Template talk:Infobox referendum

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infobox referendum template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes

Elections and Referendums

This template 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

issues

What I mentioned in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 28:

This template - 5 transclusions
{{Infobox Referendum approved with map}} - 15 transclusions
{{Infobox Referendum pending with map}} - 1 transclusion
{{Infobox Referendum rejected with map}} - 18 transclusions
{{Infobox Referendum with detailed key}} - 5 transclusions

None of this seems like it can't be done with optional parameters. And they also have an improperly titled documentation page - {{Referendum with map help}}. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility

The use of red-green (for marking opposite types of result) is indistinguishable to people with the commonest form of colour-blindness. See WP:MOSCOLOUR and WP:COLOUR. I see someone attempted to change this, but was reverted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you propose as an alternative Andy? Black and white? Technical 13 (talk) 12:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technical 13: There are a number of options: hashing versus stripes; dots vs dashes; labelling with letters or numbers, etc. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy: By the looks of the template, the problem lies in how the maps themselves are made and not in the template itself. I've just modified the template to allow for any of the things you just mentioned to be declared using |legend_yes= and |legend_no=. It will still default to the Red/Green as to not break the pages using this template. Now... If this template was redesigned to use a blank map of the area and do something like {{Annotate image}} does to shade or color in the areas of the map, that would be a different story. That would reduce the number of maps needed for each area to one and I think it would be a more efficient method and use of files. Anyways, it is only food for thought and if you know any of the map makers for the maps used by this template, I would love to hear some input from a "map guy". Technical 13 (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the strong red / green ( ) with a more muted pink / green ( ). The colours are reasonably close to the originals, so should not break any transclusions. However, they are clearly distinct for most colour blind readers as can be seen from this link. This template still has accessibility issues - as it is still too dependent on colour.--Nilf anion (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of valid votes

I would like to draw attention to a problem with the definition of valid votes. The New Zealand Electoral Commission regards informal votes as valid votes. The template adds up 'yes' and 'no' votes, and the sum is regarded as valid votes. I don't want to get into a discussion as to whether or not the Electoral Commission has got it right, but this results in the situation that the infobox shows information that differs from what is stated in the source. Here's a case in point; the source shows 1,367,340 valid votes, whilst the article's infobox shows 1,363,173 valid votes. Maybe it would be good to have the ability to override the functionality of the infobox calculation and display the values as per their source. Schwede 66 00:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66: yes, it is possible, although there may be some tweaking required for the output (see the example presented here). Frietjes (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66: okay, I added |other= as an option, and will have it display in the box shortly (check my math :)). Frietjes (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turnout

This template is nice but needs to include a field for "Turnout". That is a key piece of data in referendums, especially when one side campaigns for abstention. --Hispalois (talk) 06:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Apparently the "turnoutpct" parameter should let you add this piece of data, but I've tried to add it in a page that uses this infobox and it won't work. --Savig (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Referendum question, yes/no

It was pointed out to me that some articles 'misuse' the <title> parameter for the referendum question. I am curious why there is no separate parameter for this. It is likely essential information. Could we change the documentation to include it or add a new parameter for this? I also propose to add parameters to change the labels for <yes> and <no>, so that it can be adapted to the referendum question, e.g. 'for' instead of 'yes'. Any thoughts?–Totie (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the point that Totie has made. For an example of what he means, go look at Scottish independence referendum, 2014.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 16:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand what the issue is here. The question being asked in the Scottish referendum was "Should Scotland be an independent country?" and that's exactly what it does. How is this a "misuse" of the title param?

As for the yes/no being turned into for/against, as soon as I execute the merger of this with {{Infobox multichoice referendum}} I'll see what can be done with that (currently the yes/no option is a sub-template). Primefac (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The <title> parameter documentation currently states: "The official ballot title." This can be different from the referendum question that will be put on the ballot, so in that sense the parameter is misused if the referendum question is chosen instead of the ballot title. Compare this with examples shown in the documentation. For instance, constitutional amendments that take the form of a referendum actually distinguish ballot title from referendum question. The easiest way would be to update the documentation and clarify that the <title> parameter can be used for both or alternatively add another one specifically for the referendum question. I would prefer the latter.–Totie (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to change the "yes" and "no" parameters

Hello! Currently, the infobox only allows the results of referendums to be either "yes" or "no"; is it possible to insert some sort of parameter to change this, like to be able to have the responses as "remain" or "leave"? (I see that this was touched upon above). For example in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, the options in the referendum are "remain" and "leave". There's been a small discussion at that article's talk page here. It would be great if someone could help us. Thanks! Seagull123 Φ 21:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could add two new parameters yes_text and no_text. Would that work or would another name be more appropriate? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 00:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to make sure you pass them properly to {{Infobox referendum/results}}, but that could work. I suggest trying it out in the sandbox first. Primefac (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. You're welcome to check {{Infobox referendum/testcases}} Test 6. We could also have the parameters passed to {{Infobox referendum/map}} to be used as default for the legend. While we're at it, I noticed there is no parameter for the threshold needed to pass a referendum. Would there be a use for that? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 06:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work. There would certainly be a use for the threshold as well.–Totie (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest aligning the map image in the centre. There is no test case for the map component yet.–Totie (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about a turnout needed parameter e.g. for the Tokelauan self-determination referendum, 2007. Basically, this infobox could get some inspiration from {{Referendum}}. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 16:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. There are now two new field: yes_text and no_text. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 18:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! @Abjiklam, Totie, and Primefac: that's great! I'm sorry I only thanked you now though

. That will be really useful on the UK EU referendum article! Thank you again! Seagull123 Φ 23:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abjiklam, while your edits did improve the template they didn't completely solve the issue. While we can now change the default text of the options in a referendum, now matter what text we put in they will combined with a green check mark and a red cross mark. For a referendum, like the current uk one this is inappropriate as the referendum did not have a yes or no question but rather an option A and an option B. This problem has already been raised on the talk page of the article on that referendum. In this referendum one cannot realistically brandish one side as "yes" and the other as "no". Ideally, those symbols should be made optional rather than default in this template. T v x1 16:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of tweaks

I've made a couple of amendments to the results table shown within the infobox. One is to force the numbers to right-align (the table itself required a right align, but presumably that was being overridden by some other code, so I have inserted it into each cell that contains numbers. The second is to bring the electorate and turnout into the same row as a figure and percentage, as is done in results tables elsewhere. Cheers, Number 5 7 15:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-calculation – decimal places

I've noticed at Dutch Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement referendum, 2016 that the "Against" figure happens to be 61.00% to two decimal places, but is displaying as just 61%, whilst the others both go to 2DP (making it look awkward). Can this be fixed to make it display 61.00%? Pinging Abjiklam and Frietjes. Cheers, Number 5 7 11:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Number 57, that's easy, just change the number of votes on each side of the issue :) just kidding. I fixed it using the method described in the documentation for {{percentage}}. Frietjes (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaking for Dutch Ukraine referendum

There are a few problems with implementing the Dutch Ukraine referendum.

Firstly, the blank votes have a distinctly different effect than the invalid votes. The latter are not used in calculating the % For or %Against (only count for the turnout). That is solved now by adding a "third option" blank votes in the table, but the last position is still "Invalid or Blank" where it should be "Invalid". Is it possible to add an optional parameter that will change the text "invalid or blank" to "invalid".
- maybe a solution is to state if=other = "Blank", then text "blank or invalid" is changed to "valid"

Resolved

Secondly, the term "registered voters" is a bit akward in this context. Voter registration is (hardly) needed (only overseas voters need to). For other, eligibility is checked automatically with the National Person Administration. Therefore an optional parameter changing "registered voters" into "eligible to vote" or "eligible voters" would be helpful.
- Maybe a parameter Voterregistration can be added; and "Voterregistration= no" turns "registered voters" to "Eligible to vote" or "Electorate"

Resolved

L.tak (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing explanation to map.

I read the article Soviet Union referendum, 1991 and saw the map with colours from "dark green" to "bright green", while the explanation said "somewhat dull green"=yes and red=no. I had to check the uploaded map to get it right (I might be stupid above average, though, or just not used to this type of simplified map explanation). Instead of a "two-choice" explanation, why not a bar changing from dark green (100% yes) to dark red (100% no) instead? Or, if there are some maps that's just "red or green <=> yes or no" and others that are "different shade of green or red <=> different amount of yes or no", make the type of explanation an option. --Episcophagus (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New parametres

I added a map2 parameters with associated explanations, but it doesn't appear. The second map should show the population density to give the result a better understanding. Can you have a look what's going wrong with this parametres? Thank you in advance!--Sae1962 (talk) 05:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sae1962, should work now. Frietjes (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using a spaced em dash as a separator

Per MOS:DASH, spaced em dashes (as are used in this template for the results: "[green box] Yes — [red box] No") are deprecated, and IMHO a spaced en dash would be much more appropriate, since the results represent a range. Though I'm fine with using a third character, such as a pipe |, or no character at all as a separator—given the boxes, there doesn't seem to be the need for one.

I'm bring this up here to see if there is a consensus before making the change myself. —DocWatson42 (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DocWatson42, doesn't seem that controversial, so I changed it for you. Frietjes (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frietjes: Thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Supermajority and minimum turnout

Is there a way this template could be used to show if a vote needs a supermajority of say 60% to pass, and it receives 51-59%, it will still bold the No vote, since the measure didn't pass. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. It would be helpful to have the ability to account for a supermajority; it would also be helpful to be able to account for minimum turnout requirements. Both of these are available functions for the similar, (non-infobox) Template:Referendum, so hopefully it's not too hard for someone to write the code for this one too.

Disenfranchised

I'm trying to add the number of British citizens living abroad who were barred from voting in the UK EU membership referendum, but there appears to be no way to do this satisfactorily.

The 'other' parameter does not appear to be appropriate as it messes up the numbers.

Can anyone help?Lkingscott (talk) 08:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Making the "Invalid/blank" row text changeable

@Frietjes: Would it be possible to make the "Invalid/blank" heading changeable if required? In the Dutch Intelligence and Security Services Act referendum, 2018, blank votes were counted as valid votes. However, because the "Invalid/blank" text is fixed, blank votes now appears twice in the list. Cheers, Number 5 7 11:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I see above that this is possible, but only if the specific text "Blank votes" is entered into the field for othertype. Can it be amended so that it could simply be "Blank" as well? Number 5 7 11:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Number 57, I added optional |blank= for valid blank votes. but, you are correct, that the standard way to do it is through the |other= parameter. Frietjes (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Option to hide invalid votes.

In regards to the 2019 Bangsamoro Autonomous Region creation plebiscite there seems to be no figures for invalid/spoiled votes and I assumed that the referendum body may have considered the voters with invalid votes not to have voted at all since I have doubts that there were 0% invalid votes. Is there an option to hide invalid votes?Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Default bold

Following up on #Supermajority above, 2014 Florida Amendment 2 bolds the yes votes even though the referendum failed because it needed a supermajority. Any way to fix this? Reywas92^Talk 22:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Option for adding the % of votes with respect to the the electorate/registered voters to the votes cast

Proposal:

Add a configurable flag to the template's options which would additionally display the percentage of number of votes cast for a given option, in relation to the population's electorate or, if applicable, the number of registered voters for that referendum.

Taking as an example the 1979 Scottish devolution referendum, the referendum's legislation stipulated that the result would not be upheld if the number of votes in favour was less than 40% of the "total electorate". That referendum would have passed if not for the stipulation; a simple majority being achieved by in respect of the number of votes actually cast.

When the proposed flag is enabled, the '%' column heading is modified to read '% of votes (% of electorate)'¹, and the results in the column are displayed as 'nn.nn% (mm.mm%)' where 'n' is the value as it's calculated today, and 'm' is the value calculated against the electorate/registered votes, rather than the voting turnout.

1. I'm willing to acknowledge that for a "small" table heading, this is quite wordy, but I don't know the best heading type to use (other than to suggest some kind of hover-over element, or similar).

7b8e6497 (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add interest calculation taking into account invalid votes

For example, in Russia it is customary to take into account invalid votes when counting. So, in 2020, at a "referendum": ^[1]

YES - 77.92% (the template indicates 78.56%)
NO - 21.27% (the template indicates 21.44%)
Invalid votes - 0.82% (the template mistakenly ignores)
In total - 100%.

In the template of article 2020 Russian constitutional referendum, due to the impossibility of such an account, incorrect values are reflected. -- Пэйнчик (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Standard practice is to only include valid votes in the yes/no calculation and Wikipedia does not have to follow the Russian CEC's method. The values in that article are not incorrect, as they have been calculated properly. Number 5 7 17:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Results on the CEC website

Option to override detection of "win"?

In some referendums, such as 2014 Florida Amendment 2, winning required 60% yes. So, "no" actually won, even though they got less votes. The infobox does not currently reflect this data. This is significant flaw. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox doesn't state which side won. You can use the outcome parameter to make a statement as to what the outcome was. Number 5 7 11:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Still, I think the automatic bolding is problematic, and should be able to be overridden. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New parameter proposal

I think we should add a parameters that allow us to classify the referendum. For example it could distinguish between an initiative, popular referendum or legislative referral. I think it would also be good to add a parameter that allows it to be stated if a referendum is binding or advisory. Any thoughts on this? Bluealbion (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility problem - hasn't been fixed in six years

Back in 2013, the issue of accessibility was raised on this Talk page, flagging the fact that it uses red/green as a basic factor in all maps. One editor tried to fix it in 2016, but the red/green combo is still used. This is contrary to the Guidelines on accessibility, particularly for colour-blind readers: red / green pairing is one of the worst possible choices. Note that accessibility is not just a nice thing. It is part of the Wikimedia Foundation principle of non-discrimination, which is mandatory, as set out by the Wikimedia Foundation resolution of 2006. The principle "may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by Wikimedia Foundation officers or staff nor local policies of any Wikimedia project". See WP:ACCESSIBILITY.

I don't have the technical skills to try to fix the template, but there are lots of technical examples of dealing with colours at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Color. This webpage may also be helpful: Paul Tol's Notes Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, the question is with the maps themselves, not the template. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template should not use check and cross marks

The template is set so that the green check mark (Y)and the red cross mark (N) appear automatically in the infobox, for the "Yes" option and the "No" option, respectively.

This usage is contrary to the direction given on the templates for those two marks, which both state that the marks are not to be used in articles, because they express approval (in the case of the check mark) and disapproval (in the case of the cross mark). See Template:Tick and Template:Xmark.

I think they should both be removed from the template, because including them in the template means that they appear in the articles which use the template, contrary to the direction given in the template documentation for those marks. As well, they strike me as a NPOV violation. Particularly in articles relating to political matters, Wikipedia must be NPOV, and not appear to approve or disapprove of the outcome of a political matter such as a referendum.

The simple words "yes" and "no" already convey the information in a neutral way, without any suggestion of approval or disapproval. And, of course, the colour coding for the marks (green for approval, red for disapproval) breaches the accessibility guidelines, as indicated in the previous comment. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Badly wrong. (1) If you're colourblind like me, you rely on cues other than colour. The

and

symbols have a completely different shape; even if you see them as the same colour (which you shouldn't; one's a good deal darker than the other), you can instantly distinguish them. (2) Who in the world would see these symbols as suggesting that Wikipedia approved or disapproved of the outcome? They clearly indicate approval and disapproval by voters, not by this website. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could consider changing the symbols to

and

. The colors are more neutral to cultures that associated green with correct and red with incorrect. They would also better match the color blind friendly maps that have started appearing on referendum pages that use blue and brown/yellow to convey color information. Maybe someone who is more knowledgeable would know if these images are more accessible. Bluealbion (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve made a test of the changes at Template:Infobox referendum/results/testcases. It might be better if i changed the orange x to a green-brown since that is what closer to the colorblind safe maps. The Colors do seem to be colorblind safe though per this link https://www.toptal.com/designers/colorfilter?orig_uri=wiki.riteme.site%2Fwiki%2FTemplate_talk%253AInfobox_referendum&process_type=protan Bluealbion (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed tick and cross colors, but not the shapes on the infobox Bluealbion (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

remove flag

I propose that the flag icon should be removed from this infobox template, as it is contrary to MOS:INFOBOXFLAG "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes". For referenda, a flag does not add any extra value. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A "turnout needed" parameter is necessary

Hi all. I think that a "turnout_needed" parameter (or equivalent) is necessary in this template, like in Template:Referendum, so that the infobox can determine by itself whether the result of the refedendum is valid or not. There are many instances where a referendum needs a 50% minimum turnout to be valid, and currently in these cases the infoboxes show the wrong final result, see for example 2016 Italian oil drilling referendum. Yakme (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure a new parameter is needed, as this information can be added under existing parameters (such as 'outcome' or "voting_system'). The infobox in the article you point to says that the referendum failed due to low turnout. Number 5 7 17:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is not clear at all, it shows that the "Yes" won, by having the "Yes" line in boldface. What I am saying is that like the Template:Referendum, in this case the "No" line should be boldface, or no line at all. Yakme (talk) 11:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, agree that the bolding is wrong. To be honest, do we need it at all? It might just be easier to remove it full stop. Number 5 7 12:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway given that half of the stuff in that infobox is calculated by the template, we could have also the bolding of the final outcome be computed by the template too (as is done by Template:Referendum), instead of having to insert by hand the result into 'outcome'. Yakme (talk) 11:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previous/next

These are supposedly parameters but for some reason are not working? Are these removed? Howard the Duck (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I removed them a while ago as referendums don't happen in sequences like elections. Cheers, Number 5 7 18:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blank votes

Hello. Could an option be added to allow separates lines for blank votes, without making them part of the yes/no above line, but under the invalid one? Would be useful for 1978 Spanish constitutional referendum. Cordially. Aréat (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone?--Aréat (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not. But aren't blank votes technically also invalid? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases yes, but mostly they are a type of void vote. Number 5 7 23:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Results on the CEC website

[1]