Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:E&R)

US Presidential election pages, intros

[edit]

See this discussion, concerning bolding in intros of US presidential election pages. GoodDay (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance on "politicians from" categories

[edit]

I was cleaning out Category:Politicians from Manila, to make sure that only people who became politicians while being residents of Manila are only inside this category. This is a part of cleaning of Category:People from Manila as a lot of people are said to be born in Manila, but it could be elsewhere in Metro Manila or even in Luzon. I chanced upon Dennis Apuan, who was said to be "born in Manila", emigrated to the US, lived in Los Angeles, and was a member of the Colorado House of Representatives. Now, he was said to be a politician from Manila, Los Angeles and Colorado Springs. Are all of these correct? Howard the Duck (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 'People from X' categories are generally quite problematic due to the lack of a definition of what makes someone 'from' somewhere. On a personal level, the only place I would consider myself 'from' is the place I grew up, not where I was born (the nearest town that had a maternity hospital) or live now. This is a meta topic that should probably have a Wikipedia-wide discussion. Number 57 11:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a good faith effort for someone else to trim down the aforementioned Category:People from Manila, and it then classified anyone who has worked in government as politicians; in presidential systems, this is not always the case. Also, again for some reason, a lot of notable Filipinos were said to have been "born in Manila" which caused this category to be very large. This would let some people who had been notable elsewhere to be as someone "from Manila".
FWIW, I could consider the place where I lived (and have lived at) as the places where I am from, but I'd also agree this needs wider discussion. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I add categories if (A) the person was born there or (B) the person lived there for a non trivial amount of time or (C) currently resides there. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with this logic for "People from" categories. How about "Politicians from" ones? Some countries limit the candidates to actual residents of the area, for example. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it makes no difference. "Politicians from" would be a subcategory of "People from", so theoretically the same rules should apply.-- Earl Andrew - talk 15:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This makes sense. Looking at Dick Cheney, and see as he is categorized to be a politician from Casper, Wyoming, and Lincoln, Nebraska... then is also categorized as a Texas Republican. Of course American politicians can be categorized down to the city and not have fear of being sent to CFD (LOL). FWIW, in Cheney's case, he is categorized as well as "Republican Party vmembers of the United States House of Representatives from Wyoming"; usually I remove the "politicians from Foo" if he is already categorized as "officeholder from/of Foo"... I suppose that's wrong LOL. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization of elections and selection processes by politician eponymous categories

[edit]

Does it make sense to add eponymous categories of those running in elections or in the selection process for a VP nom to such related categories? Examples:

Not only are these elections and selections not defined by all these individuals, it doesn't really seem the purpose of eponymous categories, leading to overcategorization. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that elections should generally not be put into the main category of the participating candidates, except perhaps for major events like a presidential election. Vice presidential candidate selection should only be in the category of the vice presidential candidate. For the presidential candidate, it should be part of the campaign category. E.g. Category:Al Gore 2000 presidential campaign. Gust Justice (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in line with your thinking. Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Term limited wording on member lists

[edit]

Hi, I've been working on California State Assembly district articles redoing the member lists, an in those districts (as well as in the State Senate), they have term limited legislators. I recently went through my contributions and reworded "Termed out" to "Retired due to term limits," but it might be a little too long for something that could be shorter. I've been wondering if there was anyone who would make it a preference to do one of these specific phrasings for people termed out of office (with an example of them running for another office afterwards as a combination):

  1. Termed out. / Termed out and ran for another office.
  2. Term limited. / Term limited and ran for another office.
  3. Term limited and retired. / Term limited and ran for another office. (replacing "retired" with another action)
  4. Retired due to term limits. / Retired due to term limits and ran for another office. (current usage)

I also see that some pages (such as 2024 California State Assembly election) use "term-limited" instead of "term limited," so if 2 is used, should it have the hyphen? reppoptalk 19:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've always seen "term limited" (as is) here in Wikipedia but have not seen it in real life. It's always "this person cannot run due to term limits" or something like that. Choice #4 is what is used IRL, but I kinda like #2 as it's shorter. "Retired" sounds something else, but can get the idea across in seven letter vs. "ran for another office". I'd probably be okay with "Retired" if you are short on space (such as tables). Howard the Duck (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC ongoing at Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies#RFC: What Went Wrong in Ohio

[edit]

There is a RfC ongoing at Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies#RFC: What Went Wrong in Ohio, an article within the scope of this WikiProject. All editors are invited to participate. Toa Nidhiki05 18:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2026 Maine gubernatorial election

[edit]

Please comment at Talk:2026 Maine gubernatorial election regarding speculation that he might run as an independent.--User:Namiba 23:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National election articles categorisation

[edit]

I'd like to propose that we have a formal convention (similar to the WP:5% rule) regarding categorisation of national election articles, specifically that national elections (president or parliament) are included in the continental level election category for the year, as well as a national one (where they exist). This would mean making continental categories non-diffusing, in line with WP:ALLINCLUDED.

For example, 2025 German federal election would be in both Category:2025 elections in Europe and Category:2025 elections in Germany.

I think this would have two main benefits: Firstly it would create consistency of the continental category contents, as only some countries (I would estimate less than a fifth) have their own 'election by year' category series (for example, South Africa does, but Germany does not). Secondly, it is very useful for searching for national elections that took place in a particular year, as if articles for some countries are only located in the national category, it involves searching into potentially dozens of subcategories for each continent.

Thoughts on this welcome. Cheers, Number 57 19:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support this but would need some guidance.
Some countries who have national elections on a specific day (mostly presidential systems) have separate general, presidential, and legislative elections, sometimes even local elections. In cases such as this the "primary" general election article only get to be included in the continental category. Is that right?
How about parliamentary republics where the president is not the head of government and is mostly a figurehead? Are their presidential elections classified into the continental ones, as well (assuming parliamentary elections already are)? How about semi-presidential countries like France? Howard the Duck (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest the full rule would be:
Articles on direct elections to national institutions (parliament and presidency) should be included in the continental-level election category for that year. Articles on sub-national elections (state/regional/local), indirect elections (such as presidential elections carried out by parliaments) or primary elections should be included only in national-level categories where they exist.
I wouldn't treat articles on direct president elections differently based on the powers of the person elected – it's more the method of election that I think makes it important here. Cheers, Number 57 21:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In countries such as the United States, Taiwan and Philippines, there is a general, presidential and legislative (in cases of directly-elected bicameral chambers, separate articles for both elections) election articles exist. Should only the "main" general election be in the continental category, or some, or all? Howard the Duck (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think? I'm open to options in this case. Number 57 22:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be in favor of letting in just the general election article if separate articles exist for other national level elections. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in favor of the current set up where continental categories only have subcategories. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, happy to go with that. Amended suggestion below:
Articles on direct elections to national institutions (parliament and presidency) should be included in the continental-level election category for that year. Articles on sub-national elections (state/regional/local), indirect elections (such as presidential elections carried out by parliaments) or primary elections should be included only in national-level categories where they exist. If there are multiple articles on a general election (e.g. 2024 Taiwanese general election, 2024 Taiwanese presidential election, 2024 Taiwanese legislative election), only the main (general election) article should be in the continental category.
Number 57 19:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UK Template: help needed

[edit]

Please can someone assist at Talk:Ceredigion and Pembroke North (UK Parliament constituency)#1992 result? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The new {{Election results}} template should be able to handle these "multipartisan" candidates better than the old ones. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Nonpartisan blanket primary#Requested move 2 December 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nonpartisan blanket primary#Requested move 2 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 02:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Legislative' elections

[edit]

For a small number of countries, parliamentary election articles are titled '2024 Foolandic legislative election' rather than '2024 Foolandic parliamentary/federal/general election'. There does not seem to be any logic to when this term is used, as it is used for both parliamentary republics and presidential republics (and some federal ones) – it seems to be almost accidental that some article series were started as 'parliamentary' and others as 'legislative'.

Following on from this RM of all the Czech articles from 'legislative' to 'parliamentary', does anyone have any objections to moving other national parliamentary election articles from legislative to parliamentary? The countries that would be affected are: Argentina, Austria, Cyprus, El Salvador, France, Greece, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Palestine, Portugal, Russia, South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam. It would be nice to eradicate what appears to be a quite glaring inconsistency. Cheers, Number 57 15:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might agree when it comes to countries with a parliamentary system, like Israel or Portugal, but I would be vary of doing that for countries that are (semi-) presidential. In those cases, I think it would only be appropriate if reliable sources describes said elections as such. "Parliamentary" as a term feels more fitting when it's a standalone election, but might make less sense if it's an election that takes place simultaneously with a presidential election. Gust Justice (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our article is at French Parliament but our articles for National Assembly (France) elections are entitled "legislative", maybe because in French it is called that way. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Indonesia -- This country is in a presidential system. Currently its elections to the House of Representatives (Indonesia) are in a general election article together with the presidential election, but the presidential election itself has a separate article. As there's no separate election to its House of Representatives, this should be unaffected as the general election article both have the elections to the executive and legislative branches. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: El Salvador; this is also in a presidential system, and the unicameral legislature is called "Legislative Assembly of El Salvador". If anything, this is where "legislative" has a strong argument.
Re: South Korea; this is in a semi-presidential system, but I suppose the president is more powerful than the prime minister. The article is at National Assembly (South Korea). Yonhap calls the last election "general elections".
Re: Taiwan; this is a semi-presidential system, and its legislature is called the "Legislative Yuan". The Central News Agency (Taiwan) uses "presidential and legislative elections". The Premier of the Republic of China is appointed by the president without legislative approval. The Legislative Yuan elects its own president though, and our legislative elections articles shows the winner of the Legislative Yuan presidential election.
This actually is interesting and country-centric discussions should be made so that it'll surely be aligned with what the WP:RS are actually calling it.
I'd put into premium more into local English language sources; foreign ones such as Al Jazeera and Associated Press pander to their local audiences and use terms that are familiar to their intended audiences. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both for the responses. I haven't noticed any particular trend in the media for parliamentary elections in presidential systems to be called 'legislative' rather than 'parliamentary' (despite being a presidential system, numerous news orgs refer to Indonesia's elections (which were held separately prior to 2019) as parliamentary (Reuters, BBC, ABC). However, I do suspect you are correct that the French ones are likely titled as they are due to the direct translation.
Based on the feedback, I'll start RMs for each article series. Cheers, Number 57 22:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again with Indonesia and for other similar countries, I'd be interested what term local English WP:RS use. Indonesia, while not an English speaking country, has a sizable number of English speakers, and local English WP:RS exist. That's why I refrained from using foreign WP:RS such as AJ, AP, Reuters, AFP, CNN, BBC, etc. in determining what the actual term used is. This is something Indonesians can only answer. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on a new infobox

[edit]

An editor started an rfc at Template talk:Infobox US political party#RFC on template usage for US political parties to replace the political party infobox with a new one for American parties. Wowzers122 (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of 'Former", when start-end dates are used

[edit]

Howdy. What is the purpose of using "former", when we already use start/end dates? For example - at the 2025 Virginia gubernatorial election page, we've got "Amanda Chase, former state senator (2016–2024)". Wouldn't it be more accurate to write

  • "Amanda Chase, former state senator" or
  • "Amanda Chase, state senator (2016–2024)"

We shouldn't be using both "former" & "(2016–2024)".
GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Forrmer" is an accurate description of their job, they are a "former US Representative," whereas "U.S. Representative" would imply they are still incumbent, while the (2016-2024) is a description of their term in office, as they served from X date to Y date. Talthiel (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't be using both indicators, as each one already explains 'no longer in office'. GoodDay (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont really see a problem in it, I think its ultimately just a stylistic choice which has been being used for a long time across WP. Talthiel (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As stated previously, I disagree with this change. Without the "former," people who don't look too closely at the start and end date will think the person is an incumbent. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incumbent being inconsistently used in US gov election pages

[edit]

I've come across US gubernatorial election pages that are inconsistent with usage of "incumbent". Some incumbent office holders have "incumbent" mentioned while others don't. What should we do? Include the word "Incumbent", or exclude. An example of the inconsistency is at 2026 Wisconsin gubernatorial election party primaries sections, where only the current governor has "incumbent" used, but other current officials don't. GoodDay (talk) 03:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really inconsistent in a way that matters. We say "incumbent" when it's the person currently holding that office, and not otherwise. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that not the case at the exampled page. There, we got incumbent for the current governor, but don't have incumbent for the current lieutenant governor & other current office holders. GoodDay (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is proper usage. If the LG wasn't current, they'd generally be referred to as the 'former' LG, as you see on the example page. In common parlance, 'incumbent' is almost exclusively used regarding the office/election being discussed, even if it may be technically applicable elsewhere. Star Garnet (talk) 05:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this. Since the article is about the gubernatorial election it's fair to point out that Evers is the incumbent for the same position here as indication he'd be running for reelection. Even if other people are technically also incumbents, it doesn't have to be pointed out the same way. Reywas92Talk 05:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This makes no sense to me. Yas are saying this is ok -
"Tony Evers, incumbent governor (2019-present)", yet this isn't -
"Sara Rodriguez, incumbent lieutenant governor (2023-present)?
GoodDay (talk) 05:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, that would not match standard conventions, as the LG is not the incumbent for the office/election being discussed. 'Incumbent' is a largely redundant term, as former officeholders are generally given the 'former' qualifier, and without contextualization (like 'LG from 1995 to 1999' or 'in 1997, LG ABC') the lack of 'former', 'ex-', 'previous', etc. almost always implies somebody is an incumbent. Still, in the context of an election, the media and academics will generally refer to an office's current holder as an incumbent; frequently government sources (like election results) will as well. Star Garnet (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not change it to "Tony Evers, Governor of Wisconsin (2019–present)"? People would still see he's the incumbent. GoodDay (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People who hold an office (specifically, the office being discussed) are referred to as an incumbent; people who do not are not. It's as simple as that. It is already consistent and makes complete and total sense. Star Garnet (talk) 05:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current usage makes sense. It is only the incumbent in the office discussed that is so described. Newystats (talk) 21:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't make sense why we're pushing inconsistencies even within the same page. GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums&oldid=1265495105"