Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 25

RFC: Results of legislative elections infobox, calculations

A recent & continuing dispute at 2020 United States House of Representatives elections, has highlighted a discrepancy. When we +/− for seats won in an election infobox, do we use the base # of seats from the previous election or from the current seats count. Example: at 2020 US House elections - Do we subtract from Democrats totals 235 (2018 elections) or 232 seats, right before 2020 elections? GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

In a nutshell: Should the seats before section be deleted & its totals disregarded. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  • It's compared to the previous election, as stated in the infobox documentation: seat_change1: The change in the number of seats won at the election compared to the previous election. It would also be inconsistent to compare it to the situation before the elections, as the swing parameter also compares to the previous election. Personally I think we should get rid of the seats_before parameter, as this creates confusion on a regular basis. Number 57 20:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    Does this mean the Seats before section in the infobox, should be deleted? GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    Yes. But I can see why some people might think it useful in the buildup to an election if there has been significant changes. Another option might be to automatically hide it after the election has taken place (this could be done by making its appearance dependent on the ongoing = yes/no parameter, similar to how the votes and percentage rows won't appear when ongoing is set to 'yes'). Number 57 20:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    Many have argued fro keeping Seats before, due to special or by-elections being held in between general elections, due to vacancies. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Under the current name I think it makes sense to be the number of seats immediately before the election; if we want it to be based on the previous election, it must be renamed "seats last election" or similar for clarity, but I don't have a strong opinion between one or the other. Vehement oppose deleting the section at all: it's very important to see if a party did better or worse than previously and it is also helpful to see where the parties stand going into an upcoming election. Confusion can be fixed with better wording. Reywas92Talk 21:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
But there's still the trouble of math. What numbers do we use, when adding/subtracting. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Not really sure what Reywas is saying here. The seats_before parameter is already for seats before the election. The seats at the last election are listed under the last_election parameter. Number 57 22:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Ugh, I totally knew that and just glossed over it. I think we should keep it consistent and base it off the previous election but I can see why you might want to take special elections into account. Either way, I don't think the parameter should be deleted. Reywas92Talk 01:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Agreed – the "swing" numbers should be compared to the previous election. The seats before parameter can be left in the infobox – no harm in that – but it should not be used to calculate the "swing". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
For relevant examples to the specific question here, this is how the swing was calculated at articles like 1789–1822 List of United States House of Representatives elections, 1824–1854 List of United States House of Representatives elections, and List of United States House of Representatives elections, 1856–present – they all are swing versus the previous election (result). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Absolutely should be swing from previous election. We are comparing election to election here, and it should be uniform throughout Wikipedia. A legislator resigning weeks before the election, for example, would cause their party to appear as though they had one more net gain or one less net loss if the results were compared to the seats right before the election, which is completely arbitrary and useless. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Would it be possible to modify the template to include both the net seats from the previous election, and the current net tally? Ultimately, the infobox should probably make it clear what the absolute per-party counts are both immediately before and as a result of the election, without requiring the reader to do the math. -- RobLa (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • In favour of using the number of seats from the previous election. Any unexpected vacancy of a seat, through death, resignation or change of party allegiance could create a discrepancy between that number and the number of seats before the election. I'm not sure that any of those cases are as directly relevant to the reader. The infobox should show the difference in how well a party did in two consecutive elections, not how good they were at keeping their elected members alive / in office. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I also agree that the "swing" numbers should be compared to the previous election. Otherwise, this would lead to nonsensical results when parties splits lead to some gaining or losing members in between. We compare votes between each election. Comparing seats from a different point in time only lead to confusion and seemingly incoherent results. Why not change Seats before into something akin to Seats at last election?--Aréat (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - I haven't gone over the legislative elections of other countries, but I did notice a messed up situation within 2006 United States House of Representatives elections infobox. In that article, the Democratic addition is based on the previous (2004) House elections seats total, where's the Republican subtraction is based on the -seats before- elections total. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - TBH, the results of this RFC might be difficult to implement. The Canadian federal election infoboxes, are using the seats before totals, for their calculations. I suspect the Canadian provincial elections are doing the same. I haven't even checked over all the US state legislature elections infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
    • My reading of this RfC (based on its question) is that it would affect American elections pages only – I don't think it would be binding on Canadian elections pages... That said, if that's how the Canadian election articles are doing it, it's wrong, and they would need to be changed too. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Suppose to cover all legislative elections. But, I do admit, implementation across the entire board would be difficult. Perhaps if we can at least get the American ones to comply? the rest will fall in line. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Question: How about for U.S. Senate elections and bodies that have similar staggered elections? This is where the "Seats before" are important as you cannot really compare an election from the immediately preceding one. Do we compare "Seats before" vs "seats after"? Do we compare "Seats won in 2020" vs "Seats won in <preceding election>" or "Seats won in <the election where these seats were last disputed>? Howard the Duck (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
It should be compared to the election in which these seats were last fought for, in my opinion.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm pretty sure that's not what is done for elections such as this. It's always compared to seat totals of the current legislature. For example, in the 2020 United States Senate elections, it is compared from 2018 for swing (Democrats lost 9.7% from 2018), and the totals of last Congress for the seats (Democrats gained 3 seats), and not from 2014, although some context about 2014 is given in the lead. For the results tables and infobox, it's compared from the last Congress (Democrats gained 3 seats, and lost 9.7%). Howard the Duck (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
The ""popular vote" and the "popular vote swing" in U.S. Senate elections is actually meaningless – I'd argue that should be left out, and only the "seat swing" should be included. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd actually agree with on that, but would've wanted for the popular vote totals to remain, but not the swing. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Quite an interesting issue. I'm leaning towards seats before - mainly because that is relevant to "seats needed". Let's say there is a 20 member parliament, last election was 12X-8Y, but 1 member of X switched to Y. Since the chamber would be 11X-9Y, Y would need a gain of two seats - which would be listed accurately either way. However, if that occurs that gain of two should not be listed as a swing of three - but a swing of two - for consistency. I feel like my view is in the minority here so I'm happy to explain further if anyone is interested - and my position isn't too strong here. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Have two parameters, use both when (and only when) the numbers for the two dates are different: so, the standard stat would be "seats held after [such-and-such-year] election"; if, however, the seats held AT THE TIME IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO the current election are a different number than they were after said previous election, then this is also info of significant importance, and it should be included as well, in a second parameter that immediately follows the other one. And, in such situations, both of thoae stats are of critical importance, because if both are not presented in a straightforward & clear manner, then the data we report here WILL be, to a certain degree, misrepresented in one way or another - this could not be avoided in any way, shape, or form. Therefore, the WP infrustrure should, in every conceivable way, seek to prevent in all forms of data misrepresentation, when possible. (and remember, if the numbers have not changed, then the second parameter would not be used) Firejuggler86 (talk) 12:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Please insert results tables with your county election maps

When making US election maps by county, please add tables of the results by county to the relevant articles -- these can be pretty hard to find for some things for free and if you're already doing the work to make the map it's not super hard to paste them into the visual editor and clean them up. Thanks, DemonDays64 (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Some project to get county results on some set of elections like all of 2020's Senate and presidential would be great, anyone else also want to work on that? DemonDays64 (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
DemonDays64 I'm considering it.
I feel like we should also work to add the data as tabular data on Wikimedia Commons - and potentially write a template to automatically transclude the data. This isn't used and I feel like it's better than having the data directly in the article. Shrug, long-term project. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Positions in arch graphics

Just to confirm if we are all on the same page I would like to make a somewhat of a consensus on how to order the parties in the arch graphics. A non-mandatory general guideline of course and understanding that local and national peculiarities may obligate to change the graphics in some countries (for example in some countries the Green parties are seen as more right-wing than the Social Democrats and in other they are seen as more left-wing, (ahum, Europe vs North America)).

But in general terms could we agree in something like this:

Anarchists*, Trotskyists, Maoists, Marxist-Leninists, Post-Communists, Eurocommunists, 21st Century Socialists, Humanists, Democratic Socialists, Labour, Social Democrats, Greens, Socioliberals, Centrists, Classical Liberals, Christian Democrats, Conservatives, Right-wing Populists, Religious fundamentalists/Religious Conservatives, Neo-fascists, neo-Nazis**.

* Yes, anarchists parties do exist, and some (very few) countries have some in their parliaments, although uncommon. ** If they have representation, since the fall of Greece's XO I think no other neo-Nazi party has representation.

Am I forgetting one? General thoughts? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the greens more affiliated to the left should be between DemSocs and Labs, while the more liberal greens should be in the position you suggested for greens (between SocDems and SocLibs). Also, what do we do with the big-tent and regionalist parties? Do we put them in the "middle"? Julio974◆ (Talk-Contribs) 10:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I would have thought it makes more sense to have the largest party in government on one side (regardless of political leaning) followed by any coalition partners in decreasing order of size. On the opposite side you would have the largest party not in (or supporting) the government, with smaller opposition parties and independents being placed in the middle. This removes the need to define each party's political position (which potentially violates WP:OR anyway), and makes it clearer which party or parties have control of the legislature. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 12:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I support PinkPanda272's suggestion. I also think we should follow what reliable sources do, where possible. If local media tend to display parties in a particular order, we should follow that. We should not be trying to force all countries into one model. Bondegezou (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
PinkPanda272's proposal isn't practical at all. In many countries, there's several different government over the lenght of a single legislature. Sometimes, it take months for a government to be made, and sometimes none is made at all, like in Israel in the last few years. Coalition government can also be made between parties that overlap another, an odditi that would be rendered invisible.
The left/right arch graphics we currently use can be made as soon as we have the final seats results. It doesn't change for the lenght of the legislature. And it quickly show the reader the result of an election/the state of a parliament as for the position of the different forces it's made of.
As for the first question, I don't disagree with it, but only if it's used for a lack of a sourced position. In a large majority of election and parliament, we have each party's pages with sourced position. It's those that we use. The left/right order above is fine, but should only be used for a lack of sourced position, or for parties who are sourced as the same position.--Aréat (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Most media do follow what they see on Commons tho. But I do agree on using what the local media uses whenever available.
The problem I see with the government is that such thing may work on parliamentary system, but not so much in presidential systems specially in places like Latin America where generally one party is in the government and all the rest are opposition. For example let's take for example Costa Rica, only one party is in government; PAC, all other 8 parties with parliamentary represetation from left-wing FA to far-right RN are opposition, where do we locate them? All of them cramble in the same side? What about the US? We locate Republicans on one side when they are government and Democrats on the other when opposition and then switch? Is kind of tricky.
But even in parliamentary systems unless the Westmister style is in use, how can we truly show were the government parties start and when the opposition starts? what would be the "line"?
And, another problem, such graphics may work for articles about parliaments (if the two problems above are solved) but we are talking about graphics for elections. There's no government and opposition on elections as even in parliamentary systems, is not until several weeks and sometimes months later that the parties form government. For example, in the recent Israeli elections, where it would be located the government parties and where the opposition parties if there's still no formal government? Or what about the elections in presidential systems, in the last US election would the Republican party be considered the government and the Democratic the opposition up until January 20th?
Answering the first question, I personally would place Bign Tents and local in the middle, and agree with the Greens. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I think the suggestion of left to right makes more sense – as Aréat says, governments can take months to be formed, and then can fracture during a parliament. A left-to-right diagram can be made once seat allocations are known and won't require changing. Number 57 15:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
And I also agree that sources should be use unless no sources at all is available. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
The House of Representatives of the Philippines has 70 parties, and Philippine legislatures are notorious for not having a left-right divide; you can argue that all but 7 members are center-left to right-wing, 6 members are far-left to left-wingers, 1 is right-wing. How do you do that? Fortunately, there are at least three parliamentary groups.
You'd ask though: what is the purpose of these diagrams? Is it to show how actual seating arrangements are made? Which party or group of parties are in the government? What is the largest party? Howard the Duck (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Well that might depend a little bit in what you're looking for. I had to do a research on growth of the far-right in Europe and the showing of the arch was very indicative, it helped a lot to locate what parties I had to investigate first, otherwise I'll had to go one by one which in cases like the Netherlands... well... --Dereck Camacho (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I do think the diagrams are meant to represent actual seating arrangements. Like in the UK Parliament, all the government (including bishops) is on one side, then all others are on the other side, plus crossbenchers if applicable. On the French Parliament, it's arranged from far-left to far-right. For the US Senate, "Democrats traditionally sit on the presiding officer's right, and Republicans on the left." Howard the Duck (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I also find it amusing that in arch-diagrams, the presiding officer is illustrated to be with the other members, instead of actually being in front of them. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't really see the point of trying to mimic actual seats arrangements. It show the readers how the members seats, and so what? Meanwhile, as said above, a left/right position instantly make you visualise the balance of powers in the house, what coalition is more likely and how fragile it may be. And by rapidly going through different election page you can visualize that country's political history by seeing the shift of the majority swinging left and right. I find this very informative. Also, trying to mimic actual seats arrangement lead to more and more complex diagrams that aren't easy to make, a real bother when members often change their affiliations. Let's not make it more difficult than it need to be.--Aréat (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
This presents interesting findings. The seating arrangement in the Althing is by random draw... so that throws the idea of seating arrangements based on how it really is out of the window. I do have issues with far-left to far-right arrangement: you'd factor in WP:OR in making it. For the US Congress, are diagrams look cute with the Democrats on the left and Republicans on the right, but that only holds true if you are the presiding officer. If you're watching on TV, it's reversed; but the US Congress has tradition on seating arrangements as stated above, so unless it changes, I presume Dems on the left, GOP on the right would remain, even if their political spectrum changes over time (remember that Republicans voted for abolition of slavery, which was against the status quo). I'd say we follow what WP:RS say on this matter. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Howard the Duck I don't see a problem with seating arrengements for parliament articles, lots of them have it. Examples Legislative Assembly of Costa Rica, Bundestag, National Congress of Argentina, etc. The issue here is that at least for the purposes of this project we are talking of election articles and the seating arrengement for such is, as mentioned before, impractical. Im most countries the elected officer do not take office until several weeks or months after the election, so the diagram for the election article if base on the seating would have to wait that time to be place. Ideological arrengement can be done immediatly as mentioned before. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Why not use pie charts? If they haven't met yet, there's no seating arrangement to speak of. If this is the case, and if you guys are insisting on parliamentary diagrams as if the body had met, I'd rather do it by number of seats, then some imagined left-right spectrum on an imagination on how they'd be seated together. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Much for what Areat mentioned. If I have to make an investigation about, lets say, voting patterns of British electors or level of support of left-wing parties, a pie or a major-to-minor chart says nothing to me. The left-right spectrum is not imaginary, is the most used by the media and the academy actually. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Of course the left-right spectrum is not imaginary; what imaginary is assigning parties to where in this spectrum they fall to. Is the "Green Party" in a certain country to the right of social democrats or to the left? If they are to the left, does that apply to green parties and social democrats in other countries? Is that Green Party in 2021 has always been to the left of social democrats throughout history? In some cases, it's not clear cut.
In addition, as per WP:ACCESSIBILITY, you can't just slap a colorful image and make the reader decipher what it is. I assume these diagrams come with actual results tables; if it does, that does the job as it shows you how parties stand for. UK Liberal Democrats are supposed to be center-left, but no, they had a coalition with Conservatives, a center-right to right-wing party over Labour (granted a Lab-Lib coalition will fall short of majority). We don't have to impose these to readers the notion that "left-wing parties always work together, so let's group them together." Howard the Duck (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

That's why I said A non-mandatory general guideline of course and understanding that local and national peculiarities may obligate to change the graphics in some countries (for example in some countries the Green parties are seen as more right-wing than the Social Democrats and in other they are seen as more left-wing .

As for "UK Liberal Democrats are supposed to be center-left, but no, they had a coalition with Conservatives, a center-right to right-wing party over Labour" yeah but, again, we are talking about elections articles, not about government or parliament articles, I think you're still mixing things with that.

And about "We don't have to impose these to readers the notion that "left-wing parties always work together, so let's group them together."" No one is saying they work together. The arch graphic is a continuous graphich from the first party on the left to the last party on the right. There's no indication in any of them what parties, if any, is working together. Even if some parties end up in the same side that doesn't mean they are working together and even if that was the case the arch has no boundary, no line, no clear cut to place which parties work together and which parties work with other or with non. Is just a continuos arch of multiple dots with colors with no further information on their workings. Workings that, in any case, are outside the realm of the article itself as, as mentioned before, is an article about elections not about government formation which generally happens several weeks after the election. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Also another issue; the arch can, of course, represent the major to minor party. That is a mathematical representation which is objective and not subjective as is, to some degree, the spectrum grouping. However this opens a new question. Should the parties be grouped showing the major (the one who has more seats) firts (on the left) and going down with the rest until the one with the less seats at the other extreme (on the right) or the other way around? (probably non-Western readers who read from right to left might prefer the other way around) And in any of both cases, what happens when two or more parties have the same number of seats? What party should be placed firt? If there's a tie in a two party system (for example in the current US Senate, Vice president not notwithstanding) which party is placed "first" (from a western view point) if both parties have the same number of seats?

Left to right in the ideological sense might not be perfect, but the other options are pretty impractical for several reasons. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Are we still talking about election results? Assuming we are, let's imagine it this way. The seats will be arranged by default on how the legislature does it:
  1. Some legislatures, like the Althing, have its seats drawn randomly or alphabetically. Now, of course we cannot do that, so perhaps we can make an exception to either illustrate it as either via election results, by political spectrum, or alphabetically arranged per party name.
    • In the illustration for Althing, there seems to be no indication on how the parties are arranged. It does look like left-wingers to the left, to right-wingers to the right.
    • When I made the illustration for United Nations Security Council and United Nations General Assembly, I figured in arranging it by alphabetical order of its regional groups.
  2. Some legislatures, like the National Assembly of France and the Bundestag, always arrange the parties/parliamentary groups by political spectrum. It makes sense to do that on election results too.
  3. Some legislatures, like the United States Senate, always have the two parties/parliamentary groups seated together, and always on the same side. Again, it makes sense to make the election results show this way too.
  4. Some legislatures, like the Philippine Senate, have its parliamentary groups sit together, with the largest group seating always on one specific side, no matter what their political position is. In cases such as this, it's safe to put the largest party on the side where the largest group is, then arranged in descending order until you reach the other side.
  5. Some legislatures, like the Scottish Parliament, have its largest party sit in the center. It makes sense to follow this custom, and put the largest party in the election result in the middle. (Note that our illustration no longer follows this.)
So if I suppose that for making parliamentary diagrams of election results, I suppose follow the custom in that chamber; if there isn't any, then you guys can talk about what to do. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I think there's a more simple solution:
  • a) If media usage, customary location and sources are available, making it accordingly.
  • a) If not, and/or there's no clear ideology or position of the parties (case of Philippines) then using pie charts and other "neutral" versions.
Major to minor still has some issues to be address. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I tried adding black outlines to the circles representing seats for the majority party/group but it didn't look good in thumbnails.
As for solution: that basically it; we'd follow the "rules of the legislature" on creating illustrations, and if the rules don't specify, discuss. In the case of the Philippines, the largest group sits to the right of the presiding officer, so the largest party after election is to the right in default. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
But we can't give that for sure, there's no absolute certaintity that such thing would happen, is likely and is customary but is no impossible that something else happen thus it will be Wikipedia:BALL and thus against Wikipedia's policies. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
That's also saying that we can't make election graphics for US Congress with Dems on the left and GOP on the right; technically, they'd draw their desks but the Dems always choose the ones on the left, and the GOP chooses the ones on the right; nor can we make Scottish Parliament illustrations with whichever party with the most seats in the middle. Generally, the "largest party gets to sit <wherever>" is the easiest to do as there are actual rules, or at the very least, conventions about it, as opposed to guessing "is this party to the left or right of this party?". Howard the Duck (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Exactly, we can't. Same case. Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand. We can't determine who'd be the largest party in a legislature? (Unless there is a tie.) Howard the Duck (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
We do, and is one of the options, however it would have to be decided whether the largest party is located on the right or on the left and why, and what to do with the other parties in the case two or more parties have the same number, which one goes first. For example in the latest Knesset composition four parties have 7 seats and four parties have 6 seats. Among the ones that have 7 seats for example Yamina, Labour, Yisrael Beiteniu and UTJ, should we place Yamina first? and if so, why and why not Labour?
But it is something that can be done, what can't be done and should be discarded outright as it fully infringes WP:BALL is to make the diagram based on where they would presumibly seat or what government they would presumibly made. Besides not all elections end in government formation (ask Israel and Spain) and in presidential systems there's no government formation only one party wins the presidency. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay, so if there's a tie for first, there's a good reason that we could not determine who's first.
If there isn't a tie for first, there's no reason why we wouldn't abide by that assembly's rules on placing the largest party at the right or left side, center, front or back, or wherever they want. Now, if several parties have the same number of seats outside of being first, you can argue that way, but for determining who sits where first, and that assembly has rules for that, we don't have any reason to disregard that.
You could also argue this way for customs, i.e. Dems on the left and GOP on the right even if the rules don't cement it in stone.
I checked out the Knesset re: your question. Here, they illustrate the procedure. So I suppose, there's no "largest party automatically sits in the left/right", but they choose where, so the answer to your question is we'd wait for the Knesset to publish information about this, or at the very least, WP:RS on where each group sits. So, yes, this is the instance where you'd use a pie chart. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but all those options clearly violates WP:BALL. There's no way to presume that the seating will be according to rules, customs or traditions. And then it causes the problem that we would have to not only research which are such rules/traditions for each country and subnational entity (like Scotland) but also sourced it, so it basically leave us in the same place as with doing it ideologically, except that with only some exceptions left-right spectrum positions are international and globally accepted whilst where each member seats in a legislature would depend on not only each country but each subnational entity and city (in the case of councils) which honestly sounds chaoitic. The idea is having one simple, standardized model to simplify things not the exact opposite.

Which in any case is always a non-mandatory general guideline, as there's no official policy on this and probably would never be. Is something that the editors can only do willingly, not mandated. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

If checking rules, laws and customs and using that to know how legislators will be seated is WP:CBALL, isn't imagining how these same legislators will be seated solely based on their political leaning be even worse violation of WP:OR? Scottish Parliament is not arranged that way, yet here we are with that diagram on its article. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the difference is that the political leaning can be justify with sources. Doing it by presume seating is both WP:CBALL and WP:OR. So by ideology is at least the lesser evil.
I have to disconnect for a couple of hours so I would leave you with the following general outline and suggestions for you guys to think about.
As I mentioned any option that deals with presumed seating and/or government formation no matter how customary is will break WP:BALL and thus is a no no. And also has the problem that it would require sourcing and would require a tailor-made diagram for each particular parliament which would require lots of time and research. Thus, the only solutions are:
a) Making it ideologically from the spectrum, duly sourced if possible, taking into consideration the country’s own particularities (which ideologically are not as widespread). If the country’s parties do not have a clear ideology (something that actually happens a lot in African nations) then a pie chart or a by the numbers as explained below.
b) Making it by the numbers, that is from the largest to the smallest. In case of tie or repeated numbers the parties would be placed alphabetically. For example in the case of the US; D-R, in the case of Israel; Labour, Yamina, Yisrael Beiteniu, United Torah Judaism. The largest in my opinion should be place on the right and then diminishes up until the smallest one on the left as, at least in the West, we tend to read numbers that way (1, 2, 3). However I would accept what the majority decides.
(By the way alphabetically can be another way to make it).
In the case that is ideologically I suggest the order expressed on this post, with Big Tent, Independents, Regional/Minority and Single-Issue parties in the center unless they have a well-known ideology (for example some regional parties in Spain are clearly left-wing, Arab parties in Israel are generally left-wing and the Nordic League in Italy was far-right). Again, this is always taking into consideration the countries own political culture.
And, I repeat (because is important) this is always voluntarily, there’s no mandatory way to do it and is can only be encouraged but not mandated it. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
PD: Sourcing ideologically requires less effort because, while sourcing by customary seating would require to research how each parliament or city council seats for each international parliament, country, subnational entity and city (and such information is not always available) sourcing by ideology is easier. First, the ideology would work for the entire country, if the source if for the UK would work for Westminster, each devolved parliament and every local council the same. Second, most countries follow more or less the same ideological spectrum with only a few having some exceptions, for example Greens are more left-wing in the US and Canada than in Europe. But this are exceptions, not rules, whilst the actual seating will literally differ not only from each of the around 200 countries but also internally. So it requires much less effort and investigation in one case than in another. We are going to have to source either way, we should choose the one option that require less effort. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
The best solution is to check with every chamber and assembly; there are some instances (like the Knesset's) where you can't make a diagram that looks like a real thing right away, and that's okay. This shouldn't be enough effort as there's always someone from that country who can take a look, or if s/he sees something's amiss, s/he'll point that out. (For African countries this is harder, though.) This results in a diagram that can be said to be closer to how legislators are actually seated, instead of totally making stuff up out of thin air. This is Wikipedia, we are supposed to find out how things look like, instead of discussing how things should look like. Your suggestions (a) and (b) will only work on chambers that provide seating either per spectrum or by total seats. For the Knesset, neither (a) or (b) applies, and such illustrations are WP:OR. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, Howard the Duck I don't know what other users think but I totally oppose using the supposed presumed seating as for infringing WP:BALL. WP:OR can be sourced, there's no way to fix WP:BALL and it will require to investigate thousands of alleged seatings from municipal and local councils to the European Parliament. So no, I completely oppose such suggestion. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 05:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I consider "following rules and customs" as WP:SKYISBLUE, or as simple math. If the rules/customs says the largest party sits in the middle, then we put that party in the middle, that's not WP:CBALL, that's like saying "Manchester United has 7 wins, 2 draws and 4 losses, so that means they have 23 points". Now, if the rules say "largest party sits anywhere they want to", then we decide "they're right-wingers, let's make them sit at the right side", then that's WP:OR; it's like saying "Manchester United are stronger than Aston Villa but weaker than Manchester City, let's put them in the middle of those two clubs." Howard the Duck (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Can you give for 100% sure, with absolute no doubt, that the people elected would seat in the way you predict? Nothing would happen between the weeks or months of the election and the taking of office that can change that from a modification of the seat arrengement before hand to something more extreme like a coup or a natural disaster? If the answer is no, then is WP:BALL. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
And just as an interesting excercise, how would be the diagram for the Costa Rica according to your proposal. How do Costa Rican deputies seat according to party size? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Scottish Parliament has been like that ever since it was instituted. One could argue it depends on which chamber. If it's been followed consistently, one can argue that it's 101% sure. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I dunno for Costa Rica. It depends on what rules they have. We can't guess that they have rules such as this. That's again WP:OR. They could sit according to political spectrum. That's something people have to look on. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Can you give 100% sure that the Scotish Parliament is not going to change their reglament before the next parliament seats? And what happen with the less stable countries like those where coups and civil wars are a very common occurence and parliaments elected in one election don't get to seat?
I'm Costa Rican and I can assure you there's no specific seating arrengement. Deputies seat whenever they want. They do not seat based on ideology, whether they are government or opposition nor according to size. What are you going to do on that case? No diagram at all? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Can you give a reason they won't follow it? If they don't make a announcement/law they won't follow it, then they'd follow it.
If that's the case (for less stable countries, chambers that don't have rules on this, and Costa Rica), you use pie charts. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
"Can you give a reason they won't follow it?" I don't have to give a reason why they won't follow it because I can't see the future, nor you, that's the whole point with WP:BALL. You have no way to assure that the relgament is not going to be change or that a natural disaster won't happen before forcing them to do not session or doing it somewhere else with a different seating. That's why your proposal completetly and utterly infringes WP:BALL. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
They only won't follow it unless they made an announcement they won't. It doesn't take a crystal ball to know that people will follow the rules when they have consistently followed the rules. It's like saying that the Olympics happening in 2021 is WP:CBALL without an announcement that they won't. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Can you assure all of us that no natural disaster, pandemic or war would happen in the future that would make impossible for the Scottish Parliament to uso their normal building? If the answer is no, then is WP:BALL. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Can you assure us that there's no meteor that will hit Earth causing a zombie apocalypse? If you cannot, please AFD 2021–22 Premier League and tens of thousands of future sporting events because we're not even sure the Second Coming of Christ in within the next 3 seconds! AFD 2021 Scottish Parliament election because we don't even know if it'll happen due to Putin invading Scotland. This is the most absurd application of WP:CBALL yet LOL. It'll happen if WP:RS said it will happen, or previous instances of the exact same thing happened and there's no reason for you to believe it won't, barring zombie apocalypse or similar catastrophes. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I don't see anyone supporting your idea anyway, while other users had supported to use the ideological spectrum, so unless someone else manifest in the next days in support of it (assuming everyone else just won't abandon this long and useless discussion already) I think we can discard it. You and I would certainly would have to agree in disagree. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Color scheme for referendums

A few days ago, User:Awmcphee created a color scheme for US ballot measures, which can be seen here. There are some example maps here. It's been created to replace the standard green-red color scheme, which can be hard or impossible to see for colorblind people. This is a very good idea, but the colors chosen to replace it lead to another problem: the colors are blue for "yes" and green/yellow for "no", which makes it hard to see or understand quickly (even with a legend). They linked a website for color maps, with possible color schemes listed under "diverging": (I will assume only the ones with white in the middle are used)

  • "broc" (olive-blue) can be confusing because both olive and blue are similar to the "green" usually understood as "yes";
  • "cork" (blue-green) has the same problem: blue and green can both be understood as "yes";
  • "vik" (blue-marroon) is better because blue is similar to the green usually understood as "yes", and marroon is similar to the red usually used as "no". A problem persists (mostly for US ballot measures): they are too similar to the parties colors and can be confused with other maps because of it;
  • "roma" (blue-orange) has the same problem as above;
  • "bam" (green-purple) is likely the best option: green is usually understood as "yes" and purple is close to the red usually understood as "no"; this is also why the VoteInfo app (official government app for data about votations in Switzerland) uses this scheme for colorblind users.

This is why I'm proposing this color scheme:

Proposed color scheme for votations, referendums, and ballot measures
Hex code Color and use
#405c23      Yes 90–100%
#689438      Yes 80–90%
#8ec059      Yes 70–80%
#b4d590      Yes 60–70%
#d9eac8      Yes 50–60%
#d9d9d9      Exact tie
#eac8e1      No 50–60%
#d590c3      No 60–70%
#c059a4      No 70–80%
#94387b      No 80–90%
#5c234d      No 90–100%

I also made an extended version for people preferring to work with intervals of 5%: (though I don't think it should be used for the US)

It's not definitive, and colors can be modified. I defined them as hue = 316 for "yes" and 100 for "no", saturation = 45, and light going from 25 (for 90–100%) to 85 (for 50–60%) in increments of 15.

What do you prefer, keeping Awmcphee's color scheme, switching to my proposal, or something else? Julio974◆ (Talk-Contribs) 09:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

No surprise, I have a vested interest in "Awmcphee's colour scheme", which I include below for completeness.
Perceptually uniform, colorblind safe palette
Hex code Result
#2B2457      Very extreme support (use sparingly)
#28497C      Extreme support
#47729E      Strong support
#7D9CBB      Medium support
#B6C8D9      Weak support
#EBEEED      Exact tie (use sparingly)
#DEDEBD      Weak opposition
#BCBC83      Medium opposition
#8B8B54      Strong opposition
#5D5D2D      Extreme opposition
#32320C      Very extreme opposition (use sparingly)
So I have a little background in colour theory for maps. About colourblind accessibility: this specific blue/yellow scheme is the only colour scheme that appears exactly the same when viewed by red/green colourblind readers, which is the most common type. Since there are no standard referendum colours, I think there's no good reason not to pick the single most accessible colour scheme that exists (although my editing is mostly concerned with North America and I have no plans to inflict this on other countries).
Even if red and green were colourblind accessible, they are strongly emotional colours. This is not just an eccentric artist's opinion, it's empirically proven that readers immediately interpret green as the "good" colour when they see it on a map. For that reason, the "conventional" colours actually work contrary to WP:NPOV. The fact that blue and yellow don't have an intuitive meaning is a good thing because readers should not have a "good" side chosen before they read the ballot question - I'm sure you're familiar with the intentionally awkward, single-negative, difficult-to-read phrasing used by many U.S. ballot initiatives. We also have to accommodate referendums whose answers don't follow "yes/no" format, in which case the conventional "yes/no" colours are even more inappropriate. (Note that blue/yellow is already being used at 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum.)
The choice of VoteInfo doesn't reflect a special kind of insight. The Swiss government (or its contractors?) would have had exactly the same kind of conversation as we're having now - some people would have pushed for a completely neutral colour scheme, others would insist on keeping a "conventional" red or green. I'm in the former camp, but ultimately it's up to the group. Any standardized colour scheme not using red and green together will be an improvement. Awmcphee (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Can't we just use blue and yellow? Green and red can't be seen by color blind users, and for non-color blind users, blue and green sorta mean the same thing (it being "good"). Blue and yellow, taken together don't have impression of being "against" each other (like blue vs green, or blue vs red) or "similar" to one another (like green and blue), and can be seen by most color-blind users.

Of course, it is inevitable that blue and yellow will be the colors of the two largest parties in a country/state... Howard the Duck (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

"Green and red can't be seen by color blind users" This is exactly why I suggested using green and purple instead. Running it through a colorblindness simulator has it nearly identical. For Awmcphee's proposal, I would at least suggest making the "no" color more yellow, it looks similar to green and multiple people I've sent it to told me it looks confusing. Julio974◆ (Talk-Contribs) 09:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Just to point out, the reason why the red was use for no and green for yes most likely was because they are the colors associated (due to traffic lights) with stop and go. The reason why the Scottish independence referendum used yellow and blue is probably because those are the colors of the two main parties in favor (SNP=for) and againts (C=against). If new colors are going to be use the ideals would be to use neutral tones that would not be easily associated with political parties.
Also depending on the referendum sometimes campaigns use specific colors, for example in the 2007 Costa Rican Dominican Republic – Central America Free Trade Agreement referendum the NO use the red and the YES use the blue. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Peterborough_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s

The % change figures for the most recent election look totally wrong to me. Please can someone competent review and if necessary amend? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dweller: they seem to be compared to the previous general election in 2017, rather than the by-election earlier in 2019. I'm not sure which one is standard practice? PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 07:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Good sleuthing! Hmm. Me neither. They look really odd like that. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Dweller PinkPanda272 It is practice - outside Wikipedia, I know FWS Craig did it in his text books - to discard by-elections when doing changes in vote share between general elections. If you imagine it in the wider scale, the votes are being compared from GE to GE, and have to be standardised in doing so. Having one vote share compared to a by-election is not good statistics. Now I know, over 10+ years of being on Wiki, that some editors disagree, and think that general election vote shares should compare to the by-election in those particular seats. I disagree. And convention in the real world agrees. Even the good old fashioned BBC election special programmes will always say "this is compared to the election 5 years ago" if needed so as not to confuse viewers with vote shares compared to intervening by-elections. So, in short, the vote shares should always be compared like-for-like. Even shorter, "by-elections don't count." doktorb wordsdeeds 15:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Should "attorney general" be capitalized?

Need some opinions. Is it a proper noun? (for example, in 2020 United States Attorney General elections, or 2019 Kentucky Attorney General election) My personal opinion is "no" but I'd like to know what others think before doing a mass rename. OwO (what's this?) 05:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Elli - According to MOS:JOBTITLES, it depends on whether you are referring to a title (as in Attorney General Merrick Garland said...), or an office (as in the attorney general leads the Department of Justice...). The former is a proper noun and should be capitalised, while the latter is a common noun and should use lowercase. However, WP:NCELECT (the naming convention for election articles) says that For elections to particular bodies or offices, default to the form "Date [adjectival form of country name] Body/Office election" and gives an example of 2011 Kentucky Attorney General election in uppercase. I presume it's like this due to the lack of an adjectival form of "Attorney General". I will post a link to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation) to see if anyone there can clarify which guideline takes precedence. Thanks, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 08:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

New Commons WikiProject

I just saw that User:Elli has created a corresponding protect to this one on Commons. Making sure y'all know DemonDays64 (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

DemonDays64 Thanks for posting this here, I probably should've done so. My main goal there is working with election maps. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Just a suggestion that there are a couple of issues on Commons that might be worth dealing with:
  1. Different wikis using different colour schemes for maps/parliament diagrams – it would be good to get consistency across all versions (as there shouldn't be differences in colours used).
  2. Duplicate maps and parliamentary diagrams – certain users are keen to have their work displayed, so create separate versions of them. If there's any chance some work could be done on rationalising them, it would be great.
Cheers, Number 57 11:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions! Currently I and the other members I've been in communication with have been focusing on the US more, since that's more our area of work, but I've noticed similar issues with parliament diagrams so I'd love to get that worked out too. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
One problem is different color scales for "official"-type maps. Like very standard presidential and senate and governor ones -- even from the same year like Arizona Senate 2020 and president -- having different color schemes. Also accessibility in maps -- like orange and green which is used for primaries often is not good for colorblind people in my understanding. Great to have some more organization of political stuff, DemonDays64 (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
@DemonDays64: downballot and presidential colors are intentionally different. Yeah, it's silly, but we'd have to update thousands of maps at this point to change that, so... doesn't seem to be a clear consensus to do so (and I guess it can help to distinguish election type?) Accessibility is one thing we've been working on, though. OwO (what's this?) 09:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

So....infoboxes...

The infoboxes for the US gubernatorial election series has photos of 2 US states' governors, in some instances the heads of the 2 political parties' Governors Associations, in others governors of associated states - I have not gone through the entire series to see which is which. There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:2021 United States gubernatorial elections#Images in infobox as to whether or not the present situation is according to the WP:MOS, makes sense, etc. The MOS states that infoboxes are supposed to summarize key facts in the article. The infoboxes in their present iteration seem to not summarize and assume our worldwide readers are familiar with the US Governors Association and/or US gubernatorial elections. Since this seems to be an issue that impacts other articles in the series such as 2022 United States gubernatorial elections, 2020 United States gubernatorial elections, etc. I thought it makes sense to discuss the issue here. Shearonink (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The RGA and DGA are just fundraising organizations. The groups of governors are not cohesive bodies like caucuses in a legislature would be, and there is no defined gain for their chairs for winning a certain number of seats as a legislative party leader would become speaker. They are not direct rivals and moreover never serve as chair in the same year they're up for election themselves. I do not believe the RGA/DGA chairs should be on the annual gubernatorial elections articles. Reywas92Talk 22:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I concur: have commented at Talk:2021 United States gubernatorial elections#Images in infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 09:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah this is weird. Having pictures of two heads of fundraising organizations on every one of these does not make sense, and not at least indicating that it is their position makes it much more confusing. It looks like some parliament rather than elections for separate executives with varying amounts of power. DemonDays64 (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
@Reywas92 and DemonDays64: please comment at the relevant Talk page so they can see your comments there. I think you will swing the argument. Bondegezou (talk) 08:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Presidential election results in congressional district tables question

Should tables in congressional district articles that list the presidential election results in the district round to the nearest whole number, or should they round to the nearest tenth? ( If there isn't a clear answer based on existing policy this can be an informal RFC)Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Could you provide at least one example, please? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Contrib history points to articles like Utah's 3rd congressional district. Urve (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Urve for the example. Jackattack1597, I don't know of any existing policy. I'd go with the nearest whole number. Bondegezou (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Nearest tenth seems reasonable – that will generally be 3 sig figs. That's usually what I see in articles. I certainly would not go past that – hundredths place would be too precise. Of course, though, these figures should always be sourced to something, and in practice they pretty much never are... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I think the source for most of them is DailyKosElections, which is listed as a generally unreliable source on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard due to a left wing bias, but is also the only source of this information that I know of. Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Unless they're flat-out fabricating data, I'd assume they'd be fine for this. Bias doesn't impact raw numbers here. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I think they're fine, but I'm worried that if Ourcampaigns ends up getting blacklisted completely DKE congressional district presidential results tables will be next to go. Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Ourcampaigns is UGC - DKE isn't. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

What map coloring should we use for "YEAR United States House of Representatives elections in STATE" infoboxes?

In most US election infoboxes for legislative chambers - such as the overall 2020 United States House of Representatives elections, we use a simple "gain" vs "hold" color scheme (which happens to be documented here). I've noticed Putitonamap98 updating maps for individual states - such as File:2020IAUSHouse.svg on 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Iowa - to use vote shading by margin instead. I'm personally opposed to this, as I think whether a district was flipped or not is more important than the margin it was won by - but I'd like to get a consensus here. Elli (talk | contribs) 11:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I think a "margin map" like that is generally useful, though maybe not as the map that goes in the infobox (which traditionally has been the Hold/Gain map). FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
That's my opinion too. It's useful information - just not the lead map. Maybe include both with a switcher? Elli (talk | contribs) 15:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't think there should be a switcher, the lead should stick to gain/hold. This is how the elections are generally reported, and is the tangible end result of the election. Margin maps are useful for comparing areas, or historical comparisons, and so on, but are less good at clearly reflecting the results of winner-takes-all elections, which is the key result the infobox should be used for. CMD (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

When did we change the naming convention for election articles?

... and where can I find that RFC/discussion?

HandsomeFella (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)/Archive 2#Proposed change to election/referendum naming format? That was the autumn of 2018. Ralbegen (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
And, FTR, I still think that was a terrible outcome. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@IJBall: curious why you think that? Elli (talk | contribs) 10:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Multiple reasons, starting with "year first" makes it harder to find individual election articles by searching. More generally, I think "when, where, what" titling is a bad system – "when" is the least important part: "what, where, when" seems more logical. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
As I've said previously when you've brought this up, if you think it's an issue, you can request a bot creates redirects at the old title format, which will show up in the search bar. Number 57 15:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
That doesn't really get at my point – that it's a bad system, based on devotion-to-our-MOS grounds rather than on common sense grounds. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Common sense would suggest the title would be as one says it. I would say, "Roosevelt won the 1932 US Presidential election", not "Roosevelt won the US Presidential election, 1932." Reywas92Talk 17:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
But it's not a sentence (which, incidentally, could just as easily be: "Roosevelt won the election for President of the United States in 1932." [what, where, when]) – it's a title. Look, I don't expect to change anyone's mind here. My mind, personally, was that it was a bad-to-terrible decision. Other people will have other opinions... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I remember the immense back+and+forth that involved. Let's not rake those coals again anytime soon! doktorb wordsdeeds 21:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I think the outcome was good, so I'm not planning to challenge that. There are other types of elections though that were left out of that discussion, and that I think need some attention. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Anyways we should pipe links to election articles in mainspace prose. The good way (if clear from the article context that Roosevelt was an American president) to write would be "Roosevelt won the 1932 presidential election". --Soman (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Boldfacing winners in legislative election infoboxes

What's the guideline on this? Boldface the #1 party? What if it did not get the majority of votes but got the majority of seats (and vice versa)? Howard the Duck (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the practice is to bold the "winning" party, which I think in some cases can even be the "plurality" party. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
There was a discussion about it at Template_talk:Infobox election/Archive 6#The Bolding issue, where there was a question "Do you agree that bolding should be used when this infobox is used for parliamentary elections, where the bolding would apply only to the highest number of votes, percentage and seats?". There was a 12–7 majority in favour (in which both Howard and I were in the 'against' group). I still maintain that it's a bad idea, as the party that receives the most votes/wins the most seats may still not actually end up forming the government. Number 57 15:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Those cases, or something like the 1916 United States House of Representatives elections, are rare – in those cases, you either bold the "eventual winner", or you put a 'note' next to the bolded party to explain the details. I don't think this is that big of a deal, especially because these are generally exceptional cases. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
It's only rare in countries lumbered with FPTP systems, but it's not exactly uncommon in countries that have proportional election systems. The New Flemish Alliance has been the largest party following each of the last three Belgian elections but was only in government after one of them. The Swedish Social Democrats have been the largest party continuously since 1917 but have been in opposition on several occasions. The Social Democrats were the largest party in Denmark from 1984 until 1994 but were in opposition the entire time, a situation repeated from 2015 to 2019. Although having said all that, for countries using PR and having multiple parties winning seats, {{Infobox legislative election}} is preferable to {{Infobox election}}, so the bolding is a moot point. Number 57 16:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The Peruvian Politics Articles Are a Mess

The articles relating to Peruvian Politics are a complete mess, with a bunch of outdated information and contradictions. I plan on trying to clean it up, but I'm honestly pretty confused about it myself, so any help would be appreciated. Ayvind-Bjarnason (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums/Archive_18&oldid=1025546652"