Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

Category:Leadership elections has been nominated for renaming to Category:Political party leadership elections

Category:Leadership elections and 36 of its sub-categories, all of which are within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Political party leadership elections. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

VotingWorks

Just wondering whether anybody has been working on an article for VotingWorks, a company that supplies voting machines for use across a number of US states. I've not seen anything in the draft articles category, but not everything appears there. Wouldn't want to begin work on it if somebody's already putting the effort in! Domeditrix (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Domeditrix: I don't see anything - would probably be worthwhile for us to start working on it. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
@Elli: I'll get going on a draft tomorrow, most likely. I think there are enough reliable sources to justify its existence, and it's certainly a topic of interest (given the state of things). If I'm doubtful that it meets the bar, I'll probably go through the WP:AFC process, but there does appear to be quite the backlog there at the moment. Domeditrix (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Template:US elections imagemap not functioning properly

Several imagemap templates are including states that are supposed to be included.

List of templates that are having issues:

This could be user error or some other issue, I'm not sure. It seems like these templates are defaulting to the original "Gov" templates they're based off of, plus the "extra-states", but they're ignoring the "excluded-states".

For Template:2019 United States attorney general elections imagemap and Template:2015 United States attorney general elections imagemap, the templates function as intended, most likely because the gubernatorial and attorney general maps for those years have identical states.

MrOinkingPig (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I've just looked and the links look right to mee. Perhaps you have a cache issue? Number 57 21:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I checked on another device so I don't think it's a cache issue.
For clarification, the issue is that some states are clickable even though they shouldn't be. For example, the image in Template:2016 United States attorney general elections imagemap has a link when you hover over North Dakota, even though it shouldn't.
MrOinkingPig (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
I guess if anyone could help, it's Elli. Number 57 11:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
@Number 57 and MrOinkingPig: yes, checking it out right now. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
@MrOinkingPig: there was some user error but this is generally my fault for switching from require to mw.loadData in loading the data module, which broke excluded-states in some cases. I've switched this back, thanks for letting me know.
(also, tempted to make separate AG templates for those elections - let me know if you think that would be helpful. I don't really like playing around with excluded-states and extra-states too much with this - I prefer adding new templates) Elli (talk | contribs) 20:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
@Elli: Separate templates would probably be helpful but it's up to you because I have no idea how to make them.
MrOinkingPig (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
@MrOinkingPig: have the cycles been consistent for a while? (as in, the cycle that lines up with say, gov2, tends to have the same states up each time). Gov cycles drift the further back you go and I'm sure AG does the same - but if it doesn't drift much then this would be useful. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
@Elli: Yes, they've been consistent. There was a 2014 special election in Utah, but otherwise all of them have been identical. MrOinkingPig (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

German parties color scheme (1866-1933)

I think it's time to change the color scheme for german parties before 1933. I've been working on a series of election maps for Germany, and the colors between the english-language and german-language wikipedias differ, sometimes they are not even coherent within a wp (for example, parliament diagrams use colors from the spanish-language wp). I think it's time to reboot it and review the whole scheme. I've spent quite some time a few months ago (sorry for making you wait so long) looking at maps and diagrams from several sources and using them to propose a "somewhat-consensus" color scheme. I've left a few colors with question marks along with some room in the talk page to discuss individual colors and not all proposals are definitive, but apart from that most of the work is done. This proposal would only imply changing the /meta/color templates.

What about the existing parliament diagrams? Well, they aren't in phase with the current enwp colors anyway so they'll have to be changed. I have worked on a script to generate them from the results for all national and state elections between 1848 and 1933, so they will be ready to be uploaded once the changes are approved (if they are). What about the existing maps? Well, most them are based on the german-language wp color scheme, which this proposal is closer to (just look at the FKP/DRP color).

Anyway, the entire proposal (along with its talk page) is on User:Julio974fr/sandbox/2. Julio974◆ (Talk-Contribs) 08:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks reasonable to me (although it might be helpful to link party names rather than just have the abbreviations). Cheers, Number 57 10:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the suggestions, I've now added the links (or at least abbr to the full names) for the parties! Julio974◆ (Talk-Contribs) 12:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! As I've mentioned before in discussions between us, one day I would like to see this information held on wikidata to ensure consistency across all Wikipedias – it could either be called from there, or perhaps updated by bots on each language version. Currently it's a bit of a mess and means maps and parliament diagrams aren't usable across all versions as different colours are used. Number 57 12:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I think this will mostly be relevant once Abstract Wikipedia be launched (I'm planning on summarizing on this talk page what this WikiProject should expect from it and what we should or may do when it comes). Julio974◆ (Talk-Contribs) 12:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
@Julio974fr: maybe relevant: I've tried making a page to document colors for US parties. Perhaps do a similar thing for German ones? (document all the schemes in use, so people at least have an idea of the scope of what needs to be changed, and what they can use for future maps) Elli (talk | contribs) 21:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I think you're talking about this, which I linked in my first post. Julio974◆ (Talk-Contribs) 10:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Julio974fr: exactly, beautiful (feels silly for not clicking that). Elli (talk | contribs) 10:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Erinthecute: I noticed you edited the DVP color template so I'd like to inform you there's some talk here to possibly change these templates. Julio974◆ (Talk-Contribs) 09:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. Apologies for changing the colours (I changed the DNVP as well), I wasn't aware there was an ongoing discussion. This seems like a thoroughly considered proposal and I'd definitely support it. I would favour #FFD800 for the DDP and #63B8FF for the DStP. Also, little mistake I noticed: the proposed colour for the CVP is wrong, the bar is black but the hex given is #0080FF. Erinthecute (talk) 10:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback and I've corrected the color for the CVP! Julio974◆ (Talk-Contribs) 16:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Ancient elections' infoboxes?

Hi. Why are infoboxes for elections a long time ago such as 1790 United States elections so weird compared to e.g. 2020 United States elections? There isn't a ton that's different; shouldn't they be formatted more similarly for consistent navigation? Stuff like links to the previous elections is missing for some reason. DemonDays64 (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@DemonDays64: I don't see a huge difference (a better comparison for the one you linked is 2018 United States elections, as the one you linked is a midterm). I'd assume the lack of navigation between next and previous is just due to someone not bothering to include that, not due to any actual reason (i.e. feel free to add that). Elli (talk | contribs) 05:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Signpost interview

Hi everyone, I have always enjoyed reading WikiProject interviews on the signpost and want to try and revive that section by conducting interviews, but I need some interviewees and I can see this project hasn't been featured yet (I think!) Would anyone be interested in participating in an interview? It would be similar to this one (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-06-27/WikiProject report) and would be open to anyone who wants to answer any questions they would like to. It's a good way to draw attention to your project and the work you conduct here :). Cheers Tom (LT) (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd be potentially interested. Might not be the best person to talk to, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. The most interesting interviews always have a diverse group of editors responding. I'll ping you when the questions are up :), Tom (LT) (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

2008 Virginia elections

2008 Virginia elections article is really weirdly organized and stuff, would love if someone could rewrite it. Thanks! DemonDays64 (talk) 03:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh goodness. I'm working on a general style for these at User:Elli/YEAR STATE elections (very recently) as I do think these are generally good for navigation. Kinda tired now or I'd rewrite myself. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Coloring county tables easily?

Hi! I added the table to 2006 United States Senate election in Nebraska#Results by county just now but I don't know how to efficiently color the county names. I have a Google Sheet with them, is there a good way to add {{party shading/Republican}} and {{party shading/Democratic}} conditionally in a way where I can paste it back in? Also is there a way I can paste bold formatting from a sheets/excel into the Visual Editor? DemonDays64 (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@DemonDays64: The only way to apply conditional coloring to cells is by using templates, for example the ones I recently created {{Shading PVI}}, {{US party balance shading}} (their usage at Cook Partisan Voting Index#By state). Using a similar template, which I can create if you want, will automatically color the cells, calculate percentage votes, and total votes cast in the county. However, you would not be able to import Excel data into wikitables, instead you would have to manually input all the data in the format {{template name|D=|R=}}, where D=no. of votes received by Democrat, and R=by Republican. Though, one can make an app to do this automatically from an Excel/GSheet file, its highly unlikely that someone will. Also, I've no idea about app development or I would've done it. See, Redrose64's reply below, that'll help you in case you use a similar templates. Cheers! ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 06:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
It's possible to construct an Excel spreadsheet in such a way that it makes the Wikimarkup for you. If you put the value for D into cell A1, and the value for R into cell B1, you can put the formula ="{{template name |D="&A1&" |R="&B1&" }}" into cell C1. Assume that the two values are 12345 and 54321, cell C1 will now display {{template name |D=12345 |R=54321 }}. Now fill in the data for the first two columns for as many rows as are required, let's say down to row 24. Select cell C1, extend your selection down to cell C24, press Ctrl+D to copy the formula from the top cell down to all the others, then Ctrl+C to copy the same cells to the clipboard. If you now go to your Wikipedia article and edit the appropriate section, you can paste in the clipboard contents and it will show that the cell references (A1, B1, A2, B2 etc.) have been replaced by the appropriate cell values. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Wow this idea is amazing. Considering how much I use Excel, I should've thought of this but I didn't. Gotta make some changes to my earlier reply. And thank you so much for sharing. It would save so much of my time. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 10:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@DemonDays64: Colouring the backgrounds of cells that contain text (especially those that contain linked text) is bad for accessibility (see MOS:CONTRAST). A much better method is to use a cell that is empty of text, this may be solid colour without incurring a contrast problem - examples are found elsewhere in the same article, such as in the two sections for the primaries. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Major task: Cleaning up proposition/referendum maps for accessibility, consistent shapes

original section "Consistency in statewide maps"
Hi. Are there any different standards for different kinds of statewide election maps (by county)? Like for example is there any reason that ideally File:2020CaliforniaProposition13.svg and other proposition maps shouldn't just use the same map as File:California Presidential Election Results 2020.svg with different colors? DemonDays64 (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
@DemonDays64: I would go with File:California Presidential Election Results 2020.svg, but only on personal preference because I think it looks neater when used in WP articles. Having said that, having a key as part of the image would probably be more helpful if it was used off-wiki. I don't think there's a hard and fast rule, so go with whatever you prefer/is easier. Gazamp (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I noticed we have an extremely large number of very colorblind-unfriendly maps of ballot referendums, particularly almost all of the California ones such as 2016 and 2020; other states listed in c:Category:United States ballot measure maps by state have some red-green maps too.

These need to be changed to the colors listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/USA Legend Colors#Proposal support levels. Some are PNG too so those will need to be completely remade.

Also it would make sense to have more of a consistent format -- many use the extremely simplified presidential style with the legend on the map and rotated differently while others use more complicated lines with no legend like this and others are exactly like the presidential maps. Which one should be used optimally? The presidential lines would be consistent but I don't see why we use such oversimplified lines when the SVGs are still not huge and the PNGs aren't much different in size from the more complicated ones (e.g. compare complicated and simple). We should make sure we have consensus on this written down somewhere I would think. DemonDays64 (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@DemonDays64: I didn't even think of the red-green problem but that's a key issue. I'm a little busy atm and I've never recoloured ballot measure maps, but I can try and work through some of the ones brought up and redo them. I don't know what I'm doing with PNGs, so I'll have to leave that to someone else.
I think on the boundary lines, I would definitely go with the complicated version, mainly because I don't see a reason not to. Again, not sure where I stand with including a key as part of the image so other views welcome. Well done for bringing this up! Gazamp (talk) 10:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Somebody else pointed about this some months ago but the discussion went nowhere, mostly because red-green has been entrenched not just in Wikipedia but socially to mean "no" and "yes", and if we aren't using red-green what color combination are we using? Howard the Duck (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
See H:Colorblind - you could use yellow/red, red/blue, or yellow/blue. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
With the Brexit referendum, yes, I've personally am ok with yellow/blue, although some people would still insist on red/green. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/USA Legend Colors#Proposal support levels as mentioned above. Gazamp (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
About lines - I'm in favor of switching all maps to eventually using the ones in c:Category:Standardized SVG county maps of US states. They're generally preferable and consistent, as well as high quality. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, I'm opposed to including legends in the maps as that makes them less easy to be re-used. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Expanding 5% infobox threshold

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I find consensus in support of this proposal, with the caveats that 1) different principles may apply to parliamentary/party-list elections and 2) as always, appropriate exceptions may be made via local consensus. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


In a previous RfC, a 5% vote threshold was established for inclusion of candidates in infoboxes of U.S. election articles. I often see this standard applied to non-U.S. election infoboxes, yet I haven't been able to find a broader consensus. Should 5% be the standard infobox inclusion threshold for all elections, including the previously-established caveat that infoboxes should have at least two candidates if only one candidate in a contested election gets above 5%? ― Tartan357 Talk 19:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Survey and discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

US primary election lead sentences

Currently, lead sentences in articles about US presidential primaries look like this:

The 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries and caucuses were a series of electoral contests that took place within all 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories between February 1 and June 7, 2016.

The sentences are tautological: they say the same things twice just so that boldface could fit in. That, of course, is against MOS:AVOIDBOLD and MOS:REDUNDANCY as well as a great disservice to readers because links to essential topics are sacrificed. Links to Presidential primaries and Republican Party (United States) or Democratic Party (United States) are vital and should be provided as soon as the terms are introduced. They should not be relegated to the middle of the section or, as is usually the case, be completely absent. Therefore I suggest this or a similar format:

Presidential primaries and caucuses of the Republican Party took place within all 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories between February 1 and June 7, 2016.

Comments and suggestions are welcome! Surtsicna (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a tricky area to unbold openings. Would this unbolding eventually lead to articles like (for examples) 2020 United States presidential election, 2019 Canadian federal election, etc etc? GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, hopefully, but it is far easier to suggest alternative wordings when discussing the topics one by one. The Manual of Style already advises this "unbolding", but it has not been implemented in these articles. I do not think we should see putting readers first as tricky. We only need to agree whether the bolded version or this or another unbolded version is the most informative. Surtsicna (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I've no strong stance on this topic, either for bolding or unbolding. If it's applied consistently across the board? I'm content. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Since there appears to be no opposition here, I will implement the edits and link to this discussion. At the very least it might trigger input here. Surtsicna (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Reckon so. GoodDay (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I know you like consistency, so I have edited the articles on all the 21st-century primaries. I will proceed with the rest if there is no opposition; feel free to chip in if you do not think I am quick enough. Surtsicna (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

RfC on including delayed results in results tables

Hello. There's an RfC on whether results from constituencies where voting was postponed until some time after the election (specifically the 2019 Indian general election) should be included in the main results table. I'm sure some project members may have a view on what we should do, so please do comment. Cheers, Number 57 16:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

This can happen. In the 2019 Philippine House of Representatives elections, two districts were redistricted too late, and the ballots were printed on the old setup, and the election went through with old ballots with the idea that the votes won't be counted, and that the actual election will be done later in the year. However, this was litigated on one district and the result of the voting was upheld on that district, with the new setup to be contested in the next election; the authorities then decided to uphold the decision on the other district, so no delayed election was done for either district. Prior to that, an election went through in 2010 under similar circumstances with no suits; the results were added on the 2010 table. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
@Howard the Duck: The post by Number 57 was not the start of a discussion, it is a pointer to an ongoing discussion at Talk:2019 Indian general election#RfC: Should the results table include results from delayed elections and so you should comment there, not here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm not !voting, just sharing that this happens (infrequently). Howard the Duck (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Convention for House of Representatives special elections in the United States

Discussion regarding the format used for listing Special elections to the United States House of Representatives, and for settling on an article naming convention for the same. Detailed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#RfC: Convention for House of Representatives special elections in the United States. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 15:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

BACKGROUND & ISSUES: Hi everyone. As some of us would already know, most countries have a article which lists all special/ by-elections held to that country's legislature. For example, List of United Kingdom by-elections (2010–present) & List of federal by-elections in Canada among others. As one would notice the by-elections held are categorised by the term of the Parliament which is also chronologically consistent, as they do NOT conduct simultaneous elections to multiple parliamentary terms. They elect the next parliament upon the dissolution of the current one.

US is currently the only country to have year-specific articles listing all House of Representatives special elections held that year, despite having a list of all special elections ever held, just like any other country (List of special elections to the United States House of Representatives). However, the former part has a problem, special elections held in odd years have their own articles with infoboxes and a short summary of each race, for example, 2019 United States House of Representatives elections, whereas special elections held in even years despite having equivalent encyclopedic content & coverage are just a small subsection of general election articles without even a summary, for example, 2020 United States House of Representatives elections#Special elections.

Furthermore, unlike the countries mentioned above, in US elections to the next Congress can be held simultaneously with special elections to the current Congress, and in some instances of 18th & 19th centuries (prior to 1880), even before special elections to the current Congress are held.

And, if the 2019 United States House of Representatives elections article is ONLY for special elections, why the title doesn't reflect the same, like individual races do, for example 2019 North Carolina's 3rd congressional district special election.

PROPOSALS:

  1. Create year-specific special election articles for all years (odd and even), in the format xxxx United States House of Representatives special elections, where xxxx is the year of such election.
  2. Create congress-specific articles for congresses (without any regards to the election year), in the format Special elections to the yyyth United States Congress (xxxx-xxxx), where yyy is ordinal number of the Congress, and xxxx the years of the tenure of such Congressional term.
  • At the end, there could be other proposals too, that I haven't really thought of.

Thanks! ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 15:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

I would personally support grouping the special elections by congress instead of by year, as for most countries (while keeping individual articles for individual special elections when necessary). Mostly like proposal 2, but without the years detailed. Julio974◆ (Talk-Contribs)

It seems like articles such as 2020 United States House of Representatives elections are for all elections that were held during the calendar year, and these includes special elections. This is unlike elsewhere that elections articles are for a specific day/s (if there are multiple rounds or more) of the year. If the article's scope is limited to the general elections in November, we won't have this problem. (That should also mean articles about US House elections in odd-numbered years have to be reconfigured.) Howard the Duck (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: That should also mean articles about US House elections in odd-numbered years have to be reconfigured I do think a listing of all special elections in a year should exist somewhere. We already cover all the elections in their individual pages too. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
You could put that, and special elections on even-numbered years that's currently on the November election article on the XXXth United States Congress article in a "Change of membership" section, or a separate "Special elections during the XXXth United States Congress" article. TBH this is duplication of content if there's already a list of all of them somewhere, then another list at several different articles; it's better to put them in just one article. The "XXXX United States House of Representatives elections" articles should be for elections for seats where the winners will sit on January 3rd. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't think there is a list somewhere else though. 2019 United States House of Representatives elections is indisputably the list for special house elections in 2019. Adding "special" to the title would be reasonable I suppose. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
@Elli and Howard the Duck: There exists this article, which contains a list of all (known) special elections held to the House since 1789 to present: List of special elections to the United States House of Representatives. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 13:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

"Special elections to the XXXth United States Congress" (which would include House and Senate special elections), might solve the problem. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

What would you do with an election like 2020 United States Senate special election in Arizona? While it was a special election to the 116th United States Congress, it was covered in pretty much all media as part of the 2020 US Senate election cycle, not separate. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
It would have to be listed under an article called "Special elections to the 116th and 117th United States Congresses". GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
There's something wrong with an electoral system that means that Arizona voters had to wait more than two years after the death of an incumbent before a successor could be democratically elected. If it hadn't been for Jon Kyl (the appointed - but unelected - successor) resigning after a few weeks, they'd have had to wait four years for the next Class 3 elections. It's fine to hold elections only in November, but it's Not Fine to not hold a special election in the first November following the death of an incumbent. In the UK we can get a by-election completed in seven weeks from the vacancy arising (see 2021 Batley and Spen by-election) at any time of the year; so one US state should have been able to manage it in two and a half months. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Actually voters do get to elect a new senator in the next ever-yeared November if they don't really want the appointed senator. In Georgia, appointee Kelly Loeffler had to run in the special election against Warnock. Similarly, had Kyl not resigned he would've had to run in 2020. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 12:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
It's all quite confusing, when it comes to the US Senate. A full term covers 3 congresses & the 100 US Senate terms are stagnated. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Or maybe "Special elections during the 116th United States Congress" ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 13:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, though the fellow completes the term at the end of the 117th United States Congress. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
We have several examples of this elsewhere:
  1. 2019 Taiwanese legislative by-elections
  2. By-elections to the 42nd Canadian Parliament
  3. By-elections to the 7th Russian State Duma
I suppose we should have consistency on naming for these topics. The appropriate AmE name should be "Special elections to the XXXth United States Congress" for House elections. For Senate elections, technically, these are special elections to the next 1-3 congresses. That means if we want to avoid such inconsistencies, we can name it as "<year> United States <chamber> special elections". Howard the Duck (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not sure I agree with that. It doesn't make sense to list that separately from the 2020 United States Senate elections (same with the one in Georgia). Elli (talk | contribs) 16:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm still steamed, that those two Georgia US Senate election articles were moved to headings 2020–21, instead of the proper 2020. Not to mention, there inclusion in the 2021 United States elections article. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, they were technically held over both years. This should however open the question of how we treat runoffs, including in infoboxes: is it the main round or is it more of a complement round? Julio974◆ (Talk-Contribs) 20:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
To return the article to its previous name was the subject of a move request: Talk:2020–21 United States Senate election in Georgia#Requested move 7 April 2021, but consensus was not achieved. Hence, 2020-21 remained in the title. I think we should leave the matter to WP:NCELECT to determine what to do in the event of runoffs, which currently doesn't mention anything about the same. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 06:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I love how that article treats each round as if it is a separate election (each even having a separate results table!). I know runoffs are novel in the U.S., but I was expecting some political science grad would've fixed that up and put up just one results table.
As for the question:
  1. 2020 United States Senate elections should include general elections held on November 2020, plus run offs if it extended to another year. It should also include special elections, but denoted that it is such. (I think the article already does a good job pointing that out.) I won't oppose moving it to 2020–21 United States Senate elections, though to make it "correct".
  2. 2020–21 United States Senate election in Georgia and 2020–21 United States Senate special election in Georgia should both stay where it is. The runoff is a part of the general election. The national article above should probably stay where it is as WP:RS will tell you it mostly was held in 2020. It'll be interesting though, if in the future, some states decide to do have runoffs and more than a handful of seats are decided on a runoff held on the next calendar year. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Take a look at the pre-17th amendment US Senate elections article titles, aswell as the pre-1880 US House elections articles titles. GoodDay (talk) 04:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I noticed those, but it'll be contentious to rename post-17th amendment elections that extended to the next calendar year such as 2020 United States Senate elections to "2020–2021 United States Senate elections", and to limit the scope of such articles to elections to seats that are up in November (and do not include special elections unless they also happen on the November election day). Howard the Duck (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I would definitely oppose changing any of those post-17th amendment US Senate elections article titles, to double years. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

TFD proposal - condensing political party templates

There is a discussion at WP:TFD regarding the merging of some 16000 political party templates into one meta module. Your input would be appreciated. Primefac (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

FLRC for Timeline of Canadian elections

I have nominated Timeline of Canadian elections for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Infobox upgrades

Just to let everyone know, both {{Infobox election}} and {{Infobox legislative election}} have had an upgrade that means entering a party name as a link in the party field (i.e. |party1=[[Labour Party]] will result in the party colour from the meta template ({{Labour Party/meta/color}}) appearing. Previously if you entered the party name as a link, the meta colour template would not be called and you would have to manually add a colour to the template code. This was particularly problematic for {{Infobox election}}, which requires the colours to be added without the hashtag, meaning you couldn't simply link to the meta template and any change to party colours would require manual intervention on numerous articles.

Now this has been enabled, you don't need to create meta shortname templates for parties to get colours to work automatically in the infoboxes. Hope that all makes sense, as was a bit difficult to explain! An example might be this, where I converted a plain party name (with no associated meta shortname template) to a piped link, and the party colour still shows up. Cheers, Number 57 15:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Primary candidate images

Several 2022 United States elections have had images of the primary candidates added to their sections. Previously, this was only applied to Presidential elections. Should they be included or not?67.173.23.66 (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: See below RfC. ― Tartan357 Talk 23:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Call for interviewees for Signpost WikiProject interview

Hi everyone, I am trying to review the regular WikiProject interviews on the Signpost. I need some interviewees and I can see this project hasn't been featured yet (I think!). It would be fantastic if any members of this WikiProject wanted to participate in an interview similar to this one (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-06-27/WikiProject report).

It's open to anyone from this WikiProject - regular editors and those just passing through; old hands and newer editors alike. Answer any questions you'd like and leave the rest. This is a great way to draw attention to your project and the work you conduct here :).

The draft interview is here: User:Tom (LT)/sandbox/WikiProject elections and referendums interview draft. Hope to hear from you there! Tom (LT) (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

There ya go. I've answered all eight questions. GoodDay (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

2021 Dublin Bay South by-election was nominated for good article status, is seeking a reviewer

2021 Dublin Bay South by-election has been nominated by User:BrownHairedGirl for good article status. I don't know this for a fact, but I presume it's rare/uncommon that Irish political elections pages are nominated. The article is currently seeking a reviewer over here >>>[1]

CeltBrowne (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at village pump

There is a discussion at the village pump about a topic that is relevant to this WikiProject. See Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Real-time reporting of election results wikinights talk 20:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Changing the infobox threshold for candidates in US elections

Background:

Currently, a candidate must receive more than 5% to appear in most US election infoboxes. This is a good standard and I do not agree with changing it.

Proposal:

If a candidate wins a county in a statewide election, they should appear in the infobox. Currently, winning a county doesn't necessarily guarantee that a candidate goes in the infobox. This results in the candidate's name appearing in the map caption but no other information like their % of the vote, # of votes, party, picture, and full name. For example, the 1976 United States Senate election in Virginia saw Martin Perper win a county but not appear in the infobox due to only receiving 4.5% of the vote. This makes the infobox a bit confusing to look at because there is no other mention of Perper besides the map caption

This would be an easy change to make because only a few elections have seen candidates win counties and not get more than 5% of the vote. MrOinkingPig (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: I'm uncomfortable with a "1-county" cutoff rule, because there is always a "home county" effect, even for minor candidates, which can lead to them winning their "home county" but nothing else. I think I'd rather it be 2 counties for the cutoff (though, the odds of someone winning 2 counties, and still getting less than 5% statewide, is probably very minuscule). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Soft support. It seems reasonable enough, under the principle of least astonishment, to ensure that a reader can look at the map and not question what a certain colour represents. However, my support is only "soft" because I am a little concerned it could eventually clog the caption box; I would suggest implementing a limit, so as to include the candidate so long as the number of candidates included remains below a certain number - perhaps six or eight? BilledMammal (talk) 06:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd support using common sense here. If someone who wins a county is included, so should anyone who gets a higher percentage of the vote than that person. I think having a consensus that the 5% rule isn't always what we must go by is reasonable in cases like this. Some things need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The 5% threshold is an easy standard to maintain and it prevents the potential problem where candidate X finishes behind candidate Z jurisdiction wide, but candidate X is in the infobox because they won a county. Also, the 5% standard is used for elections smaller than a state and not all countries/states have a county-level equivalent. --Enos733 (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Just reread that this proposal is for only US elections - my point still stands, there should be consistency in the infobox across elections and across countries. --Enos733 (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

RfC/mass-move: San Marino elections and referendums

Please see Talk:2019_Sammarinese_general_election#Mass_move_request. Thanks! RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum page move

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Amendment to WP:NCELECT

And related to the two discussions above, there is now a discussion on amending WP:NCELECT, the naming guideline for elections/referendums. Number 57 08:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC about primary candidate photos in election articles

There is no consensus at this discussion and it has unfortunately gone stale. As was pointed out by Snow Rise, a WP:PROPOSAL may be the better path forward, either proposing the creation of a brief new guideline/policy or amending an existing one. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Given that 67.173.23.66 (talk) removes images of candidates in the primaries sections of many, many articles citing that "photos generally aren't included for non presidential elections" and that "No such images are present on any gubernatorial elections for earlier years," should U.S. election articles, especially U.S. Senate and gubernatorial election articles in 2022, include galleries of images for the candidates in the Democratic/Republican primaries sections? —twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 23:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey

  • Include, echoing my above comment. ― Tartan357 Talk 23:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Include for Senate and gubernatorial elections. I think for house elections that could become an issue, particularly for pages of states with a significant number of races. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Exclude- restrict primary candidate images to the US presidential primaries. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Exclude I think these can be excessive, especially since we don't typically have images of all the candidates, even major ones. If included, it should be a basic gallery, not a full table. Reywas92Talk 23:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Improper forum/inapplicable use of RfC. (Summoned by bot) OP, please see the policy language available at WP:Advice pages, which has been repeatedly adopted by community consensus and codified in multiple ArbCom cases, as well as WP:CONLEVEL. Editors at WikiProjects are expressly forbidden from hosting discussions within the project and then attempting to enforce any resulting consensus across any articles they perceive to be within the purview of that project. You can arrive at whatever consensus you may in this discussion and it will still be useless if you try to invoke it on individual articles: if even so much as one editor disagrees with the conclusion reached here in the case of any article, you are still going to have to meet WP:ONUS and have a separate WP:LOCALCONSENSUS discussion on each such article. The community adopted this standard for a number of reasons, but just to list one particular relevant one here: if each and every WikiProject were instead permitted to come up with it's own idiosyncratic rules for articles, there would be endless conflict between which project's rules prevail in the case of subjects which are covered by numerous projects. If you want to create a standard approach to a particular editorial issue, the only way you can effectuate that is by following the WP:PROPOSAL process and gaining community consensus for making an amendment to a relevant policy or MoS subpage. SnowRise let's rap 01:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
    Responses and further discussion about the procedural/CONLEVEL posture of this RfC moved by request to a "Advice Pages Discussion" subsection below, in order to keep the Survey section streamlined. I should leave clarification about one point here, however: despite my !vote above, I do not think this discussion necessarily needs to be closed as a procedural matter. However, anyone who is planning to work from the result does need to know the limits imposed on any decision reached here, so it would be beneficial to anyone unfamiliar with the WP:Advice pages limitations on WikiProject discussions to read the full peripheral discussion, now located below. SnowRise let's rap 06:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Exclude These images add nothing but clutter to articles. This might make sense for presidential articles, but the value added to anything else is extremely negligible. I also oppose the use of tables in these articles. Toa Nidhiki05 02:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Include as per Elli. As a WP reader, I find photos helpful but can recognise some of the problems as an editor. Including for statewide elections seems to be a good compromise. Gazamp (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I was the person who initially started the trend; it was initially an experiment on the 2022 Florida gov and senate page that was only meant to be temporary, but it really caught on. I personally don't like it, as many candidates simply don't have available images with the proper licensing, which gives the aura of essentially "major" and "minor" candidates, which is something that should generally be avoided on non-presidential election pages for the sake of WP:NPOV. However, visual aids of what candidates look like may be beneficial to the average reader, especially considering election pages are very high traffic. I personally have no opinion on the matter, as the pros and cons have equal weight for me. Additionally (and obviously), the use of images alongside proper prose is fine (i.e. in a form not just listing candidates, but a proper write-out of the campaign season). Curbon7 (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
If the result is include? It would likely be best to micro-size the images, at an established size. GoodDay (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I feel the difference is that statewide elections don't get the same level of attention as presidential primaries.67.173.23.66 (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Advice Pages discussion

  • [ The following discussion originally continued from just below my !vote in the Survey section for this RfC, above. I have not amended the commentary beyond moving the posts. SnowRise let's rap 06:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC) ]
    It would be very messy, to have multiple RfCs in hundreds of related articles, which would end up in mass inconsistencies across related articles. GoodDay (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
    Well that's what WP:PROPOSAL is for. If there is really a need for a standard rule (or a generalized guiding principle with exceptions/multiple approaches), that language can be added to a relevant style or policy page. Anyways, I'm not sure what you want me to tell you here: this is longstanding community consensus and as I noted before, this has been endorsed by the results of multiple ArbCom cases, including a couple associated with some of the most disruptive episode's in WP's history, meaning there is very short patience for when groups of editors aligned with a WikiProject edit war to enforce their preferred general approach on a particular article without first getting local consensus support on that article. I really would suggest that any one here avoid doing that at all costs, whatever the result here. This is just the standard consensus building process for Wikipedia: it would much more messy to have hundreds of different sets of rules for each and every WikiProject and nothign but constant fighting about which Project's rules take precedence in a given case. That's just never been feasible, which is why we have this rule, as well as a centralized WP:PAG system and the CONLEVEL process that we do.
    Mind you, you can still have this conversation and if a strong majority agrees with one approach or the other, and everyone working on the project decides to just accept that approach and work with it, great. But what you won't be able to do is present this matter as settled by consensus at individual articles: this would almost certainly be considered WP:disruptive behaviour. So essentially, any conclusion reached here is advisory only. Meaning it's fine if everyone here will endorse the outcome whether they voted for it or not and just go with it, but if someone disagrees in particular article edit summaries/talk pages, you still have to get consensus again for the relevant article. I know I am being a little repetitious here, but this is a somewhat complicated factor in how local vs. centralized consensus on this project works, so I want to make sure I am being clear about how these nuances operate. Sorry, I don't make the rules (well, anymore than we each do on this project!), but I dare say if I was remaking WP's policy framework again from the ground up, I would keep this principle: no other approach is really workable, frankly. SnowRise let's rap 02:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
    I take responsibility for moving it here. The OP originally posted it at Talk:2022 Pennsylvania gubernatorial election, which seemed a bad place for it as its scope includes many other articles. I recently did my own RfC here (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 20#RfC: Expanding 5% infobox threshold), which an admin, Number 57, participated in, and which received a formal closure upon a request being posted at WP:CR. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
    Yeah, unfortunately there are a lot of discussions like these that sneak between the cracks at WikiProjects and don't have the above policies raised, because it's a kind of complicated element of how consensus works and even veteran editors sometimes don't understand it or forget about it. To be fair, not all of these discussions are therefore wastes of time: sometimes they resolve in an approach that every editor just decides to accept, and it's a perfectly fortunate, useful outcome. But it's important for anyone !voting in such discussions (and even more important for those who want to use that 'consensus' afterwards) to understand the resulting strength of the discussion (WikiProject WP:Advice pages being on par with WP:Essays) or else they can get themselves in trouble by edit warring to preserve the WikiProject's consensus on an individual article, only to find out that what they were relying on isn't really binding local consensus for that page, and that what they are doing might be considered disruption.
    For clarity, I personally see no problem with this discussion (or similar ones in similar circumstances) going forward: if people who contribute to it all agree to abide by its results and they are major contributors to the articles in question, it can become a workable shorthand agreement. The important thing to remember (to keep everyone from accidentally getting themselves in trouble) is that if someone reverts the change on a given article as a matter of WP:BRD, one cannot just counter-revert them with an edit summary that says "See such and such consensus at WP:WikiProject:WhatHaveYou"; instead at that point, you need to open a discussion on the talk page for that article, just as if the WikiProject discussion never took place, because all that WikiProject discussion establishes is best practice advice for individual articles, not binding consensus. Only WP:PROPOSALs can create binding community consensus on a particular editorial issue, be it policy or purely an MoS/style concern.
    Does that make sense? I'm cognizant that, despite this being a very old principle of community consensus, it is not the most intuitive (or for that matter, the best known) component of WP:Consensus processes on this project. Compounding that problem is the fact that the community has lazily left the Advice Pages information on the main council page, even after the afore-mentioned ArbCom cases. It really should have been moved to it's own page years ago, where it's profile would probably be raised, clarifying matters for newer users and those who are unaware of the rule and the history of disruption that lead to it. Point in fact, it's something I've been meaning to point out at VPP for years now, but I've somehow just never gotten around to it--which I guess makes me very much a part of the laziness that has lead to these issues, I must admit.. SnowRise let's rap 04:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • IMHO, this RFC is proper & should indeed decide the issue it's asking. GoodDay (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
    It can decide whatever it decides, but the fact of the matter is, if someone (on the basis of WP:BRD) reverts a change in an individual article that anyone makes in conformity with this discussion, and you then re-revert them, you do not have WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on that article for the change and at the point that you re-revert them, you are WP:EDITWARRING and in a way that ArbCom has specifically and repeatedly said is a WP:disruptive behaviour, so just be forewarned. As I've said repeatedly above, this discussion is not improper in the sense that it needs to stop: if you all agree to abide by the result here, that's all well and good and worth the trouble of the discussion. But you can't then take the result here to individual articles and treat it as if it is WP:CONSENSUS that is binding on those articles, in cases where you get pushback from the regular editors on that article, because WP:Advice pages is unambiguously clear: {{tq"Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay"}}.
    This just is not new or remotely ambiguous community consensus: this has been addressed by the community repeatedly from the Village Pump on up to ArbCom: WikiProjects cannot create firm rules about content which they can then apply to any article they perceive to be in their purview: they can create, at most advice and if the local editors at particular articles reject that advice you must get local consensus agreement to make the change on that article, or else you are edit warring. The one and only way which you can set an editorial approach that is binding across multiple articles is with a WP:PROPOSAL to create or amend a WP:POLICY, WP:GUIDELINE, or WP:MoS language. Full stop.
    Please understand that I am not trying to close this discussion or even suggesting as much; my absolutely sole purpose in raising this point here is to make sure that those who are participating in this discussion understand that what they will have is not binding consensus in cases of dispute at individual articles. I'm making a point of saying this purely because when I arrived at this discussion it became apparent to me that some editors here were not familiar with the WP:Advice pages guidelines (this happens not infrequently in WikiProject RfCs) and I am hoping to help those who weren't aware of it to avoid possibly getting themselves in trouble for edit warring, thinking they are enforcing a binding consensus. I don't have skin in the game as regards the editorial matter being decided, and I'm 50/50 on which approach is best. So I'm really not concerned about the outcome. As far as I am concerned, you can do as much or as little as you like with this advice--but I'm telling you, if you edit war on behalf of a WikiProject discussion's outcome, insisting that such outcome is binding policy, you're taking your editing privileges into your own hands. That's all I'm saying. By all means continue with this discussion. But understand that its result doesn't carry very much weight on individual article talk pages if there is a BRD situation: the preferred approach you decide on here will be treated merely as an essay, not as a guideline. SnowRise let's rap 11:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm quite certain, if enough editors 'here' chose to exclude images in said-articles? Not many will want to 'include'. If a dispute does occurs on an article? we'll cross that road when we get to it. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think this RfC is contrary to WP:CONLEVEL. CONLEVEL states that WikiProject RfCs "cannot override community consensus on a wider scale" and "cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope". However, matters like this (or the 5% threshold) are not issues that there is a higher community consensus about, nor are they covered by a guideline, so the concern about which rules take precedence aren't really relevant.
    CONLEVEL also directs us to the ARBCOM statement of principles on levels of consensus, which states that "on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account." Cheers, Number 57 08:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
    I think there's some confusion here (possibly because of how I worded my initial !vote). There's no problem with holding the discussion here. If the editors here agree amongst themselves to use a specific approach, that's great. The point is, though, any result of this discussion is bound by WP:Advice pages: the conclusions of this discussion can be provided as advice in the case of individual articles, but if an editor reverts you on one of those articles, you still have to follow WP:BRD and start a local talk page consensus: that is what is meant by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Again, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, the results of WikiProject discussions do not create "consensus" in the formal sense: they provide what is called "advice" in the colloquial wording of the relevant policy. And this isn't a new principle: it's been around for at least twelve years, the community has enshrined it in policy, and ArbCom has codified and enforced the principle against groups of editors who violated it on behalf of the preferred approach of their WikiProject multiple times.
    And please let me be repetitious one more time before I leave this discussion: I'm not arguing the discussion should be shut down or that it can't arrive at a useful outcome. I'm just saying, don't attempt to enforce the preferred version of this WikiProject against the actual consensus of editors working on a particular article: it just will not end well. I promise you, the only reason I brought this up was to try to keep editors who were previously unfamiliar with the Advice pages standard from stumbling into trouble: I don't care about the outcome of this discussion, and I'm just trying to look out for my wiki colleagues--that's my only reason for pointing out this subtle policy point. SnowRise let's rap 11:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Credibility parameter of open government data

In many cases, numbers are excellent representations of reality, such as the mass of a proton or the Sun or the Earth in kilograms. In other cases, open data from governments can range from quite reliable to totally fictional, yet Wikipedia infoboxes and tables usually present these with the warnings about unreliability only present in prose form in the article lead, and completely absent from the infobox. This applies for (at least) elections and the COVID-19 pandemic, and quite likely for other open government data. Should we add a credibility parameter to open data infoboxes for key numerical data for elections? See the essay Wikipedia:Reliability of open government data for a more detailed description of the problem.

Feel free to either update/improve/extend the essay, or maybe even try an RfC here on a specific action on how to deal with dubious open government data (such as adding a credibility parameter to electoral result boxes) if there seems to be a good chance of consensus among Wikipedians. To me, it's not obvious to many people reading Wikipedia infobox data - directly on Wikipedia or elsewhere indirectly - that the data only represent the government's point of view with no peer review, and that in some cases the data are widely regarded as fictitious. Of course, the difficulty is the fuzzy area in the middle, where the data's validity is disputed and there's no clear consensus in the sources; but in this case intense editorial discussion among editors with varying biases should still be able to decide on an option - e.g. a 50% probability as a baseline.

Keep in mind the number of people who have very little understanding of how the Internet, let alone Wikipedia, function, and whatever appears after typing a few words into a graphical interface is "knowledge", since "I checked that on the Internet". Boud (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Are UK devolution referendums Category:Administrative division referendums?

"Administrative division referendums" as what I understand it, are creation, division or merger of local governments... so do UK devolution referendums fall in this definition? Howard the Duck (talk) 12:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I personally don't think so. As you say, that category seems to be about creating new administrative divisions by splitting/merging existing ones. Cheers, Number 57 12:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Merge: Political groups (Australia) and Electoral system of Australia

Hello editors. It has been proposed that the article Political groups (Australia) be merged into the article Electoral system of Australia. And one or both of those articles is within the scope of this WikiProject. If you would like express support for or object to the merge then you are strongly encouraged to do so at the talk page for Electoral system of Australia. Thank you!

– ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 03:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to create page

Hello, I was wondering if I could create an article relating to a recent election we had here in New York. We were asked about 5 ballot proposals. I have several references for the results including regional results and those who were passed or rejected. I wanted to ask first in-case someone was planning on making an article regarding 2021 elections in New York. I've started a sandbox here. I'll provide a few of my references here for now: [2][3][4][5]. Make sure you tag me if you're responding if you wouldn't mind. J-Man11 (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

As this is only about ballot proposals rather than elections, would the correct title not be 2021 New York ballot proposals? Cheers, Number 57 13:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, you're correct that's why I've called the sandbox "2021 New York ballot referendum". But "proposals" might be a better title, I agree with you there. I wasn't 100% certain on the title, but thank you. J-Man11 (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
The correct title would be 2021 New York elections, assuming each ballot measure doesn't get its own article. Making an article just for the ballot proposals and not including other elections is sub-optimal and not in line with how these tend to be grouped in RS. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Oops, would actually be 2021 New York state elections, because disambiguation. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
If we're expanding to 'State elections' I can include the NYC mayoral election in the bottom as a redirect? J-Man11 (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
@J-Man11: yes, all significant elections that happened in New York in 2021 should be included in such a page. You'd have one section for local elections, another for ballot measures, etc. 2018 New York state elections is decent though could use some cleanup. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
So any city mayoral elections (including The City), the ballot proposals, and empty seats for the state Congress would be fine? J-Man11 (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
@J-Man11: yep! Elli (talk | contribs) 03:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I've moved the page to a draft now: Draft:2021 New York state elections. J-Man11 (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

If anyone has the time to review the page, 2021 New York state elections is now complete. Please tag me if you have anything you need clarification for, adding, etc. J-Man11 (talk) 04:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@J-Man11: looks pretty good! Elli (talk | contribs) 04:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested map template for election articles

Can {{Map requested}} apply for election articles, you know, like someone can just put the template on an election article's talk page to request election maps, eg. indicating vote share by subdivisions? If so, why do election articles never make it into Category:Wikipedia requested maps; if not, why? Regardless, there should be a way or a page to request these kinds of maps, I think. —twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 11:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

2018 Italian general election Infobox

Hi everyone, further opinions on a possible modification of the infobox of the Italian elections of 2018 would be very welcome, according to the current electoral system. I invite you to participate in the following discussion and give your opinion: Talk:2018 Italian general election/Archives/2021/December#Request for comment on Infobox to be used with the current Italian electoral system: --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Shortname templates

As the result of a TfD earlier this year, all the /meta/shortname, color and abbrev templates were merged into a single module. However, in the process, the contents of much of the shortname templates has been moved into the abbrev field in the module. An RfC on this and its potential impact has been started on the module's talkpage. Input from WikiProject members is welcome. Cheers, Number 57 20:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 elections in India

This AfD has been dragging on for some time – input would be welcomed. Cheers, Number 57 11:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Percentage change calculation

In the template {{Election box candidate with party link}}, how should the |change= parameter be calculated? The documentation says "Number of percentage points more/less than the previous election" but this does not help at all. At 1990 Bootle by-elections#November by-election, Sean Brady, Lord David Sutch and Kevin White all show "N/A", and I want to replace these three with real figures, because all three had stood at the previous by-election. But in examining the other rows in order to try to work out how to calculate them, I cannot reconcile the figures shown for Joe Benton, James Clappison and John Cunningham with either those for the May by-election or the previous general election. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Redrose64, assuming I'm understanding your question correctly, it should just be |new election| (minus) |old election|. Thus, with the article you're asking about, Labour's change in the November election would be +2.8, while the Tory's is +0.1 and Lib Dems -1.0. Curbon7 (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I made this edit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy/archive1 Featured article review

User:Nutez has nominated Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums/Archive_20&oldid=1078593076"