Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Philippine elections and the templates

It has come to my attention that the different election templates may be incompatible with the current structure. I've tried doing this on Template talk:Election box but the discussion got cold. Here are some basic points:

Party colors: Politicians switch parties like hell, defect from a national party, create their own "local" party, then enter alliances to either the national party they defected with, or with another national party, and even become "guest" candidates (there are some instances that a candidate's party has no affiliate national party, but is a guest candidate of two contending local parties, which is/are affiliates of national party(ies)). The issue here is if there is one noticeable national party the local party is identified with, it can use the color of that national party. But if you'll the metashortname of the national party, it'll be wrong since it is not the party of that candidate. Now if you'll create a metashortname of the local party, you'll be obliged to add the name+link of the national party, but it won't work at the template. For an example of this crazy situation, see Manila local elections, 2010.
Running mates: Presidents and vice presidents, governors and vice governors, and mayors and vice mayors are elected separately. So the "running mate" parameter should have separate votes and percentages parameters.

–Howard the Duck 13:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The uniform election results template, when I get around to making it, will address these problems. You will be able to specify either a pre-defined party or make your own on the spot (surely if you can customize it down to the color and the text, complete with a pointer to a footnote, then precision is more possible). Running mates can be specifiable as an additional set of columns, and in general the template will be very extensible to accommodate different types of elections. @harej 21:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The main problems of the template is that you can't customize it if creating a meta/shortname isn't worth it, and on running mate(s) -- the template should be edited showing the running mate's party, votes, percentage, etc. –Howard the Duck 14:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I will keep running mates in mind with this template. @harej 15:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Since you are into changing the infobox templates, I have a suggestion: those 100px portraits take up too much page and are eyesores. I'd suggest reducing them to 40px like this:

Candidate			Party	Electoral votes	Popular vote
		Barack Obama	Democratic	365	69,456,897	52.9%
		John McCain	Republican	173	59,934,814	45.7%

But these are more radical changed I suggest you pursue other more important changes such as the ones I had earlier stated. Thanks and good luck. –Howard the Duck 06:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Which articles actually have election boxes with pictures in them? I have not seen any. @harej 12:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I was referring to the infobox templates. Those big portraits are eyesores, and reducing them to 30-40px may seem like a good idea. This is a big problem when there are three parties/candidates. –Howard the Duck 10:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

or ten candidates, most of whom we don't have photos for. Secretlondon (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Election

At long last: {{election}}. Please test this out (whether in sandboxes or in actual articles) and tell me what I need to fix or add. @harej 21:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, I preferred the syntax of {{Election box begin}} and the other related templates rather than one template. You can stack them endlessly especially when there are many candidates for a single position (although it will be rare for one position to have more than 20 candidates). However, this solves the party "problem" in which you won't have to create new meta templates. I'd like to see the flexibility of the old one and the accessibility of the new one.

I have a question though: Does having several "optional" fields in templates increases article size? I have always suspected this when articles that use templates with almost all fields are optional (infboxes and navboxes) take quite a longer amount of time to load. –Howard the Duck 05:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I can work in the same sort of stacking, especially since the candidate rows are transcluded into {{election}} by a subtemplate. Regardless, I consider the approach I used to be much more standard in terms of how Wikipedia generally does these kinds of templates. Consider the Wikipedia staple {{navbox}} and the inexcusable variety of candidate row templates used by the spinoff {{MMP election box}} template.

Also, unused parameters do not increase the size of an article, but more parserfunctions do lead to longer parsing times. Even then, that is a matter of a split second vs. a few seconds, and most of the time, Wikipedia serves up cached articles (which involves no parsing). Since supporting running mates adds to the bloat of the template, can you help me find an article that would make use of the running mate feature, since I have not been able to find one myself? (This is just to make sure the functionality would actually get used). @harej 06:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Check out the Philippine presidential election articles (upcoming: Philippine presidential election, 2010). Also, I think U.S. presidential elections used this format before. Check out the pre-Civil War presidential election articles. I'd be personally testing this at Philippine House of Representatives elections in Metro Manila, 2010#San Juan. It'll also help if both templates have the same sizes. –Howard the Duck 06:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed some US presidential election articles have the candidate and running mate side by side, but not for the reasons you bring up. In the elections I've seen since the current system was first used in 1804, the presidential and vice presidential candidates received the same number of electoral votes and were of the same party; exceptions being in cases where a typical template setup would work awkwardly (though there is something involve a customized rowspan that I could do). @harej 06:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The running mate parameter is useful for the infobox; if the table is included in the main body of the article, two separate tables may be used. –Howard the Duck 11:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I liked the aesthetics of the template. Maybe you should make the old templates look like the new one instead of the other way around. But making the new template look like the older one must be easier so you'll choose what is the best option. I still like the two templates look alike until one is ultimately adopted. –Howard the Duck 06:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you suggesting that {{election box}} should be made to look like {{election}}? @harej 06:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. 11:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't like this new template, it's quite ugly. I much prefer the current election box template, and I will continue using that template for French and Brazilian articles. I oppose any attempts to change {{election box}} to this new ugly style, people should be allowed to choose which they prefer instead of randomly imposing such stuff on others.--Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

What is ugly about it? I am open to changing its appearance (and you are welcome to, if you can navigate the large mess in the edit window). @harej 15:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I much prefer the look of {{election box}}. Optimally, it should be the same in look and style to {{election box}} with additional options added if needed.--Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I have now done this, largely to smoothen the transition and so we don't have competing visual standards. My wish to change the standard has more to do with the underbelly and not the actual look. @harej 21:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added hCalendar and hCard microformats (see our microformats project for background). The former means that a date should always be used. As I've noted on the template's talk page; it should also be possible to enter a full date, instead of just a year. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Well done! As for full dates vs. years, you have a point. And for it to really be effective, it should be full dates across the board. For instance, instead of the US presidential election having happened in 2008, record it as 2008-11-04. Thankfully not many articles use the template yet. Anyways, since you're the first person who is not me to really hack at the template, what do you think of it? harej 14:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It seems very complex; and took me some time to work out what the code was doing, but suspect that that's inevitable. Perhaps the documentation needs more work, and more examples (such as one with a running-mate entry)? How would it be best to handle date entry? Separate day, month and year fields, or a date field, taking {{Start date}}? Perhaps we should take this up on the template's talk page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

In the middle of the UK election campaign, what a time to spot this improvement to the election box! I have to say it does look an improvement, but I can't imagine changing over all the existing UK constituency articles to the new model...

I have produced below a faked UK election results box to give the impression of how this new box looks for us here. Why is the "Christian Party (UK)" not coming up as a coloured field ? doktorb _words^deeds 15:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election, 2010 Central Lancashire
Party		Candidate	Votes
	Liberal Democrats	Phillip Invented	23,010
	Labour	Robert States	19,010
	Conservative	Samir Mhajid	6,054
	Christian	Chris Fylde	132
	Independent	Vanessa Smith-Drood	23
Majority			55,753
	Liberal Democrats hold

You put "party4name", which only includes whatever you write down. In other words, you wanted "party4". harej 19:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I would envisage the change-over, if its agreed upon, being done by a bot. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be a pretty complicated bot task. We're not just talking about switching out template names and a couple of parameters; {{election}} and the {{election box}} suite operate so differently. Not to mention the {{MMP election box}} suite. harej 19:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't really work with local elections with multiple candidates, but we do need an improvement to the current box to identify incumbent parties. Look at Southwark_Council_election,_2010 to see what we currently use. Secretlondon (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont think we need the year/title as its already on the article about the page. mainly the winner and result and such extravaenous details as turnout, etc.(Lihaas (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)).

The year would be used on biographical pages. See, for instance, Daniel Akaka#Electoral history. harej 18:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Europe_election_year_templates and flags

Does the flags here serve any purpose other than decoration ? If not why do we use them Gnevin (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they serve the purpose of a "visual cue" - distinguishing the different countries/entities when more than one template is present on a single article (e.g. Cypriot Annan Plan referendum, 2004 or any European Parliament election article). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I just don't see how "visual cue" works.

It requires knowledge of 160+ flags (not including sub national flags if they are used)
It requires the ability to distinguish between similar flags at 25px
These templates are rarely if ever on pages not related to the country in question so you've already read the country name a number of times in the article body and in the title of the article.
MOSICON only makes an argument for "visual cue" in long lists which these aren't
The country name is a few pixels away from the flag and words are clearer Gnevin (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This is your opinion. My opinion is that flagicons make something easier to spot at first glance and serve as a useful visual cue in such circumstances. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes,this is why we are not discussing this on your talk page. Lets see what others think Gnevin (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am somewhat certain I have made this comment previously, but this is most definitely an example of where flagicons in navbox title bars are purely decorational and serve no navigation or identification purpose, and therefore ought to be removed. These navboxes appear at the bottom of each page, and the article title itself (almost?) always includes the name of the country/state/etc. Additionally, these pages tend to use {{Infobox election}}, which includes a larger flag image. Therefore, a reader will have both the name of the country (in the largest font size we have) plus a reasonably sized flag image at the top of the page, so what purpose is there for a tiny flagicon at the bottom of the page? Nothing useful. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree Knepflerle (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

NB I have the wrong category in the title it should be Category:Election and referendum year templates Gnevin (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of how flag icons can serve as visual cues, and I like when they serve as decent visual cues, but in this particular instance, I just don't get it. They don't really do more than a lousy job of decorating. You'd think for it to be a better cue, it would do more than just occupy a small corner of space. @harej 21:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

How much CON would we need to have a bot remove these flags?Gnevin (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's start an RFC somewhere to gauge interest in removing the icons. harej 01:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

What now? Gnevin (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No consensus for change means we keep the status quo. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I see a consensus for change Gnevin (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Obviously we are looking at different RFCs, because I only see two responses, one in support and one opposed. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I support, as does harej and Andrwsc. While you and Petrovic-Njegos who failed to give a reason why oppose Gnevin (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Posted at {{cent}} hope to get more input Gnevin (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Coming in from {{cent}}. I'm not sure that the flag icons are bad inherently, but as is they're very small and seem to be a departure from standard practice with navboxes... I'm a sucker for consistency of interface, so... – Luna Santin (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There a good enough visual clue to include, even though they're imperfect. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

In what way are they are visual clue? By the time you've gotten to this template you'll have read the country name in the probably the article title , the intro and every paragraph . Gnevin (talk) 09:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't hurt anyone. It might help some people. Where's the compelling reason to eliminate this from dozens of existing templates? Joshdboz (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding a English rose to every English related template doesn't hurt anyone ,where is the compelling reason for me not to do this? The compelling reasons is for the that we don't decorate, most readers don't know every possible flag, they are blurry and unclear at 25px, they aren't on long lists and rarely on pages where the country named isn't said dozens of times so there is no navigational or quick reference type argument to be made here and finally the country name is right beside the flag and the words are infinity clearer Gnevin (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, if the English rose helps you navigate, I'll have your back! In all seriousness, there are definitely those that find it useful (as in all EU parliament election articles) and those that definitely don't. I'll be honest, I find succession boxes pretty worthless, and thus for all intents and purposes no better than ugly decoration, but I accept that they might be useful to others. Joshdboz (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

And what if a Crown helps someone else navigate and a English lion someone else. Where do you draw the line? Are you one of these people who know every flag in the world including sub-national flags or are we still talking about this legendary group of readers which many claim exist but no one ever claims to be? Succession boxes while over used are useful. How do these help you navigate? I've seen so far 2 election templates one after the other, no navigation required Gnevin (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Removing flag icons from templates in Category:Election and referendum year templates

Are the flag icons as used in the templates in Category:Election and referendum year templates useful visual cues or are they decoration? If they are judged to be decoration and therefore removable, should we implement a bot to remove the flag icons? harej 01:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep them.--Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Any particular reason? Gnevin (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

As I stated above, this is most definitely an example of where flagicons in navbox title bars are purely decorational and serve no navigation or identification purpose, and therefore ought to be removed. These navboxes appear at the bottom of each page, and the article title itself (almost?) always includes the name of the country/state/etc. Additionally, these pages tend to use {{Infobox election}}, which includes a larger flag image. Therefore, a reader will have both the name of the country (in the largest font size we have) plus a reasonably sized flag image at the top of the page, so what purpose is there for a tiny flagicon at the bottom of the page? Nothing useful. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Outside opinion here. I'm not familiar with the content under discussion. In the discussion, I only find the one example use case to go by, the bottom of Cypriot Annan Plan referendum, 2004. In the case of that example, I would say the icons serve a useful purpose, by helping distinguish two items. For some people, comprehension is higher with text, but for others, comprehension is higher with images; for the later group, the icons would be helpful. From reading discussion, I gather that in many cases, there will only be one of these templates used, which makes the icon redundant. However, I don't see it harming anything in those cases. It's a template, so the redundancy isn't costing anybody anything when it is used. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

In the Category:Election and referendum year templates Cyprus is probably the only example of a multinational election where a distinguishing between 2 items argument can be made. Who are this latter group of people who know what every flag in the world represents and can distinguish between extremely similar flags at 25px? MOSICON is clear why don't decorate Gnevin (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so they don't see much use. What harm are they causing? What cost are they imparting? If they rarely benefit but never harm, even occasional use is still a win. Are they a maintenance headache somehow? • Again, some people find it far easier to distinguish graphical elements vs text, even at low resolutions. This is why, for example, most road signs have both text and color/shape cues. Please don't assume that everyone rears or processes vision information the same way you do. • I read through WP:MOSICON before commenting, and did not find anything particularly applicable to this situation. To what are you referring? The key point seems to be that icons should "have a useful purpose in providing visual cues", and it seems to me they can serve that purpose here. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:ICONDECORATION is clear, we don't add stuff to wiki because it causes no harm, we add stuff that will improve the project. Should I add a English Rose to the English template ,sure it will cause no harm?

Awe the legendary some people these great people know every national flag in the world even the ones that are the same and call tell the difference between New Zealand and Australian flags at 25px. I've heard a lot of about these people but I've never met one ,strange that Gnevin (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:ICONDECORATION redirects to the the same section I was quoting from. Icons are explicitly allowed if they provide a useful visual cue. You don't think the flag is a useful visual clue, okay, fine. You can argue that, and have, and it's obvious we disagree. But that doesn't mean that part of the guideline disappears. • As for the rest, doggedly repeating the same line WRT "25px" isn't convincing me of anything. If that's all you have to say, I think we've both said enough and should wait for others to comment. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok lets wait for others, some of them might be the legendary some people Gnevin (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This "some person" agrees with Andrwsc. Knepflerle (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say remove, because honestly I had to search for a second to find the flags you all were talking about on the templates. I would not support removing flags from all templates of this kind, but in this particular case, I don't think it's adding much. Gigs (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Part of what makes this debate so difficult is that there is no compelling reason to take action of any kind. I mean, there is a debate over whether they serve as visual cues or decoration/clutter, and there's nothing wrong with that, but when you compare it to other things we've debated on Wikipedia, it ranks pretty low in importance. We might as well vote on it. harej 03:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The idea that the readers need a visual clue at the bottom of the article to understand what country the article is about is ridiculous. These tiny flags is purely decorative, and adds nothing. Wikipedia is not the place for flag waving. Rettetast (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well a head count shows 6 -4 in favour but we can vote if you like Gnevin (talk) 13:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Newly identified source for Canada

Hill, Tony L. Canadian Politics, Riding by Riding: An in-Depth Analysis of Canada's 301 Federal Electoral Districts. Minneapolis: Prospect Park Press, 2002. ISBN 9780972343602 [1]. This will provide at least one reliable source to supplement newspaper results for all federal level candidates, those who lose as well as those who win. It gives discussions, not mere listings. It's searchable on google books,e.g. [2]. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. harej 03:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Help Needed

Hi. I need everyone to help me improve another article about Egyptian Shura Council election that are being held today. thank you -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Stub article?

There appears to be a problem with United States presidential election in Vermont, 2008. I thought, perhaps wrongly, that this was the bottom of a long list of forked articles, from one of the smallest states. Several editors have taken this over and are "supplementing" the article with riveting material, perhaps with an FA, or at least a Pulitzer in mind! IMO it is well off WP:TOPIC. Because it is well off the beaten track, it is fairly easy to "take it over!" But it should still maintain Wikipedia standards IMO. Student7 (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Compact election box

As a followup to the discussion above on {{election}}, I just thought I'd drop a note here about a new template I have created for election results: {{Compact election box}}.

It arises out of discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies, where there has been a desire for some alternative to the huge vertical bulk of {{election box}} when displaying multiple election results in the same constituency.

I have deployed this template for a full series of historical results in two articles in UK Parliament constituencies: Leith Burghs and Bradford West. For a comparison of the visual bulk when using {{election box}}, see Southport.

{{Compact election box}} is unlikely to be useful for articles on single elections (such as by-elections); it's intended for a historical series of first-past-the-post elections. Comments welcome! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

On one hand I am disappointed that it continues on the template sandwiching trend from {{election box}}, however I understand that it's a variant of {{election box}} so it's natural that the derivative template would be like the original template. And it is far superior to having a whole bunch of election boxes stacked on top of each other. harej 13:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean by template-sandwiching. Is it the fact that it a series of elections needs a stack like this?

{{compact election box begin}}
{{compact election box}}
{{compact election box}}
{{compact election box}} ...
{{compact election box end}}

The same thing done using {{election box}} would require:

{{election box begin}}
    {{election box candidate with party link}}
    {{election box candidate with party link}}
    {{election box candidate with party link}}
    {{election box candidate with party link}}
    {{election box majority}}
    {{election box turnout}}
    {{election box hold}}
{{election box end}}
{{election box begin}}
    {{election box candidate with party link}}
    {{election box candidate with party link}}
    {{election box candidate with party link}}
    {{election box candidate with party link}}
    {{election box majority}}
    {{election box turnout}}
    {{election box hold}}
{{election box end}}
{{election box begin}}
    {{election box candidate with party link}}
    {{election box candidate with party link}}
    {{election box candidate with party link}}
    {{election box candidate with party link}}
    {{election box majority}}
    {{election box turnout}}
    {{election box hold}}
{{election box end}}
...

If I understand your use of sandwiching correctly, then I can't really see any reasonable way of entirely avoiding that for listing multiple elections, but as above {{compact election box}} does significantly reduce the degree of sandwiching.

To entirely eliminate the sandwiching we'd need a template with a truly horrendous parameter list, where all the existing parameters such as candidate2 = , candidate2_votes = are replicated by the maximum number of elections we want to have in a series, producing something like

election1_candidate2 = , election1_candidate2_votes = , election2_candidate2 = , election2_candidate2_votes = , election3_candidate2 = , election3_candidate2_votes =

Hope that makes sense! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That is what I meant by sandwiching. And {{election}} avoids sandwiching with numbered parameters as seen in {{infobox}}, but you're right: such an approach would be truly horrifying for this particular concept. harej 16:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox election

I have proposed adding an extra field to Template:Infobox election: elected_mps, to allow for an explicit link to the list of members elected in an election.

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox election#List of MPs elected in the election, where your comments will be welcome.

I will also notify Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, because the example I have used is of United Kingdom general election, 2010. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This has now been implemented (see diff). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Polling

Initial discussion

I suggest we make several changes to polling tables. I've [made these changes myself (applying WP:BB, for example: here and here), but been reverted because "Most election articles arent like that".

Sort vertically by chronological order from earliest to latest. This is a historical encyclopedia not a countdown, and five years after the election it will look odd to have polls listed from latest to earliest.
Sort horizontally by candidates' last names, from A (left) to Z (right). Incumbents should not be given preference, nor should sorting be done by party.
Combine tables of the same poll. When one candidate is tested against multiple candidates in the same poll, put them all in the same table on different rows.

Here's an example, from United States Senate special election in West Virginia, 2010:

Poll Source	Date(s) administered	Sample size	Margin of Error	Shelley Moore Capito (R)	Betty Ireland (R)	Joe Manchin (D)	Other	Undecided
Rasmussen Reports (report)	July 8, 2010	500	± 4.5%	39%	--	53%	3%	5%
Rasmussen Reports (report)	July 8, 2010	500	± 4.5%	--	26%	65%	3%	6%

Another example, from United States Senate special election in Delaware, 2010:

Poll Source	Date(s) administered	Sample size	Margin of Error	Michael Castle (R)	Chris Coons (D)	Christine O’Donnell (R)	Other	Undecided
Research 2000	October 12-14, 2009	600	± 4.0%	51%	39%	——	——	10%
Rasmussen Reports	January 25, 2010	500	± 4.5%	56%	27%	——	5%	13%
Rasmussen Reports	February 22, 2010	500	± 4.5%	53%	32%	——	8%	8%
Research 2000	February 22–24, 2010	600	± 4.0%	53%	35%	——	——	——
Rasmussen Reports	April 29, 2010	500	± 4.5%	55%	32%	——	7%	7%
Rasmussen Reports	July 14, 2010	500	± 4.5%	47%	36%	——	6%	11%
Rasmussen Reports	July 14, 2010	500	± 4.5%	——	39%	41%	7%	12%

A third example, from United States Senate special election in New York, 2010:

Poll source	Dates administered	Bruce Blakeman (R)	Joe DioGuardi (R)	Kirsten Gillibrand (D)	Harold Ford Jr. (I)	David Malpass (R)	"Generic Republican" (R)
Rasmussen Reports	January 18, 2010	——	——	39%	10%	——	34%
Marist Poll	January 25–27, 2010	30%	——	52%	——	——	——
Marist Poll	March 2, 2010	28%	——	58%	——	——	——
Marist Poll	March 29, 2010	25%	——	54%	——	——	——
Marist Poll		——	27%	54%	——	——	——
Marist Poll		——	——	54%	——	25%	——
Rasmussen Reports	April 8, 2010	——	——	40%	——	——	39%
Rasmussen Reports	May 12, 2010	31%	——	51%	——	——	——
		——	38%	51%	——	——	——
		——	——	46%	——	27%	——
Marist Poll	June 9, 2010	——	29%	47%	——	——	——
Marist Poll	June 9, 2010	——	——	49%	——	24%	——
Rasmussen Reports	June 16, 2010	38%	——	50%	——	——	——
		——	38%	49%	——	——	——
		——	——	49%	——	34%	——
Marist Poll	July 12, 2010	——	29%	51%	——	——	——
Marist Poll	July 12, 2010	——	——	50%	——	27%	——

I welcome public discussion and wish to develop a consensus. —Markles 10:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree with sorting oldest to most recent. There's a WP guideline somewhere that says to do this for date lists, and the same should apply here. Your West Virginia and New York examples are okay, but the Delaware one makes no sense, because Castle, Coons, and O'Donnell are not in a joint three-way race. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! I made a mistake in the Delaware poll, leaving out O'Donnell. Sorry. I've just now corrected it.—Markles 17:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with sorting the candidates by first letter of there last name. I also agree with combining polls until we are set on two candidates(after the primary). My concern is that going back to the 2006 election, new polls have always been "stacked on top of the older polls". Also, when looking at the polling for a said race, the newest polling should be first. I thank you for this oppertunity to build a consensus!America69 (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with points one and two, but I'm not entirely certain about your third point. Wouldn't it lead to unwieldy side-scrolling tables in a number of articles? (On a more minor note, WP:MOSDASH doesn't seem to have anything relevant to say, but I find single en dashes by far the most aesthetically pleasing.) – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 18:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

A single en dash is fine, but a double em dash indicates that the space was purposefully left blank.—Markles 18:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want the polling to be in chronological order, I have no problem with that, as long as every U.S. Senate election is like that, which includes this year and previous years. I have edited and created many U.S. Senate articles and I have put a lot of time and effort in them. I strongly support consistency. Before 2006, there aren't many senate election pages with polling, so pretty much it's those two election cycles...As far as the other two points you made, I strongly support them. In fact, I think election articles would look a lot better if we had only one general election polling table, instead of having several of them.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My only real issue is with the older polls going ahead of newer polls. The article goes from up to down, and putting older polls(which a poll from say March 2010 for example) isn't really worth anything say today, July 2010. My other question I would like feed back on is when a candidate declines to run(as in the West Virgina poll above with Mrs. Capito) should that section be removed, so only the actual, legitimate candidate be included? Thanks, America69 (talk) 03:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

WP articles about elections aren't about "what's worth anything today" but rather about the entire history of an election. Polls at the beginning of an election cycle can be important because they help determine who decides to run and who doesn't, and how those who do run frame themselves. For example, Capito's decision not to run may have been influenced by polls showing that she was likely to lose. And the history of who decides not to run is often just as important as who does; United States Senate special election in New York, 2010 is a great example of that, as is United States Senate special election in Delaware, 2010. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I see your point of there importance, but polling that is current gives a much better insight into the state of the race, United States Senate election in Missouri, 2010 the Democrat, Carnahan was ahead for most of last year, and the beginning of 2010. Now, the Republican Blunt is leading, and there is always that confusion that since the format for polling has always been the most-recent on top, it could be mis-read. America69 (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

WastedtimeR: You are completely correct that hypothetical polling can determine whether or not a candidate will run, which is significant. But keep in mind that when it comes down to it, the only polling that matters is between the main two candidates. The best thing to do is to put seperate it between hypthotical and main polling. In the New York Senate special election, Rudy Guiliani's polling were interesting. But the problem was that the election article had too much information. What we should do is cram it all into two tables, between the candidates who are definetly running, and the potential/declined/not running/withdrew/etc. candidates.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 04:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A response on separate points:

I disagree with making any distinction between "real" and "hypthetical" candidates. Just put them all in, because, as well stated above, this article is about the historical fact of the election; it's not about "who's winning today." Five years down the road, it's useful to know that Bob Vilsack, for example, never had a chance to win the 2008 Presidential election.—Markles 10:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
If there are too many candidates to make a single table, then (and only then) maybe (and only maybe) we should consider splitting the chart just for the sake of visual clarity. Still, I think even then it would be better to have one chart so we can compare all candidates, and then merely scroll horizontally.—Markles 10:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Newest polls should go at the end because articles typically read otherwise from top to bottom.—Markles 10:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand some editors may find this method of combined polls (and multiple rowspans) harder to edit. One way to may it less confusing would be to put a space between rows for separate polls but not a space between rows separating multiple races in the same poll. That is, in the editor, add a blank line before the "|-".—Markles 10:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

@Jerzeykydd, when you come right down to it, no polling matters; the only thing that matters is the actual ballots cast on primary and general election days. Polls are only useful because they tell the story of who was 'up' and who was 'down' during the campaign, and this applies just as much to those who quit or never run as to those who make it to November. Take a look at Nationwide opinion polling for the Republican Party 2008 presidential candidates, for example, which is a very valuable article (even if I disagree with the date order). Would you remove all the entries for Pataki or Hagel or Gingrich, because they never entered the race? Or the entries for Gilmore or Thompson, because they quit before the primaries season started? Wasted Time R (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see what I did with Massachusetts gubernatorial election, 2010#General election, in which two candidates were voted out at their parties conventions. I put a large block that ran vertically through the remainder of the chart to indicate that they would not be part of the process. Also, I used double-en dashes ("––") that now seem to me much nicer-looking than double-em ("——"). 14:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone be willing to consider what Jerzeykydd stated, "What we should do is cram it all into two tables, between the candidates who are definetly running, and the potential/declined/not running/withdrew/etc. candidates". Keep all the polling, and when we have the confirmed candidates that will be on the November ballot, start a second table and continue adding polling. Is that an issue that could be worked out? America69 (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have considered it, but I think it's better to have one poll which also allows us to avoid having to decide who's in and who's out. A poll is just about opinion, not reality.—Markles 15:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I see the historical aspect, but here is the question: Coming voting time, does anyone really care who could have run... All that matters is the current choice(s), because you can't vote for someone who isn't running. America69 (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"Matters" to whom? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a political website. The purpose is to give a complete historical perspective, not to advise politics. —Markles 22:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

We are not talking about a war here. The only historical thing about an election is the final result. Is there anyway that we can all agree on a final proposal, and continue making this encylopedia better. And i'm fairly sure that some people have used Wikipedia to research a race in there state.America69 (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If you really believe that "The only historical thing about an election is the final result", America69, I strongly suggest you go to your local library and get a copy of The Making of the President, 1960 and read it. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
In the same vein as Wasted Time R, the purpose of these articles is to tell the entire story of the election, not just who won.—Markles 00:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will look for the book, it actually from the Wikipedia article sounds intersting. I have said I get the historical aspect, I'm saying that in the end, whoever wins a U.S Senate election becomes a Senator, whoever wins a Governor election will become or stay Governor, and so on.. Polls of non-candidates have always been removed, going back to 2006. If you would like some examples I will go back and research. It should be about consistency. Isn't that the point of an encylopedia, consistency?America69 (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Markles and Wasted time R: How in the world can you put the same weight on declined candidates and general election candidates? You can't. Look, I understand wikipedia isn't a political website and so forth, but even an enyclopedia wouldn't treat McCain and Romney in the 2008 election equal, because quite frankley Romney wasn't on the general election ballot. Come on guys, let's compromise. What all I'm saying is let's split between the candidates who are gonna be on the general election ballot and ones that aren't.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

[← outdent] I understand your concern, Jerzeykydd, but I would put Romney and McCain as equals if the polling agency polled them that way. It's not up to us to decide otherwise.—Markles 14:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Here are some examples for my point about consistency(if nesscary I have more):(2006) - [3], [4], (2008) - [5], (2010) - [6]. America69 (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are inconsistent. The editor should NOT have removed other polls. That's my point.—Markles 14:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

And my point is, that's how it's been done in the past. Is anyone willing to go back, and change it, for consistency? America69 (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure. But we can't be a slave to how it used to be done for the sake of consistency. We develop a consensus on how it ought to be done in the future, and then, over time, we make changes to present, future, and past elections.—Markles 14:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's be honest here. Does anyone see a consensus here? America69 (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, yes. But not enough voices have contributed. The two dissents have been addressed, but not satisfactorily to the dissenters, so perhaps that needs to be worked out still. Other wise, we have consensus to use chron & alph order, to keep all candidates, and to combine single polls with multiple results.—Markles 14:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite see it the way you do. I do see no objection to alph order, in fact, I think that is a great way to make things look less partisan. I also see general consensus that a single table isn't bad. But why can't there be a second table for the actual candidate(s)? And on another note, why change anything othen than on WP:BB? It was working out relativly well, and it was easy to edit the polls, of which a vast majority of my edits since I came here in 2007 have been too. America69 (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

On a lightier note, in between several of my comments in the past several mins, I have actually been updating some new polls out today. America69 (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't separate "actual" candidates from the others because we're just reporting what the poll states. It's not up to Wikipedia to pick and choose. If someone ends up losing, then that's historically relevant.—Markles 13:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What do "polls" have to do with elections in an encyclopedia? Great for the media to call attention to itself and to "tune in" while they decide the election for us. And they desperately need to sell time for commercials at a high price. If they don't, they are out of a job. But they have nothing to do, officially with elections. You are linking the two together merely because the media does. That is not good logic IMO. Where are "polls" mentioned in any Constitution or statute? They are off WP:TOPIC. Student7 (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Polls are facts and are on topic, whether you like it or not. You can't simply disclude them from an encylopedia.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I do not agree that "polls are facts." I do agree that "elections are facts." They are certified. Anyone can take a poll. So what? People with an axe to grind take "polls" all the time. If your candidate is about to clobber the opposition, a poll can show that the "race is close" to frighten people into contributing and (of course) going to the polls. But factual? I don't think so.

The articles may be misnamed. Editors seem to be confusing "Campaigns" with "Elections." Campaigns are not Elections. Elections are not Campaigns. Elections take place officially at a certain time. Parties have decided to precede these elections with Campaigns of an indeterminate length.

Even Campaigns are not a "History of Polls" though, IMO. Student7 (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

With the discussion still on-going, I really think it's terrible that these changes are still being made. I know I don't own Wikipedia, but what other editor's may think I don't know. If these changes continue, which I think they look terrible, I would agree with User:Student 7, that the polling section should go. America69 (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not begin this discussion to debate the existence of the polling sections. I think that may be a legitimate issue to discuss, but this discussion here is just about how such information should be formatted. —Markles 14:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Building on my comments in the section below (on whether to include polls). We need consistency, something I feel is lacking across multiple election articles. As far as I know, we have two kinds of articles - election articles and candidate articles. I've never seen a campaign article on Wikipedia. The election articles by their very nature should provide a timeline of the entire election. Even though an election takes place on a date certain, election cycles do matter and the ebb and flow of candidates performace should be included to provide context. With respect to Markles' origional proposal on formating, I generally agree with his suggestions.

Order of polls. I think it should be oldest polls listed first with newer ones at the bottom. Historical lists on wikipedia generally are oldest to newest (committee chairmen, party balance of power in Congress, etc.) That's just a stylistic preference, and I'm open to newest to oldest if consensus is otherwise.
Who to include. I think all candidates included in a poll should be included, regardless of whether they are ultimately in the general election. What is notable about the poll is how everyone stacks up against each other at a particular point in time. To delete or exclude failed candidates at a later time skews the data and doesn't show a complete picture. For example, the Nevada Senate race shows a history of Reid's performace against all of the GOP candidates. I would argue you need to know the pre- and post-primary polling to get a historical view of how that election evolved over time.
Sorting. Alphabetically, identify who the incumbent is. To address the issue of failed candidates, I think the general election opponents should also be identified in some fashion.
Combining polls with multiple multiple 2-person matchups is just good formating.
What polls will we include? Are we talking major polls by news organizations and independent polling firms, or will we include polls conducted by the candidates or parties as well? I would say everything should be included to avoid bias from creeping in.

Just a few of my thoughts.DCmacnut <> 15:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Use 'wikitable sortable'. Problem sorted. ;-) The problem is that I want to see the most recent polls directly under the headings - too much scrolling and I forget who's where. I'm fine with oldest-to-newest as the default in that case. The editor should NOT have removed other polls. Absolutely. We are supposed to be showing the history, not just the end result. If we someday have a race with ten or so candidates all being polled, we can make an exception. btw - New York gubernatorial election, 2010 displays 'misc. candidates' who only appear in a single poll (which I like, as I wouldn't want to see separate columns for each of them taking up real estate). Flatterworld (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

New compromise

I agree with what the editors did with the article of United States Senate special election in Delaware, 2010. This is what they did with hypothetical polling:

Poll Source	Date(s) administered	Sample size	Margin of Error	Christopher Coons (D)	Christine O’Donnell (R)	Other	Undecided
Research 2000	February 22–24, 2010	600	± 4.0%	47%	31%	––	22%
Rasmussen Reports	July 14, 2010	500	± 4.5%	39%	41%	7%	12%
Rasmussen Reports	August 5, 2010	500	± 4.5%	46%	36%	10%	8%
Public Policy Polling	August 7-8, 2010	600	± 4.0%	44%	37%	––	19%
Rasmussen Reports	September 2, 2010	500	± 4.5%	47%	36%	8%	9%
Public Policy Polling	September 11–12, 2010	958	± 3.2%	50%	34%	––	16%

I endorse this idea.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Is polling part of a Campaign article or a mandatory part of an Election article?

It is not uncommon among the young to feel that "history started with them." Everything before was "ancient history." Polling was not seriously attempted until 1936 and probably not "scientifically" (whatever that means to WP:CRYSTAL) until the 40s or 50s. This seems to imply that there was no Election prior to that time, since polls are being used by some as the bulk of "Elections." No poll, no Election article right? Student7 (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It pains me to agree, but the polling section needs to go, per WP:CRYSTAL. Polling isn't always right, and has no basis in an encyclopedia. America69 (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You both have gone absolutely insane. Polling will always be a mandatory part of an election article. Period. Student7 doesn't know what he is talking about, he rarely edits election articles and simply believes that an election article shouldn't have anything more than the results and the candidates.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I've held off weighing in on this discussion. Wanted to put my thoughts together first. I will put my comments about the formatting question above, but wanted to weigh in on the "should polls be included" question. I believe polls are relevant and should be included, but should be watched carefully to ensure they aren't abused for WP:POV. Polls provide a snapshot of "today" and therefore I think they don't violate WP:CRYSTAL. But, I think polls should be reserved for election articles, not candidate or campaign articles. I've seen too many candidate articles where almost the instant an new poll is released, the information is added to an article in an attempt to paint the leader in a positive light or paint the person who is behind negatively. That should be avoided. When talking polls, context means everything, particularly if there are multiple polls that contradict each other. Polls can be mentioned in candidate articles as sources, I think it should be reserved for times when the polls says something particularly notable. See above for more comments on formating and what to include or excluce.DCmacnut <> 15:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jerzeykydd and Dcmacnut that polls should be allowed. They should not be crafted as POV, but they are helpful part of the election story.—Markles 15:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

What about including "approval rating" polling data in an article about an incumbent who is term-limited? For example: Bob McDonnell, is it relevant biographical information from a secondary source, or is it OR synthesis? Racepacket (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously it shouldn't be included. So what the hell is your point?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Please. Be WP:CIVIL.

The question about elections prior to 1940 has gone unanswered. With polling a "mandatory" part of elections, were elections prior to 1940 then not really elections, since there wasn't any polling?

The Cook Partisan Voting Index appears to be a much more reliable predictor of outcomes for a two-candidate scenario. Should that therefore be included? Replacing two-party "polls" on a national level?

I would imagine that a similar state index, for larger states, is underway, with articles on them in the works. Shouldn't they then replace polls for two candidates in their states?

And why or why not? The point being, that polls are about more about trying to influence an election than anything else. In other words, WP:SPAM for the candidate so intending. After that, they are pretty much non-news.

And what happens when better predictors are found? Do they get substituted? Since you are hung up on "polls" as being "historic", you may answer "no." But why shouldn't some better WP:CRYSTAL predictor be used? Student7 (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Student7 you make the most outragous arguments. Polls ar a mandaen'ttory part of an election wikipedia article if there aren't any pre-election opinion polls conducted. As far as the PVI, we don't need to replace it with polls, but rather add it. As far as WP:CRYSTAL goes, we editors aren't making predictions. The polls are just facts from other resources.

Sir, what you don't seem to understand is that wikipedia election articles aren't just about putting down the candidates and the results. It's about adding useful and relevent information that's in conjunction to the election. For example, in the 2008 presidential election, the Jeremiah Wright controversy was relevent, whether you agree or not. Having polls as a part of the election article doesn't mean that the pre-election polls effected the eventual outcome of the election. It's there because it is a relevent part of campaign that lead up to the election. You can't just not include any of the controversies, campaign events, pre-election polls, predictions, etc.

I know you have this conspiracy theory that the media trys to use predictions, polls, etc. to influence the election. And maybe I believe myself that the media does that a lot of the time. But you can't simply not include controversies, predictions, polls, etc. in the wikipedia article simply because of your personal opinions and theories.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps "xxx Campaign of 2008" but just not "xxx Election of 2008". Titles should reflect the article's content - what the reader would be led to expect when linking to it. Student7 (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

A campaign should be part of an election article.—Markles 01:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is an example of an article that mentions polls, but has not been hijacked by them, United States presidential election, 2008. Here is the (separate article) containing polls: Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008. A separate article containing apparently duplicate material from some states is: Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008. This suggests that it is not a requirement for polls to shanghai an article to receive acknowledgment. It is possible to include them in a properly named, stand-alone article. Student7 (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion in Infobox

Several issues have come up of late regarding the inclusion of third party candidates for office. Since there are no official guidelines, I think perhaps now is the time to set them up. Do we wish to include all candidates? What is the cut-off?--TM 22:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the candidate would have to be viable as either a potential winner or spoiler. There should be a high threshold for third candidates making the infobox. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

There have been numerous discussions about this in the past, including several that I have participated in. The agreement has always been that a third party candidate must obtain at least 5% in any independent poll. This can be seen in articles like United States Senate election in North Carolina, 2010, in which the Libertarian candidate has consistently polled higher than that threshold. In another instance, Joseph Kennedy, a candidate in the special election in Massachusetts had polled in several independent polls at at least 5%, and was allowed to be included in the infobox. After election day, however, Kennedy received less than 1% of the vote, and was therefore removed from the infobox, with consensus. I would continue to support this threshold, as the easiest way to prevent any future quarrels about this subject. Gage (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Most recent discussions have set the bar at 5%. Polling is a difficult measure because of so much of the polling is down with a partisan, established party bias. Personally, if the candidate is a recognized independent or the candidate of an established, ballot qualified third party, then the candidate should be included in the infobox, with a burden to remove the candidate rather than to include.--TM 23:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

That is totally impractical. What you are saying would mean that candidates like Bob Barr or Cynthia McKinney would be required to be included in the infobox at United States presidential election, 2008, despite the fact that they each received less than half of 1 percent of the vote. Gage (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think 5% is too liberal. Third party candidates often poll better than they perform. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

While I wouldn't oppose a higher threshold, I think 5% would be the most satisfactory compromise for people on both sides of the issue. Gage (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Presidential election is a different story since the Green and Libertarian parties are not national ballot-qualified. States decide ballot access, not the federal government. For state elections, there are generally very few ballot qualified parties. I should also clarify that am speaking specifically before an election, as I argued regarding the special election in Hawai'i. I think that after an election, it is fine to remove candidates who did not influence the election. However, it is important to note that if an election is say 50-49, a minor party can obtain 2% and have drastically affected the balance of power.--TM 00:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

But if the results for the top three candidates are 55/35/5, that third party candidates role in the election is likely meaningless. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all the above. ;-) 5% is a good guideline, but the idea should be to only include those who could actually affect the results in some way, which might mean exceptions to that guideline (as opposed to a hard and fast rule). Perot yes, Cynthia McKinney no. I also agree that after the election the infobox might need to be changed. Flatterworld (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I generally like the 5% rule, as it prevents cluttering up an infobox with a whole list of non-hopers. However, it would seem to me to make sense to make an exception when "other" is only one person - by using the person's name in such a case, we wouldn't be adding extra clutter (as it's only one entry either way), and we'd be adding more information (which is what Wikipedia is about). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If there's only one other candidate, and 'Other' is given as a choice, I wouldn't assume there was a direct connection. 'Other' often means 'None of the above' including third party, independent, write-in and/or wannabe candidates. Flatterworld (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems that most of the objections caused by "crowding" could be resolved by simply stacking the candidates, as in other infoboxes. It should not be harder to get into a Wikipedia info box than it is to get on the ballot as a qualified candidate. This is currently being debated on the Talk:United States Senate election in South Carolina, 2010. Green Party nominee Tom Clements is getting a lot of attention in the race (partly as a result of the Alvin Greene debacle) but editors remove his picture from the infobox on the grounds that he hasn't polled 5%. Only Rasmussen is doing polling, and they never include Clements' name. Catch-22. DJ Silverfish (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If Tom Clements is getting so much attention, how come three of the four citations on his page are from his campaign site? If it can't be expanded with better sourcing, his article might be a candidate for AfD. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's not make this about Clements, but there has been a lot of local coverage, especially recently. The Tom Clements campaign site could be updated with the following references, all from the last week: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Also this recent interview on SCETV Radio's The Big Picture: [12]. There are more, some of which are referenced on the Talk:United States Senate election in South Carolina, 2010 page. DJ Silverfish (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You presented the example, and based on what I saw at first glance I thought an AfD was possible, but only if expansion wasn't. He still might fail WP:POLITICIAN anyway, which would make his inclusion in the Infobox pointless (see, I'm not that off-topic). My point is that I don't know if he'd belong in the infobox; my inclination is to wait until someone else polls the race and includes Clements to see if he really is getting traction or if most Democrats just stay home. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Most minor party nominees are not professional politicians, but can be regarded as politicians if they are running a campaign. I raised the example of Clements because he's really campaigning and the unexpected result of the Democratic Party primary has resulted in greater interest and support. You don't address the catch-22: a candidate is not notable unless he or she is equated with the other candidates and until he or she is equated with the other candidates he or she is not notable. This is the contradiction that creates the absence from most polling. There is a logical trap in the presumption that even ballot-qualified candidates are not notable or even running in good faith unless they are from one of the two major parties. In this case, given that there are only two months left before election day, and Rasmussen has conducted at least 3 polls without mentioning Clements so far, we should rather assume good faith on part of the Clements campaign and let him in the box. More generally, if you're on the ballot, you should be in the box, since the state is setting the standard for inclusion in the race. DJ Silverfish (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me make something VERY CLEAR: any candidate on the ballot is included in the election article, just not in the infobox. The infobox was made to have only the major candidates. Many polling organizations don't include every candidate on the ballot in the poll. So is that illegal? No. They chose only to include major candidates. Honestly, it really isn't a big deal. I mean so what if they aren't in the infobox? They probably won't win the election anyway (or even get 1% of the vote). Because they are on the ballot, they are mentioned in the article. But they aren't major candidates, which means they aren't in the infobox.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's another way to look at it: the state has already set barriers to participation which restrict the number of candidates appearing on the ballot; why should an encyclopedia like Wikipedia give more or less prominence to certain candidates? The appearance of impartiality in presentation of candidates for political office is the principle behind inclusion of all ballot-qualified candidates. The creation of 5% polling barriers determined by the whims of polling firms on top of the requirements of the states is arbitrary and discriminatory to non-major party candidates. The principle of inclusiveness is important to the encyclopedia project. If we're going to go one way or the other, then we should go in the direction of inclusion, particularly when exclusion creates distinctions in Wikipedia that do not exist in the subject of the article, in this case a ballot. DJ Silverfish (talk) 05:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In an allied issue, another SC candidate for US congress, major party, has an article despite never having won office. I'm addressing "notability" in another venue. The issue here is that candidates (and parties) appear to be using Wikipedia for publicity. Kind of like having a Facebook entry. This is bothersome. I cannot get traction for my Afd because of an "equal space" assumption! This is not good for our encyclopedia IMO. I would welcome a way to address this issue. Student7 (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the candidate above is "viable." But why should we have an article dependent on editors' determination on "viability?" Student7 (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That's silly; one just as well might state that the candidate is using the election itself for publicity (and in some cases that statement might be true!). The state has determined that the person is a "qualified" candidate -- the individual meets any age and residency requirements and either submitted a sufficient number of signatures to appear as an independent candidate or won the nomination of a political party to which the state has granted ballot access based on past electoral performance -- and we are merely noting the fact of the person's participation. cmadler (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as "discriminatory" goes for not polling the candidates of tiny parties with little support, it is not up to this encyclopedia to right the perceived wrongs of society. We just publish them! Warts and all. This is not "investigative journalism"; none of us will get a Pulitzer for any of this. And had better not qualify! If x has barrier y, that is a reliable guide for having barrier y ourselves! It is really up to these tiny parties to build support. Note that this essentially has not happened nationwide (US) since 1856 because of specific political dynamics. That dynamic co-opted the agenda of splinter parties when they looked like they might become popular. Student7 (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It might not be up to the Encyclopedia to right the perceived wrongs of the world, but it likewise has no responsibility to protect them. The 5% rule is rather silly. It relies on non-authoritative sources which are non-admittedly, but widely suspected as biased, and admittedly inaccurate. While I don't think that it would be appropriate to include everyone who submits an application to the state to be a candidate should be included, it seems that anyone who has gathered enough support to make it on to the ballot as an official candidate has made history regardless of how they are polling. There are already legal processes in place to determine this threshold. There is no source of information that is more authoritative on US elections than the respective state legislatures. Ejmarten (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

To the extent practical (the infobox is currently limited to six candidates), all ballot-qualified candidates should be included. Student7 wrote "If x has barrier y, that is a reliable guide for having barrier y ourselves!" So if a candidate has met state x's barrier y for ballot inclusion, we should include that candidate also! This has also been an ongoing dispute at Michigan gubernatorial election, 2010, Michigan gubernatorial election, 2006, and Michigan gubernatorial election, 2002. cmadler (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the 5% rule has led to the rather ridiculous result at United States Senate elections in Illinois, 2010 that the Green candidate is in the infobox but the Libertarian is not. There are only four candidates on the ballot, and we have three of them in the graphic. This seems quite arbitrary to me.—Chowbok ☠ 16:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Dissenters, do me a favor, and try and implement your agenda on presidential election articles. Go put Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, etc. on the 2008 presidential election infobox. See what happens.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

As I've said before, a reasonable argument could be made that only the Democratic & Republican candidates should be included. Pointing to United States presidential election, 2008 would make sense if they had Ralph Nader but not Bob Barr listed in the infobox. But they have neither. The point is that either both third-party candidates should be included, or neither. It makes no sense to have the Green candidate but not the Libertarian.—Chowbok ☠ 03:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That's actually a really easy one. There were six candidates who were ballot-qualified in sufficient states that they could possibly have earned 270 electoral votes: Obama, McCain, Nader, Barr, Baldwin, and McKinney. There are six infobox spots. The solution seems pretty obvious. cmadler (talk) 07:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that at least one state, Vermont, has no threshold for parties/candidates. This means that quite literally anyone can get on a ballot. When the Vermont voter walks into a booth, his hands are jammed with (Australian, of course!) ballots! All are reported. Voters tend to be more discriminating than the state is! Student7 (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

We have been looking at proclaiming the results from the bottom up. Typical Americans! It might make more sense to "account for" 80% or some other percent of the vote. That is, look at it from the top down. We've been treating the discussion from an American pov only, but looking at it from the top down would help with a standard for other countries where there are many viable parties. Student7 (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It is very obvious that there is no consensus. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and this is why I do not use this infobox in all the election articles I create - it is deeply flawed with the inherent POV issue of failing to include all candidates/parties, and in the main, simply unnecessary. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

A British perspective

I am utterly bemused by the tone of the debate above. How on earth can Wiki be regarded as a credible encyclopedia with depth and breadth of coverage when full results are curtailed or ommitted for the sake of judgement calls and personal prejudices? If I want to know who stood in a given election, I should be able to find it easily. To exclude anyone - at all - from a historic record of a democratic election is tantamount to vandalism. What would you do the Californian recall election article, or Haltemprice and Howden's infamous byelection? Exclude everyone but the victors? The concept of "third party candidates" in the UK is different, I concede, given that the US does not appear to have so much a vibrant multi-party democracy as the UK, but nevertheless to consider an arbitary cut-off for candidates seems highly questionable. It certainly won't happen in the British political articles; we tend to like our democracy to be recorded in full. I think our American editoral cousins would do well to follow our lead. doktorb _words^deeds 12:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

This can't be a "US-only" Project unless we break away and form out own, of course! So "rules" that seem reasonable in non-US countries would have to apply to US as well, unless an exception were made. We can have country-specific rules. But right now, we should be considering everybody, which the average US citizen (and possible editors, as well) does not understand very well. Student7 (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Main page permenent link

I think it would be nice to link to the current years elecotral calendar on the main page. Does anyone agree? And can we get a campaign to add it?Lihaas (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Elections and Referenda articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Elections and Referenda articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

US 5% polling rule

There is discussion at Talk:United States Senate election in Illinois, 2010#The rule regarding the convention for US election articles that only candidates who poll above 5% are included in the infobox before the election. Despite links to the discussion where the convention took shape, some editors question its existence because it is not stated on a Wikiproject page. Please weigh in. -Rrius (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

A similar discussion occurred above and I think any serious editor would conclude that it resulted in No consensus.--TM 19:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Scope of project

I've come to the project page to find out what the scope of the project is, but it's not stated. Are local elections covered, or does the project concern itself with elections at national level only? I'm working a lot with politics articles in New Zealand and if I knew, I could place the appropriate tag on election articles when I undertake assessment. Schwede 66 04:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

All elections, all referendums, everywhere, if I am not mistaken. harej 05:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with harej. Student7 (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've drafted some words for the project page to reflect that. Please amend this as you see fit. Schwede 66 19:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

5% Threshold rule needs a vote

I am all for third parties and vote for them regularly, but there is this thing called clutter that we have to deal with. We have these no-name people with absolute no chance outside the wet dreams of their partisan supporters that are in infoboxes. I disagree with the arbitrary 5% in one poll threshold. What happens when they get 5% in the first poll and never show up in a poll again? Instead, it should be 5% in at least three of the last five polls to determine viability. Anything less is just patently ridiculous. Again, I love third parties and support them strongly, but they are cluttering up the infoboxes that they have no chance of winning. (I can get into a whole thing about their foolish and misguided behavior that keeps them from victory, but thats another story)

The infobox is a summary of the absolute most important and relevant info, not a complete rundown of every possibility. Minor "non"-candidates can go in the main body of the article.

Most important here is this needs a vote because the consensus above was unclear and someone arbitrarily decided there was "no consensus". I propose the following options:

Candidates must have at least 5% support in 3 of the last 5 polls.
Candidates must have at least 5% support in 2 of the last 5 polls.
Candidates must have at least 5% support in 1 of the last 3 polls.

Can we get an agreement on these options and then a vote? You are welcome to propose changes to the options, but this does need a vote. And dont feel rushed by the election on Tuesday. This can be done now for 2012.

(By last 5 polls, I mean 5 different pollsters. If its Rasmussen, Rasmussen, Survey USA, PPP, Survey USA; that wont count.)

Metallurgist (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with all of the above. I don't think inclusion in the polls is an indicator of importance to an election and I don't think the 5% number is useful. Prior to an election, all ballot-listed candidate should be listed in state elections and in the rare case of the well known write-in like Lisa Murkowski in Alaska this year. Even more, what does "last" mean? The infobox should include as many candidates as possible to show an accurate view of an election.--TM 01:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. These candidates from minor parties don't get coverage for a reason: they aren't viable. Wikipedia articles should mirror actual news coverage in terms of how much coverage various candidates get. All candidates on a ballot or who have registered write in campaigns can be listed on the page, but they shouldn't all be in the infobox. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

We aren't showing "viability", which is an incredibly subjective term. We are giving information. If a reader comes to an election article, he or she shouldn't have to find the election table at the bottom to find out that there were more than two candidates. The infobox should give as much information as possible, even if it only shows a candidate received 4.9% of the vote. Before an election, there is simply no non-partisan way to decide who is "viable" whatever that means.--TM 02:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not subjective. A candidate that can't poll over 5% isn't viable in an election. That candidate isn't going to win, not based on anything WP:CRYSTAL but based on precedent. The non-partisan way to determine who is viable is to see who performs well in polls. 5% is a bit of an arbitrary cutoff, but I think it's arbitrary on the side of being overly inclusive rather than overly exclusive. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Muboshgu. I edit place articles where spammers insert the equivalent of "Eat at [[Joe's]], Joe's being redlinked. This is spam. However, the fact that the town has a (linked) GM plant is not spam. The difference (to newbies difficult to grasp) is that Joe's needs publicity, therefore we don't give it to him! That is the function of a blog or .com site. Everyone has heard of GM. They don't need and cannot profit from the publicity in Wikipedia.Therefore we (not very generously! :) give them publicity. We don't worry about it since it can't do them any good.

The analogy here, if I must draw it, is that low "polling" (but see below) groups need publicity. We really should force them on the marketplace and not give them publicity here. The major parties cannot profit from it, therefore, no problem. Student7 (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The top of the article is obviously the most visible part of an article. Why are we removing important information from the infobox based on arbitrary standards? And yes, a candidate receiving 3% is important information. Let me give an example: In New York this year, if any non-ballot qualified parties polls 50,000 votes (a number sure to be far less than 5%), they become ballot qualified. For that party, getting 50,000 votes is very important and those votes will have a long-lasting effect on political process. All ballot qualified candidates in local and state elections (or as many as the infobox can handle, which I believe is at most 6) should be included. In most cases, it is no more than 3 or 4.--TM 02:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I use a somewhat different criteria -- if the candidate's vote total is greater than or equal to the margin between the winner and the best loser, I'd add it to the infobox. For example:

Tom: 10 votes
Dick: 7 votes
Harry: 4 votes
Jenny: 2 votes

Tom and Dick gets in, then Harry gets in since 4>3. Jenny won't since 2<3. I dunno if this can be applied to polling numbers prior to the election. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That would all but guarantee that only the top two would included in the infobox. The purpose of the infobox is to give more information quickly, not to make a user search for information on other candidates. Elections are not only about who wins and who loses, but a total situation.--TM 17:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

For two-party elections, perhaps yes, but for multiparty elections (specifically when the winner doesn't surpass 50% of the vote) this comes in handy. Infoboxes do not have to show everything anyway. They're a summary. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. That was my own personal judgment, but it turns out Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes)#Purpose of an infobox echoes my thoughts. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The main problem is confusing polling, which are essentially a WP:SPAM media event, which Wikipedia naively uses. They really should be confined to Wikinews, being currents events (at best). The project is about elections not publicizing tricks used by the media or politicians to gain votes pushing their pov.

If you must use politician and media spam, at least retroactively remove the polls for anyone not actually receiving 5% of the vote. That should help with history if not with current evernt. Student7 (talk) 11:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with any and all of them - Infoboxes should not be cluttered with minor candidates that made no impact on the election (see Massachusetts gubernatorial election, 2010, where Jill Stein is up and got less than 2% of the vote); 5% is a decent threshold.Toa Nidhiki<font color="green" face="Mistral" 05

Fwaa I forgot about this. I need to set watch pages. Anywho, I am intrigued by the proposal of HTD and did use that as a basis for removal of the 5th(!) candidate on I think the Maine gubernatorial election, 2010 article. However, this would put Nader in the 2000 election. But perhaps he deserves to be there. He was cited a lot in the media and Democrats claim he spoiled the election. But on the other hand, he only received 2.something%. Now Ive probably triggered a deluge of Nader supporters to go create a consensus to put him there, but thats a separate issue. The consensus here seems 3-1 or 4-1 in favor of any of my proposals. But we still need to pick one.

By last polls, I mean the most recent. This makes the infobox "live". If a 3rd or 4th or whatever candidate suddenly goes from 10% support to 2% support, they should be dropped from the infobox. Jill Stein from Massachusetts gubernatorial election, 2010 was added to the infobox on the basis of a single, months-old poll that put her at 5%. Thats why I said the basis of inclusion should be current polls.--Metallurgist (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

My proposal is mostly useful for multiparty systems (or elections where the winner wins by less than 50%+1) -- for a two-party elections, I'd prefer the 5% threshold too (that's pretty low, too). –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW for U.S. presidential elections, I suggest limiting the people in the infobox either on those had ballot access in all 50 states + DC or to anyone who had an electoral vote. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 09:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

HTD's suggestions seem fine to me, but I think it should only include those that either won a state or surpassed 5% of the vote in Pres. elections, since some candidates have won electoral votes via faithless electors while getting less than 3% of the vote.

Let's exclude those how had electoral votes via faithless electors, then. As for polls I'd like a 5% threshold too, but that should take into account the margin of error -- e.g. if a candidate a 4% in a poll and there was 2% margin of error, he gets in.

BTW, in a separate perspective, in the United Kingdom general election, 2010 article, they only have the three major parties in the infobox -- the other parties, all of which either had >5% of the vote, or of seats won or both, were not there.

BTW (last), if there are four candidates that should really be in the infobox, and the last two like have a combined >10% of the vote, I'd guess it's not a good idea on listing both of them -- infoboxes with two rows are unwieldy. This works well if there's only 3 of them at least there'll only be 1 row. Now if there are 5 "major" candidates that can be somewhat acceptable (as a rule 4 candidates on a 2x2 grid is bad). –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 20:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Cross nomination and electoral fusion election boxes needed

I can't find an election box that handles cross nomination by parties, or electoral fusion. The closest I found was {{Election box candidate for alliance}} (example). But that box is for when parties in an alliance agree to not run candidates against each other. Cross nomination and fusion are different creatures.

So I think templates need to be created for this. The real-world applications include "Oregon gubernatorial election, 2010" (for cross nomination) and "New York gubernatorial election, 2010" (for fusion). The cross nomination box should enable you to enter multiple nominating parties for each candidate. The fusion box should give a line for each party and candidate, and indicate the total votes for each candidate. Could someone tackle this? — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 04:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Referring to my real-world example of Oregon for cross nomination, here's how it works: Each candidate can be nominated by up to three parties. On the ballot, the name of each party appears abbreviated under their candidates' names (DEM, REP, WFP, etc.). So at least in Oregon's case (not sure how other jurisdictions do it), we could just tweak the current election box's appearance, like so:

Oregon's 4th congressional district election, 2010
Party		Candidate	Votes	%
	PGP	Mike Beilstein	3,333	33%
	DEM, WFP, PRO	Peter DeFazio	3,333	33%
	REP, IND, CON	Art Robinson	3,333	33%
Total			9,999	100%

One potential problem is which party to choose for the colored band on the left. My guess for Oregon's case (but I can't say for sure) is that the party a candidate affiliates with is treated as the most important nomination, and is listed first. Parties are not listed in simple alphabetical order on the ballot (or else Art Robinson would appear as a Constitution candidate first and foremost).

Electoral fusion is trickier. Not sure how to make that work. — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 04:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I figured out a possible way to handle fusion, at least for New York.

The New York State Board of Elections reports the vote for each ballot line — then they give a "recap", or a total vote for each candidate on all their ballot lines, which decides the election. See the 2006 gubernatorial election results for an example. So how about doing something like this for New York:

New York gubernatorial election, 2006
Ballot line		Candidate	Votes	%	Recap	%
	Democratic	Eliot Spitzer	2,740,864	61.77	3,086,709	69.56
	Republican	John Faso	1,105,681	24.92	1,274,335	28.72
	Independence	Eliot Spitzer	190,661	4.30
	Conservative	John Faso	168,654	3.80
	Working Families	Eliot Spitzer	155,184	3.50
	Green	Malachy McCourt	42,166	0.95	42,166	0.95
	Libertarian	John Clifton	14,736	0.33	14,736	0.33
	Rent Is Too High	Jimmy McMillan	13,355	0.33	13,355	0.33
	Socialist Workers	Maura DeLuca	5,919	0.30	5,919	0.30
Invalid			260,647
Total			4,697,867	100%

— Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 04:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I like; this seems like a practical way to have electoral fusion/cross nomination added. Toa Nidhiki05 16:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Looks beautiful and practical. btw, where are 2010 results?--Metallurgist (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"Issues" section?

Hey all, a quick question. When working on an election article, is it appropriate to have a section specifically about issues discussed during that election? Like, for example, a section called "Issues" with possible subsections like "Health Care", "Abortion", "Social Security", etc. etc.? Or is it generally better to cover the issues in the "Campaign" sections as they are discussed, without a separate issues section? — Hun ter Ka hn 15:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally I would say it can be fine - a couple of examples of featured election articles with issues sections are Canadian federal election, 1957 and South Australian state election, 2006. Davewild (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Best saved for a properly named "Campaign" article. Any article called "Election" is supposed to be confined to the election not something the media calls "election" which is everything to do with the campaign. The media does not want to focus for whatever reason. Wikipedia must provide that focus and not follow the media in losing focus. Stick to WP:TOPIC. Don't let topics for one article slop over into others. Causes maintenance problems in multiple places and leaves editors wondering what to link to. Student7 (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

So, in a case like United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010, where there is no separate "campaign" article, what would the solution be there? — Hun ter Ka hn 21:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

My thought would be to start that new article. Student7 (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Election infoboxes

For whatever reason, some editors have decided that Israeli elections do not deserve infoboxes, calling it a POV violation. This is despite hundreds of other elections articles across the "world" having them. Most recently, Dutch 2010 elections and Swedish elections, 2010. Both of these articles have infoboxes that list only the top 6 parties, despite 3 and 4 more winning seats. The infobox is a summary of the major facts in the election, not a summary of every single party. There are two options here:

either infoboxes are somehow POV because a user might load the page, look at the infobox, and think "Oh there cant possibly have been a 7th party, so this is all I need to know." OR
The infoboxes are a reasonable, professional, graphic summary that makes the articles look nicer and uniform.

Why do we even have infoboxes available for these types of elections if they would be POV? I am calling for a consensus to be developed in regards to whether infoboxes deserve to be on parliamentary election pages.--Metallurgist (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

As one of the editors involved in the Israeli elections (and as previously voiced on this talkpage), my opinion is that these infoboxes should be scrapped, or at least limited to two- or three-horse races where all candidates/parties can easily be included. However, for multi-candidate or party elections they should not be avoided; to avoid NPOV (i.e. missing some parties/candidates out) or OR (who decides what % of the vote is significant?) violations. This is especially a problem in countries where many parties win seats in parliament. For instance, in this article, why do we include a party that won five seats, but not those than won four? In many cases there is a gradual decline in the number of seats and no clear cut-off point. Number 5 7 18:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The infobox only holds up to 6 parties. Thats why the others arent listed. Please look at other countries with parliamentary and proportional elections such as the two I listed above. They are both missing 3 parties. This is not a POV issue. Infoboxes are summaries. Its really easy to scroll down to results and see there are other parties. Also, please read MOS:INFOBOX#Purpose_of_an_infobox.--Metallurgist (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If it's so easy to scroll down and see the results, why do we need an infobox at all? Number 5 7 21:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Then why do we have an infobox template on virtually every election page. Again, look at Dutch and Swedish elections. Im not making this up. Its based on other elections.--Metallurgist (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I can see both sides of this. Number57, I think I might assume why you might think it is POV, but please specify it clearly for this discussion so there is no misunderstanding. --Shuki (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Because by limiting the number of parties in the infobox (in order to make it fit), you are excluding others, largely at a whim. I don't believe the infobox can be NPOV if it does not include all of them.

In addition, what is the point of the infobox on this article? It is so big that it finishes below the results table - hardly an effective summary tool when it takes longer to scroll down to read it than the actual full results (which includes far more information). Number 5 7 11:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I see no good reason why the infobox can't be used or adapted here. The Dutch infobox mentioned above dealt with the issue by including a chart of party percentages as well as the top parties. Also, this problem is no more confusing than the decision involved in the lead. Neither WP:OR nor WP:POV enters into the question of summarizing information (in the Lead or an infobox) within an article that provides all the data.--Carwil (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

People seriously bawwed about that on the Dutch infobox? I probably would vote for one of those lower parties, but I cant see any reason to complain about them not being listed. I will work on getting a nice chart up tho as soon as I can. Seems this has been resolved tho anyway.--Metallurgist (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the general nature of the argument, shouldn't a guideline of sorts be developed, in order to maintain consistency across election articles? I've thinking something on the lines of the following:

The parties represented in the infobox have at least 3/4 of the seats combined.
The parties in the infobox that are part of the governing coalition have at least 1/2 of the seats
"Historical significance" - if a party was in the infobox the previous elections and hasn't lost seats following the current election, it's listed in the infobox.

These rules-of-thumb would grant a reader a reasonable overview of the legislative body composition, including in terms of coalition building process and historical trends. Thoughts? Rami R 19:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the top 6 vote getting parties should be listed in an infobox - the Israeli legislative election pages for 1949, 1951 and 2009 have them, and I think it gives a clearer sense of the overall result, without simply focusing on a simple 50+1% coalition governing party. Australian Matt (talk) 04:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Rami's ideas should be addressed. Might be tightened in wording somehow, but including all parties in a ruling coalition sounds almost mandatory. And leaving room for omitting truly insignificant parties seems like a good idea. Otherwise WP:SPAM for them. Student7 (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be included as a guide to quickly reference the top parties. The top parties being obviously those with the most seats (its not POV to state who won the most, if other parties didnt then they are minor parties). But perhaps limit it to 2-3 parties. I digress, though, that it is excluding "on a whim" because there is a clear and defined reason for who makes it, the only controversy would be how many?(Lihaas (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)).

Merge

I've suggested merging WikiProject Voting systems here - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Voting systems#Merge. Rd232 ^talk 01:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Organising consistency

I think we need some sort of official policy set out here for what sort of consistent organisation we plan for such articles. Right now articles widely differ based largely on popularity (such as the us elections ((and somewhat the anlglosphere of uk/aus, etc)) granted the us elections would never follow this method with the mobs there), but for the rest we can come to some sort of base outline and then with slight deviation for the particularities of respective elections.(Lihaas (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)).