter how much mass media may like to portray elections solely as leadership battles, they are not such, and it is inappropriate for an encyclopædia to perpetuate this inaccuracy. I consequently would support a new infobox along the lines of the one proposed above, perhaps one utilising graphic renditions of house compositions (such as this) to satisfy requests for depiction. The argument made against that box is that it is redundant; however, this criticism is misguided, when one considers that infoboxes are intended to summarise essential facts from the article prose, and in election articles, there is no more essential data then the results. --cj | talk 13:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that Australian elections are in practice treated more like leadership elections than they actually are in theory, and so (free) pictures of the leaders are not an inappropriate illustration for the top of an election article. However, the additional information about the individuals, such as time in parliament and electoral district, is minimally relevant to the election as a whole, and makes the table look like an infobox about a two-person battle, which does not give an accurate picture. While I don't object to using the leader's pictures (where available) in some way, I do feel it would be better to move to an infobox giving key facts about the election, which as Cyberjunkie says definitely include the results. JPD (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another user has suggested using the state flag above the table. I prefer the parliament's crest, but I have no strong feelings. Joestella 14:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the infoboxes...

Moved discussion from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics. Joestella 10:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I don't mind if the page names are changed. As for the 3RR rule, it takes two to tango (or in this case revert) to which I feel I am on the stronger footing. The Major Party Leader table is used for state and federal elections and has been for quite some time now. By placing a table of lower house stats, you're simply reproducing redundant data further down the page. I notice that you uploaded the picture of Debnam "something smells rotten" yet you feel you must take Iemma off the page. The MPL table is the standard used in WikiProject Australian Politics to clearly show the leaders of the major parties, whom are often crucial to deciding which party obtains government. I notice your Debnam picture has, at best, a pretty light fair use rationale, as opposed to the Iemma and Debnam rationales. There have been no direct wishes for them to be removed, aside from a few aesthetic comments, which I had also provided to you as a means of consensus a solution but this also does not rest with you. Aesthetics is no longer the issue, you simply do not believe that either realistic premier after the election or his contender should be featured. I am simply maintaining the status quo, rather than allowing a redundant table to be placed there instead which is simply pointless. Timeshift 15:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeshift, if you wish to discuss the leaders table, instead of claiming that it is some sort of standard for this WikiProject, why don't you join the discussion about it in the section above, where you will see quite a few different views on the issue. Please also try to stick to constructive discussion, rather than personal comments about Joestella. He hasn't actually broken the 3RR, and you have, so you have no "stronger footing" - let's jsut leave the edit warring and discuss it properly. To get back to the issue in this section, I don't object to the proposed renaming. 16:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC) (sorry for the extra tilde - JPD (talk))

Firstly you might wish to sign your name correctly with four tilde symbols. Secondly I have participated in the above discussion, the NSW 2006 election discussion, and his and my talk pages in length. He is pushing for a change from the status quo for the MPL tables used on all Australian elections so the onus is on him to show there is support for his changes which there is not. I've provided solutions (such as a solution) for the only issues raised, being aesthetics, which has been addressed through the solution, but he insists on showing redundant information. I do not see anyone agreeing that the MPL tables should be removed, so until there is support he should maintain the status quo. Timeshift 16:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Timeshift9" says they do not "see anyone agreeing that the MPL tables should be removed". A number of users have made supportive comments.

Rocksong: I'm not a big fan of the red/blue infoboxes. They imply a presidential-style election.
JPD: I do feel it would be better to move to an infobox giving key facts about the election, which as Cyberjunkie says definitely include the results
CJ: I'm inclined to agree with Joestella that the appropriateness of the 'MPL boxes' is not certain ... I consequently would support a new infobox
ChampagneComedy: it isn't a presedential election at all
Flakeloaf: The four-party infobox is compact and clearly shows what's going on, whereas the two-party one does make things look like a strictly bipartisan contest
Athænara: the Legislative Assembly table gives a clearer focus on the process itself

Of course, some of these had caveats, newcomers to the debate should read the comments themselves in full. Crucially, no user has yet backed the MPL tables in their current form. Joestella 16:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise for the 2007 NSW election

Moved discussion from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics. Joestella 10:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

New South Wales state election, 2007 in it's current revision holds a far more aesthetically pleasing table of the leaders of the parties who more often than not are responsible for the polling the party receives on election day, as well as the redundant lower house table. This is a compromise where both hold a place and does not look heavy on colour nor are there any other disadvantages I can see.Timeshift 17:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for you attempt at a compromise, but I think it fails to meet some of the concerns raised in sections above. My primary concern is not with the aesthetics of the 'MPL boxes', but with their appropriateness. I feel they present an inaccurate view of the election and do not fulfil the fundamental aim of an infobox, which is to summarise essential facts from the article prose. Now these facts will obviously differ between articles on past and upcoming elections, but I see summarising results or house compositions as being the best basis for an election infobox (should one be necessary at all).--cj | talk 17:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A compromise has been reached. Timeshift 17:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The leaders are now displayed prominently under the first subheading. The seats table is in an infobox. Joestella 17:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Perhaps, however, we could use this opportunity to refine the new infobox and even templatise it for use on all Australian election articles?--cj | talk 18:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally want the SA election page to stay as it is, after all it was approved as FA with the MPL table. Timeshift 18:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you wanted a standard? It might be worthwhile if we actually developed one.--cj | talk 18:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)So it is that actual table that you like, not just having a standard? FAs are not set in stone. I do think it would be a good opportunity to work on a standard infobox. I do find both the state flag and the parliamentary logo not particularly good illustrations, both to look at and since they don't reflect the particular election, and am surprising myself by leaning towards using pictures of leaders. It would be good to think of what information other than lower house seat numbers would be worth including - the date, for example. JPD (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer it to stay as it has for the past year or so, yes, i'm happy for NSW to be a one off. The WA, NT and ACT don't have them, NSW was added to that list. But now the whole standard is being scrapped which I'm not very happy about as I think it worked well. Timeshift 18:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone else has advocated NSW being a one off. We are trying to talk about what it would be good to have as a standard. The objections Joestella has to the table in the NSW article apply equally to other states and the federal elections. It is actually a good thing to stop and reach an active consensus on what would work best, rather than just copying that model without talking about it. JPD (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that after a year of having the table, and articles successfully going through the FA process with it, why it's suddenly become an issue in the first place. I fail to see what's changed. Timeshift 19:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't matter. Valid arguments have been put, so now let's just work together to address them. In reply to JPD's comment about illustrations, I suggest again a graphic like that present at the beginning of Canadian federal election, 2006.--cj | talk 19:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer Cyberjunkie's suggestion over the flag/logo. I'm not quite sure how it would work, though. JPD (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really hesitant to enter this discussion because I haven't done any work at election sites other than my local electorates, so feel free to tell me to pull my head in, however I would like to make this point, I recently had a edit of mine reverted because my edit did not leave the page in a state where the article read as though it was finished. That's fine, but it made me think about this proposed info box.

To me the info box makes the article look unfinished, as if the info box has been put there in anticipation of the results being added, but at this moment in time the article should read about the future event and current campaign, not be designed in anticipation of it becoming a past event.

How the election will operate, who is competing in the election, how the campaign is playing out, and so on, are the subject matter of this article. The way the infobox is structured it's like an unfinished article about the results of an event rather than an info box about a future event, in fact that infobox really belongs in New South Wales Legislative Assembly.

I'm not sure what you would put instead, an illustration of the previous structure of the parliament, as suggested, using the Canadian model doesn't seem right to me either, because while the previous electoral makeup is extremely relevant to the article, it is not a summery or representation of the subject topic. The only thing I can think of which summarises the subject matter of the article is to return it to how it was before except with the following changes:

Get rid of the details about the leaders other than their names (the article isn't about the party leaders) add some info about the parties, for example:

photo of leader
Party logo(s) (same width as leader's picture)
Coalition-Liberal Party & National Party (title line)
Leader: Peter Debnam
Current Assembly: 19 Liberal 12 National
Current Council: -- Liberal -- National
financial warchest: Est $------
seats contesting: -- Liberal -- National

do the same thing for Labor to the left of it (as the current Gov)

Then I think do the same thing for each of the minor parties all in a row below the major two except without the leader pics and with reduced sized logos (unless there is more than four or five, in which case go to two rows).

Then below that; a row listing the wiki-linked names of the independent members of parliament.

I think this brings the focus back to the fact that this is an article about a political campaign where the two major parties are the focal point, however it recognises in the info box, the important part that the minor parties and independents play in the process and also how the numbers stacked up in the previous parliament. It also avoids the main visual focus of the article looking like a technical legislative process as apposed to the lively political campaign that is the subject matter. Wiki Townsvillia n 11:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this style of infobox is being put forward as an infobox for election articles in general, which will usually be past elections. We do need to consider how the box will be different for forthcoming elections, but not only that. Both the technical process and the campaigning are the subject matter of the article, so it is a matter of getting the balance right, but keep in mind that the campaigning is all about gaining actual election results. I personally don't think party logos really illustrate the election. The Canadian-style graphic is good for past elections, but not so good for upcoming ones, as WikiTownsvillian says, although being "unfinished" when it is clearly because the event hasn't happened yet isn't really a problem.

For future elections, I'm not too sure about the suggestion below. I don't think it's right to select one set of polling figures to put in an infobox, let alone declare it "too close to call"/etc. JPD (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tasmanian state election, 2020

To be held 1 March

You're probably right about declaring it "too close to call" or anything else, even if that is a quote from a reputable source. Joestella 13:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken about my suggestion for future elections, I'll move my comment to the 2007 NSW and Federal Election talk pages. I'm against putting opinion polls in the info box, I think an info box should reflect the article's content and polling info is just a small part of the article, although they would be great in the section about polling info so the most recent results are highlighted. Wiki Townsvillia n 13:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to say that your suggestion wasn't relevant - this is still the best place to discuss future election pages! I was just pointing out that proposals are being made with both future and present elections in mind. JPD (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiTownsvillian's suggestion above is actually very acceptable! I like it a lot, with the only exception being the finances as every party fudges the figures (even mine :| ). Also enables the Nationals to have a separate box in VIC, SA and WA where they are significant but not in coalition. DanielT5 08:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding bulk

What is the consistency problem behind this revert? The image, at least in its present position, enlargens the template un-necessarily.--cj | talk 13:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this template exist?

Why is this being used in favour of the more widely-used Template:Infobox election?

This leads to inconsistency between articles such as Australian federal election, 2010 and Next Australian federal election which use different templates despite being in the same chronology and linking to one another from their respective infoboxes. The infoboxes on both should be in the same format, IMHO.

Also, as the Template:Infobox election template is more widely used, more articles can benefit when improvements are made. By splitting off into a separate template, the articles that use it will not benefit from changes to the other.

Moreover, the Template:Infobox Election Campaign infobox is just ugly with its garish format (to my eyes). The other one is much neater, IMHO. —sroc (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]