Wikipedia

Talk:2019 Indian general election/Archive 3

< Talk:2019 Indian general election
Latest comment: 1 year ago by MadGuy7023 in topic Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2022
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Infobox

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Lesenwriter/Talk-page watchers: The selective addition of AITC and BJD into the infobox seems POV-y and the first step to overcrowding the infobox. First, a majority of the sources just mention NDA/UPA. Second, there are many regional parties, all important and significant to Indian politics, but except for BJP/Congress/BSP, no one even contested more than 271 seats needed for a majority. For NPOV, we should stick with the majority of the sources, or if we want to give more weight to a minority of sources, then we will need to add numerous political parties. We should avoid that because it will make the infobox too complex and large. I am open to ideas and creative ways here, but I oppose making this article or the infobox too complicated. Whatever we do, let us remember that a lot of folks access wikipedia articles on mobile devices (and a few of our readers have access challenges such as Braille etc). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch , I partially agree to your point . Many regional parties have always played a major role in forming Central government in India. Also if you consider south and east ,regional parties are dominant over INC (UPA), BJP(NDA). May be my suggeestion not to include all the regional parties and complicating the infobox but atleast party having significant numbers in Parliament. (For example: 15 LS seats = which is approximately equals 3million voters voice favouring the party) or Top 6 party seatwise contribution in LokSabha. This also shows the success rate of regional parties over the national party . Let add them on a result day if you agree with this .— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesenwriter (talk • contribs) 04:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Lesenwriter. Wait till results and then decide on whether to add 3/6 top parties. Till then simply keep BJP & INC. In any case; no party should get place in infobox just on basis of seats contested. AAP contested 434 (which is more than the seats BJP alone contested) seats last time in 2014 and won only 4. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Review 122.179.18.243s comment at Prime Ministerial candidate and Campaigning. 112.133.244.16 (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
That IPs comments are regarding mentioning PM candidature. And their basis is their own hypothesis. When i opened the discussion topic of PM candidate, no one has/had presented references to backup their statement that a certain "X" person is "PM candidate" from a party/coalition "Y". (Dont mistake PM candidate with party leader. Not all party leaders are by default PM candidates.) We would hence need clear statement by respective party stating that X is our PM candidate.
However, PM candidate has nothing to do with the number of parties being listed in infobox; which is being discussed here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Good suggestions. Perhaps, after the full final results are out, one of you or another wizard can incorporate Lesenwriter's and other suggestions in the "Parties and alliances" section table? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Maswimelleu: I understand your rationale for not including DMK in infobox. But to suit that, maybe we should keep info about both individual party and about the alliance in infobox. For example, for past seats we should mention both 282, 31.3% (BJP) and 336 (38.5%) NDA. Same should be followed with current info. What say? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree that we should include Alliance totals in the infobox, yes. I wanted to do it but can't figure out a way to display it. I will browse other country election articles and see if I can find a good example to copy. Maswimelleu (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I have done it for now. You may improvise if you get better way. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 14:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Which alliance should Left and BSP be in?

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Currently, the Left parties (Communist Party of India (Marxist), Communist Party of India and Revolutionary Socialist Party) are included under the UPA, and Bahujan Samaj Party is given under Mahagathbandhan. Now, the Left Parties contested as part of the UPA in Tamil Nadu, winning 4 seats, but were divided in Kerala, with the RSP winning a seat as part of the UPA, and the CPI-M winning a seat as part of the opposition (Left Democratic Front). Similarly, the BSP was part of the MGB only in UP, forming coalitions with other parties elsewhere. So should these two be given as part of UPA and MGB respectively, or given as separate coalitions? --Jose Mathew (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
CPI and CPI-M won seats as part of the DMK-led UPA in Tamil Nadu. [1] RSP won Kollam, in Kerala, as part of the UPA. [2] and [3] (The vote-share has an error - votes of the RSP have not been entered.) CPI-M won Alappuzha, Kerala, as part of the LDF, against the UPA / UDF. [4] Currently, RSP is given as part of UPA and CPI and CPI-M in the Left Front. I think BSP can be kept under MGB itself, as it did not win any seats outside UP. --Jose Mathew (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
CPI and CPI(M) are no longer in UPA group in the results section. If another table, vote share somewhere or something else has an error, you are most welcome to update it and cite a source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. No other issue. --Jose Mathew (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Listing of NDA members in Results section

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is an error in the "results by alliance" listing. The Sikkim Krantikari Morcha (SKM) is listed as an NDA member, whereas the Mizo National Front (MNF) is listed as "unaffiliated party". It should be the reverse - MNF is an NDA member and in alliance with BJP in Mizoram. SKM is a presently unaffiliated party. 97.81.21.135 (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Color coding of tables, format etc

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

@SshibumXZ: Your large edit made numerous references-related and Indian English format-related constructive edits. But it also removed helpful color coding of tables and introduced many formatting issues. Please take a look and restore/merge the two versions for the sake of the reader. For a high traffic article such as this that is on wikipedia's main page, I would normally recommend section by section changes over many edits. Or, you can take a version to your sandbox and preview it there, then post it here? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, oh crap! On it. Also, rest assured that any and all changes related to colour coding to tables were absolutely inadvertent, but, I nonetheless apologise for the aforesaid changes! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 13:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch   Done. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 13:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @SshibumXZ: & :Ms Sarah Welch, i have merged both the opinion polls & exit poll data and have also added color to UPA which was missing, plz check if it looks ok. I have saved the exit polls on my sandbox so if necessary we can revert back, also just added color codes to existing section so they too are revertable. Hope the changes look good & productive and doesnt make the table too large. :) Pearll's SunTALK 04:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Pearll's sun, hi! Your changes to indeed seem productive; thanks for adding colour to UPA and merging the tables for exit and opinion polls! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 10:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Infobox—how many parties?

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Currently only the BJP and INC are listed. About 10 or so parties got >10 seats. I added the DMK and was planning to add the YSRCP but this was reverted. Previous precedent seems to support including more than two but not more than, say, six or seven parties. I think that BJP (303), INC (52), DMK (23), YSRCP (22), AITC (22), Shiv Sena (18), JD (U) (16) seems reasonable to start with, i.e., everyone above 15 seats. There doesn't seem to be an obvious cutoff. (I suppose an alternative is ECI-recognised national parties, but that would be fairly arbitrary as well…) Docentation (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Most sources discuss these elections and list BJP-NDA and Congress-UPA only. So, the infobox reflects the majority of mainstream sources. If we put all parties that won more than 5 seats, we will have 12 columns and a large complicated infobox. The problem with large infoboxes is that it overwhelms the lead section, particularly for readers using mobile devices, making the article difficult to read. Instead of putting all of their political parties that won more than 5 or 10 seats in the infobox, why not put all that information with a photo of the main leader of each party, in the Parties and alliances section or in the Results section of the main article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I reviewed election infoboxes a while back and the usual cutoff for including parties is to include all parties that won seats. I acknowledge that would be a lot in this case. With more parties, you can use the more compact Template:Infobox legislative election. Bondegezou (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I like Bondegezou's suggestion. Docentation: you can see some examples here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree that 12 columns would be excessive; presumably to accommodate all the parties we should therefore have to replace the current infobox with the more compact version mentioned? I should be happy to do that (or see someone else do that) if this is consensus. Docentation (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I prefer the way it now is. It represents NDA & UPA, the only two segments that really matter. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 18:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Content trim

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
  • In Issues section, National security and terrorism has only paragraph devoted which was much discussed/important issue in the election and less discussed/important issue NaMo TV and Modi biopic in context of the elections has three large paragraphs with intrinsic details. I suggest to trim NaMo TV and Modi biopic section. -Nizil (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • In Reaction#Domestic, every state chief minister is listed congratulating the winner party which is a formality. Similarly International Figure is unnecessary. It is an example of WP:QUOTEFARM. The sections is pointless and add no helpful information for the readers. It should be removed entirely.-Nizil (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
    Agree, the section is pointless. —Gazoth (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
    Removed.   Done-Nizil (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • In Voting#EVM, there is lot of unnecessary details. Should be trimmed.-Nizil (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
    Removed.   Done -Nizil (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • In Candidates with criminal allegations, there is info on only two phase figures. Should be replaced with all seven phase figures.-Nizil (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Parties and alliances

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Update parties and alliances section to list all other parties, fill the number of independent candidates from List of Contesting Candidates. 112.133.244.28 (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Reaction section

Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

The reaction section has been overloaded with flagicons, quotations of platitudes and takes a disproportionate amount of space for the information that it conveys. I don't see the value that it adds to the article. It'd be better if we mention all the countries that congratulated Modi/BJP in a list. —Gazoth (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Whatever changes were made to this section are particularly aesthetically awful. What was present before was better than what is currently present. If the present it preferred, it's a better idea to simply remove the section in its entirety. Storms991 (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Storms991, if the references are an issue, all of them can be moved inside a single tag. —Gazoth (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
At base that's preferable. At the same time, I still question the value of this section given its current state - my suggestion is to remove the country portion entirely unless information regarding each national leaders' response is added back. The value of this section was based on interpretations of nation leaders' congratulatory messages, inferences wrt their views on the outcome, and potential effects on respective nations' foreign policy towards India. Please feel free to alter based on your best judgement. Storms991 (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Storms991, if you need that kind of an information, you need to find secondary sources that collect all messages and analyse them. Nothing can be gained from quoting the actual messages when they are all repetitive and have little underlying meaning. —Gazoth (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree--the current format is uninformative and unappealing. Official statements and reactions of heads of states frequently represent a snapshot of the international response to an event and are often nuanced. The previous format should be brought back. Anon200401 (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Anon200401, on the contrary, official statements of congratulations are hackneyed and don't convey any sort of nuance. Quoting every single one of them is a pointless exercise for a non-controversial event where there are hardly any differences between the reactions. The older format was a raw overdose of information that overwhelmed readers. If you want a curated snapshot of international reaction, look for secondary sources that discuss and interpret the statements. If you can find such sources, then we can add something of substance to the section beyond trite remarks. —Gazoth (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
What may seem trite to you may not be so for others. Beyond as noted above, the reactions that currently stand removed also have some archival value. If you feel so strongly about removing information interesting to many, you could link out a separate reactions page like the one for a previous US election. Anon200401 (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Anon200401, a dedicated page would be subject to a different set of standards and could hold all the details. If you or anyone else wants to create one, we could certainly link it here. —Gazoth (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I concur with Gazoth. These reaction sections full of platitudes are completely pointless. They are not encyclopaedic. Drop 'em. Bondegezou (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Gazoth BSE Sensex and Nifty50 are effects and not reactions. Consider moving them to the effects section. 122.171.178.52 (talk) 04:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
There's not enough material to create a new "effects" section. The rise of indices are market's reaction to the election. —Gazoth (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Final results?, Vellore Contituency

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Are there any informations when the final results (numbers of votes) will be published by the Indian Election Commission? Will there be a bye-election in Vellore constituency? --Furfur ⁂ Diskussion 11:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC about the Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should the reactions, analysis and affects sections about 2019 Indian general election (or substantially similar content) be included in the article or not? 122.172.188.72 (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

This is an absurd waste of everybody's time over a silly edit war. Follow the instructions at WP:RFCBEFORE and make an attempt to discuss the substance of your edit instead of making comments about other editors like this. —Gazoth (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Source for vote share

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Sid54126, what is the source for the vote shares that you've added to parties in the infobox and results section? —Gazoth (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gazoth, the source of edit is the "Voter Helpline" Mobile Application provided by election commission of India. They have not given this data in their website now. They will give the data in the the reports of General election in some days. Sid54126 (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Sid54126, while it is not required for sources to be available on the web, I haven't come across any reference that cites a mobile app. I'm not sure what our policy is when it comes to citing a mobile app. Regardless, we need to cite sources for voter share data not only to satisfy WP:V, but also because this data attracts a lot of vandalism. I'm going to add the vote shares from One India to the results table, overriding the existing numbers in the case of any conflicts. I don't see the point of the new table with pictures that you added as it effectively duplicates the infobox with the only addition being {{percentage bar}} templates. —gazoth (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

gazoth, I have added this picture table after seeing 2014 Indian General election wiki page. If you can wait for 4-5 days then don't delete the percentages. May be in 4-5 days they will give it on website. Sid54126 (talk) 04:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Sid54126, I haven't deleted the percentages, but I've now sourced them from Oneindia. The numbers from there were the same as the ones that you've entered. However, I have removed the duplicated table. The 2014 page is a mess with excessive use of colour. It's not a good example to follow. —Gazoth (talk) 05:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
220,000,000 / 1,370,000,000
Vote share of BJP/Total population (expected data)
220,000,000 / 900,000,000
Vote share of BJP/Total voters (approximate data)
220,000,000 / 630,000,000
Vote share of BJP/Total polled votes (approximate data)

The same number of vote share and increasing graph! Anyone has any idea to expand the graph further with exact data. 122.166.88.180 (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Results graph

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To the IP editor that keeps edit warring (122.171.206.242 or 112.133.248.2 or 112.133.248.14 or one of the older IPs): It is impossible to include all parties either in a pie chart or a table; the table is only for parties that won a seat. Even if you did include all parties, the percentages will never sum to a 100 anyway due to rounding. NOTA is already mentioned in text and the same can be done to invalid votes if you can find a proper reference. You have made a mess of the table and destroyed its consistent presentation. Now it uses composition bar for some cells, text for the others. It is filled with empty cells with no apparent plans to ever fill them, despite the fact that you have been edit warring over this ever since the edit protection expired. This is clearly not about the issues that you are outwardly highlighting, since removing pie charts doesn't really present vote share for all parties. What exactly is this about? Vandalising the page since you didn't get your way? —Gazoth (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Creat new PIL In SC section under Aftermath section and add:

According to the livelaw, The NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has filed a PIL before the Supreme Court seeking to direct the Election Commission of India to probe into the reports about discrepancies in the number of votes polled and votes counted in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. [1]

References

  1. ^ Tripathi, Karan (November 20, 2019). "PIL In SC Seeks ECI Action On Reports Of EVM Voter Data Discrepancies [Read Petition]". www.livelaw.in.

112.133.244.26 (talk) 08:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

  Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Change "Minority rights" to "Muslim Conservatism" 71.135.7.84 (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Why? MadGuy7023 (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Request has been marked as answered due to no response to query. MadGuy7023 (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Grouping Alliances in Infobox

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think it might make more sense to group the main alliances under a single "party" for the purposes of the infobox; the infobox is intended to "tell the story" of the election, and grouping alliances tells that story best. As it stands, I think the infobox does not sufficiently demonstrate how this was largely a two-faction race between Modi's UDA and Gandhi's UPA. One has to scroll down to see the cumulative votes for UDA and UPA. (This also goes for the 2014 Indian election page.) -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Add/Expand sections

Reactions

National

The benchmark BSE Sensex and Nifty50 indices hit intraday record highs and the Indian rupee strengthened after the exit polls and on the day the election results were announced.[1]

Indian National Congress party leaders such as Rahul Gandhi and others conceded defeat and cogratulated Modi and his party.[2] Other opposition parties and political leaders such as Sharad Pawar,[3] Mamata Banerjee and Omar Abdullah,[4] congratulated PM Modi and BJP for their victory.

Young urban Indians who voted against BJP react to verdict 2019 Indian general election.[5]

International

The leaders of Afghanistan , Argentina ,[6] Australia , Austria ,[7] Bahrain ,[8] Bangladesh , Bhutan ,[9] Botswana ,[10] Brazil ,[11] Bulgaria ,[12] Burundi , Canada, China, Comoros ,[13] Cyprus , Czech Republic , Estonia,[14] France, Georgia ,[15] Germany,[16] Ghana , Iceland ,[17] Indonesia , Iran ,[18] Israel, Italy, Jamaica,[19] Japan , Kenya ,[20] Kuwait,[21] Latvia,[22] Lesotho,[23] Lichtenstein,[24] Luxembourg ,[25] Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mexico,[26] Mongolia,[27] Myanmar ,[28] Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands,[29] Nicaragua,[30] North Korea,[31] Nigeria ,[32] New Zealand ,[33] Oman ,[34] Pakistan, Palestine,[35] Portugal, Qatar,[36] Russia, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles,[37] Singapore, South Africa,[38] South Korea, Sri Lanka, St. Vincent and the Grenadines,[39] Switzerland,[40] Tajikistan,[41] Thailand ,[42] Turkmenistan,[43] Uganda , Ukraine ,[44] United Arab Emirates , United Kingdom , United States , Uzbekistan,[45] Venezuela,[46] Vietnam[47] Zambia,[48] and Zimbabwe congratulated Narendra Modi and the BJP on their victory.[49]

Analysis

According to a data analysis by the Mint, "Overall, the BJP’s appeal seems to transcend the divides of caste, education, and affluence, but there are some differences — with the BJP less successful in more educated constituencies" in a study of about 140 seats where Congress and Others were more successful. The BJP was favored in all income groups, states the Mint. The newspaper added, "In constituencies with high presence of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (SCs/STs), the BJP is more popular than other parties, but in constituencies with high presence of Muslims, it is less popular."[50]

According to India Today, Detailed accounts and reports suggest that the country's overall growth was not among top factors that helped Narendra Modi's party cruise to a landslide victory in the Lok Sabha elections 2019. [51]

In the run up to the 2019 elections, the media failed to question either the government or the prime minister.[52]

Effects

The benchmark BSE Sensex and Nifty50 indices hit intraday record highs and the Indian rupee strengthened after the exit polls and on the day the election results were announced.[53]

U.S. President Donald Trump terminates preferential trade status for India under GSP. Washington had earlier held off on notifying its decision close to the Lok Sabha elections, the Indian Express reported on June 2, 2019. [54]

Troubling Unemployment Data, Leaked in January, Now Released Post-Elections.[55]

As expected petrol and diesel prices on the rise after the elections.[56] [57] 112.133.248.26 (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. You text has duplication and a completely WP:OR section called "effects". Something that was supposed to happen regardless of the outcome of an election is neither a reaction to nor an effect of that election. The "Analysis" section is also unnecessary as a selection of opinions have already been incorporated into the article under the "Results" section. —Gazoth (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Are you obsessed with particular color? Your reverts are completely one sided and mostly unverified. Could someone please reinstate the revision established here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.188.72 (talk) 06:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
References

References

  1. ^ Lok Sabha Election Result Impact: Sensex creates history, breaches 40,000 mark to set record high, Zee Business (May 23 2019)
  2. ^ Rahul Gandhi concedes defeat, congratulates PM Modi, Smriti Irani, India Today (May 23 2019)
  3. ^ https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/election-result-2019-sharad-pawar-says-wont-blame-voting-machines-2041991
  4. ^ DelhiMay 24, India Today Web Desk New; May 24, 2019UPDATED:; Ist, 2019 10:22. "Lok Sabha Election Results: Omar was first, Mamata second to congratulate PM Modi for historic win". India Today. {{cite web}}: |first3= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  5. ^ Lalwani, Vijayta. "'I was living in an echo chamber': Young urban Indians who voted against BJP react to verdict 2019". Scroll.in.
  6. ^ "Mauricio Macri "@mauriciomacri"". Twitter. May 24, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  7. ^ "Sebastian Kurz "@sebastiankurz"". Twitter. May 24, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  8. ^ "Bahrain News Agency "@bna_en"". Twitter. May 26, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  9. ^ "PM Bhutan "@PMBhutan"". Twitter. May 23, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  10. ^ "Raveesh Kumar "@MEAIndia"". Twitter. May 29, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  11. ^ "Jair M. Bolsonaro "@jairbolsonaro"". Twitter. May 25, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  12. ^ "Raveesh Kumar "@MEAIndia"". Twitter. May 28, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  13. ^ "Azali Assoumani "@Azali_officiel"". Twitter. May 29, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  14. ^ "Jüri Ratas "@ratasjuri"". Twitter. May 24, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  15. ^ "Raveesh Kumar "@MEAIndia"". Twitter. May 25, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  16. ^ "May, Merkel, Saudi Crown Prince congratulate Modi". business-standard.com. 26 May 2019. Retrieved 2019-05-31.
  17. ^ "Raveesh Kumar "@MEAIndia"". Twitter. May 25, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  18. ^ "Iran, EU leaders also greet PM Modi on poll win". ANI. May 24, 2019.
  19. ^ "Andrew Holness "@AndrewHolnessJM"". Twitter. May 23, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  20. ^ "Raila Odinga "@RailaOdinga"". Twitter. May 23, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  21. ^ "Raveesh Kumar "@MEAIndia"". Twitter. May 24, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  22. ^ "Krišjānis Kariņš "@krisjaniskarins"". Twitter. May 24, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  23. ^ "Raveesh Kumar "@MEAIndia"". Twitter. May 29, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  24. ^ "Raveesh Kumar "@MEAIndia"". Twitter. May 28, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  25. ^ "Raveesh Kumar "@MEAIndia"". Twitter. May 25, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  26. ^ "SRE México "@SRE_mx"". Twitter. May 25, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  27. ^ "Raveesh Kumar "@MEAIndia"". Twitter. May 27, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  28. ^ "Raveesh Kumar "@MEAIndia"". Twitter. May 24, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  29. ^ "Mark Rutte "@MinPres"". Twitter. May 24, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  30. ^ "Raveesh Kumar "@MEAIndia"". Twitter. May 24, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  31. ^ "Raveesh Kumar "@MEAIndia"". Twitter. May 27, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  32. ^ "Presidency Nigeria "@NGRPresident"". Twitter. May 24, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  33. ^ "MFAT govt NZ "@MFATgovtNZ"". Twitter. May 24, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  34. ^ "Raveesh Kumar"@MEAIndia"". Twitter. May 26, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  35. ^ "India in Palestine "@ROIRamallah"". Twitter. May 24, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  36. ^ "Qatar News Agency "@QNAEnglish"". Twitter. May 26, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  37. ^ "India in Seychelles "@hci_seychelles"". Twitter. May 24, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  38. ^ "Cyril Ramaphosa "@CyrilRamaphosa"". Twitter. May 26, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  39. ^ "Ralph Gonsalves "@ComradeRalph"". Twitter. May 24, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  40. ^ "Raveesh Kumar "@MEAIndia"". Twitter. May 28, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  41. ^ "Raveesh Kumar@MEAIndia". Twitter. May 24, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  42. ^ "India in Thailand "@IndiainThailand"". Twitter. May 24, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  43. ^ "Raveesh Kumar "@MEAIndia"". Twitter. May 24, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  44. ^ "Raveesh Kumar "@MEAIndia"". Twitter. May 24, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  45. ^ "Raveesh Kumar "@MEAIndia"". Twitter. May 25, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  46. ^ "Raveesh Kumar "@MEAIndia"". Twitter. May 25, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  47. ^ "Raveesh Kumar "@MEAIndia"". Twitter. May 23, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  48. ^ "Raveesh Kumar "@MEAIndia"". Twitter. May 28, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  49. ^
  50. ^ "Ten charts that explain the 2019 Lok Sabha verdict". https://www.livemint.com. May 24, 2019. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
  51. ^ DelhiMay 29, Koustav Das New; May 29, 2019UPDATED:; Ist, 2019 13:49. "Unemployment on rise, GDP slips. And you voted for vikas?". India Today. {{cite web}}: |first3= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  52. ^ "The Mainstream Media Is No Ally for Those Fighting the Cult of Narendra Modi". The Wire.
  53. ^ Lok Sabha Election Result Impact: Sensex creates history, breaches 40,000 mark to set record high, Zee Business (May 23 2019)
  54. ^ "US ends India's benefits under select trade list". June 2, 2019.
  55. ^ "Cat finally out of the bag: Unemployment at 45-year high, government defends data". India Today.
  56. ^ "Elections over, fuel prices begin to rise | India News - Times of India". The Times of India.
  57. ^ Mishra, Richa. "Oil's well until India goes to polls". @businessline.

Hi Charles Essie, Left Parties (that is communist and socialist parties) have state specified alliance, in kerala its Left Democratic Alliance, in Democratic Progressive Alliance, in Assam Left Democratic Manch, Assam, in Maharashtra its Republican Left Democratic Front, in Tripura its Left Front (Tripura). They don't have any All India alliance. Although the member parties in Left Front (West Bengal) have All India alliance and generally don't contest elections against Co-members. Manasbose (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Left Front

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

According to this page, the All India Forward Bloc, the Communist Party of India, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Revolutionary Socialist Party ran in an alliance called the "Left Front". Currently there's a link to the Left Front (West Bengal) but I don't think it's the same group. Does anyone know if that's the case? Because if it is, I think it warrants it's own article. Charles Essie (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Because Left Front are all state based alliance with different states having different names. All India Left Front doesn't exist officially. -- Manasbose (talk | edits) 10:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Consensus for Images

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can we have a consensus to which images to be used in this article? One of the arguments is to use the images that represent the leaders from ~2019 as the article deals with 2019. -- DaxServer (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Needed Help!!

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I was updating the page with correct data, bjp got 37.76% vote share in 2019 election where as congress got 19.70% both parties vote share percentage were written wrong, so i corrected them, but i am not able to fix this in the Result table, i dont know how to do that. anyone who know how to do that please put correct valueZindahtohpyalabharde (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@User:Number 57 please dont revert edits, without fact check, i updated the data, and if you have any issues with my edits, then please discuss on talk page first, instead just reverting them without discussion. and about image used, the old image was of about 2013 and election held in 2019, so how can you say that "we try to use images from around the time of the election", as if you face check it, then you will find that, that image is of 2013 not 2019, so since we dont have a image of 2019, we can use image of 2020, which i didZindahtohpyalabharde (talk) 05:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

You misunderstand the fundamental principles of editing – i.e. the onus is on you to get consensus on talk before attempting to restore a reverted edit. Given your clear breach of at Expressways of India (seven reverts I think yesterday?), I would strongly advise ceasing to use the undo function.
The reason you cannot change the results table is because the vote share is automatically calculated, which is done to avoid errors. The difference in percentage is caused by the ECI ignoring NOTA votes when calculating party vote shares in that document. However, these are typically included in calculations of percentages, and cannot be left out of the results table. Third party sources like this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this etc use the 37.36% or 37.4% figure that include the NOTA votes.
Apologies about the image; I thought the one used here was from 2019 – there are constant changes of images on Indian election articles and it's hard to keep track. Cheers, Number 57
okay i understand, By the way what should i call you, "sir", "brother", "sister"??Zindahtohpyalabharde (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Updating Numbers as per ECI files

Latest comment: 2 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

ECI has updated GE 2019 loksabha entire file with Vellore results in it [1] [2] So the results table has to be updated according to ECI recent file, like total electors are 911,950,784 against 910,512,091 and removing the vacancy in the table and etc. But the updated sources edits and are being reverted with no reason. Nahtrav (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Party wise seat won & valid votes polled in each state".
  2. ^ "ECI releases an Atlas on General Elections 2019".
It does not 'have to be updated'. It's up to us as editors whether we think a much-delayed election should be included in the overall results or not. In many cases we leave the results table as the results on election day, with any delayed elections marked as 'Vacant' (as has been done here). Many secondary sources published well after the delayed Vellore vote refer to the pre-Vellore figures, so Wikipedia does not stand alone by doing so. It also seems rather odd that the ECI left it almost two years to publish a revised set of figures with the Vellore result included.
The claim that your changes are "reverted with no reason" is clearly untrue as I have explained at length in the discussion on my talk page. By all means we can have a debate about this, but please don't resort to being dishonest. Number 57 11:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
We are not here to judge eci,news article or govts, we are here for giving and updating information to the readers, editors can't edit independently they edit with guidance of sources and references, Wikipedia gets updated with everyday. And the word from u" doesn't have to updated" seems to worry for editors because without updated there are no editors and without editors there is no Wikipedia. Even this election is conducted by ECI, it's results are published by ECI and files are uploaded by ECI too which is one of the prime sources of article. Your personal thinking of "need not to be updated" doesn't match the explanation of reverting the updated references Nahtrav (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I've said to you repeatedly that I'd be ok with adding the Vellore result as a separate table – an option that you actually suggested but have since been ignoring when I've tried to discuss it. Number 57 11:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Even news articles saying 61.468 cr voters voted [1].It not only updated files and released those updated ones but release a world level atlas about GE 2019 and there is the updated numbers not the old numbers

References

  1. ^ "Election Commission of India Releases Atlas on General Elections 2019".
Nahtrav (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Also now future news articles will use updated data only which leads Wikipedia data gets differentiated from others and the data become untrust and questionable, it's better to add that in result table to make a complete look of Updated tableNahtrav (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
But again, this is a release nearly two years after the election. You're still ignoring the option of adding a table specifically for the Vellore result. Number 57 12:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I recently came across this:In 1984 and 1991 case some states have held seperately from general election, ECI also didn't merge the files and kept seperate so Wikipedia too created a separated table, but now as ECI has updated the voters electors withrespect to Aug 2019 (61.48 cr) we also have to update the results table, of ECI shows the DMK, ADMK party vote shares are collectively this, then we have to update it, reducing seats and votes for particular party may initiate a vandalism. EC I showing 543 seats and 61.48 cr voters in its files, and so the article, then Why shouldn't update the table instead of creating a new table and confusing editors and readersNahtrav (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Creating a seperate table creates unnecessary confusion among readers and editors as already article is super long and also election results for seperate single constituency out of 543 constituency in main article seems to be unsuitable, it will also give unnecessary exposure to particular constituency, so it is better to update the general results table and give a small note below it Nahtrav (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. Just because the ECI created a report (two years later) that included Vellore, doesn't mean we have to use that report as the basis for the results table. Number 57 13:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Don't Create Seperate Tables And Confuse The Users Dev Adhi (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I assume the user Dev Adhi's response is to update the existing table itself Nahtrav (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Should the results table include results from delayed elections

Latest comment: 2 years ago21 comments8 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I'm here from WP:RFCL to close this discussion from August. So I'll close with a consensus supporting the proposal, and that the results table should include the results. First of all, Nahtrav went ahead and canvassed Vijethnbharadwaj to the discussion. [5] Vijethnbharadwaj then attempted to canvass 5 more editors to this discussion. [6] That being said, Vijethnbharadwaj's canvassing failed as none of the people that were pinged showed up here. Therefore I'll address the canvassing by excluding Vijethnbharadwaj's !vote from consideration, given that they !voted last and didn't seem to have much of an impact on the discussion.

Aftter excluding the canvassing, we have 4 !votes in support of the proposal and 1 against. While Number 57 phrased their !vote as a "comment", it's pretty clearly meant to be an oppose. Also, while other editors may have edited the page against implementing this proposal, those editors did not comment at this RfC, so I won't be considering their !votes here.
Digging into the !votes themselves, Number 57 raises the point of consistency across the encyclopedia and that other articles on elections do not include results from delayed elections; it being the usual practice to "break out" delayed election results from the main election results by creating a separate table. However, Nahtrav brings up the issue that in the 1984 and the 1991 Indian general elections, the Elections Commission of India was the one "breaking out" the delayed election results by creating different documents. In the 2019 elections, the ECI merged the delayed elections result into an updated report, rather than reporting the new results separately as they did in previous elections. Meanwhile support !voters mainly emphasized the ECI's updated reporting of the election results. Number 57 did not advance a cogent argument for why it's necessary to disregard how an WP:RS describes the official election results in favour of internal consistency on Wikipedia.

Based on the relative strengths of the arguments, it seems to me that the consensus here is in favour of including the results. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


As per the discussion above, there is some debate about whether the results table should include results of the one seat where voting was delayed for three months. Should the results table include results from delayed elections? Number 57 16:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm leaning towards not, given that for previous elections where there were delayed polls (1984 and 1991), we also do not. I'm happy to be corrected, but I think it's also usual practice to record the results on election day and mark any seats with delayed voting as vacant (e.g. 1997 Pakistani general election, 2000–01 Ivorian parliamentary election or 2006 Zambian general election). I also think it's odd that the ECI left it almost two years to provide a revised report including the delayed seat figures. Number 57 16:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, I strongly say yes, 1984 and 1991 case some states have held seperately from general election, ECI also didn't merge the files and kept seperate so Wikipedia too created a separated table, but now as ECI has updated the voters electors withrespect to Aug 2019 (61.48 cr), so 1984 and 1991 case fails here. We also have to update the results table, of ECI shows the DMK, ADMK party vote shares are collectively a different updated one, along with that Even news articles saying 61.468 cr voters voted .It not only updated files and released those updated ones but release a world level atlas about GE 2019 and there is the updated numbers not the old numbers, Creating a seperate table creates unnecessary confusion among readers and editors as already article is super long and also election results for seperate single constituency out of 543 constituency in main article seems to be unsuitable, it will also give unnecessary exposure to particular constituency, so it is better to update the general results table and give a small note below it .
A Example:
ECI has updated GE 2019 loksabha entire file with Vellore results in it
So the results table has to be updated according to ECI recent file, like total electors are 911,950,784 against 910,512,091 .
References: [1][2]
Nahtrav (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comparing 2019 Vellore Election & 1991,1984 And Pakistan Election Is Not Correct
Just Update The New ECI Data
Don't Confuse Users
Seprate Table For 1 Seat Is Waste & Confusing Dev Adhi (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
We don't have to have a separate table for the one seat even if it is omitted from the results table. Number 57 17:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support
I Am Against Creating Seprate Table I Agree With Nahtrav Dev Adhi (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Again, we don't have to have a separate table for the one seat even if it is omitted from the results table. Number 57 17:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
That's why I said just update in the results table according to references, entire problem will be solved, Even this election is conducted by ECI, it's results are published by ECI and files are uploaded by ECI too which is one of the prime sources of article. Even if ECI deletes the old references, then the entire results table become null and invalid. And about your foreign election "usual" claim, you are citing a very old elections with weak references, their election commission may not had updated their files , so they may too left off. But the same source what you referred is updating itself,why are you not allowing the updation of the source. Nahtrav (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC).
  • (Summoned by bot) Support, as it represents the most up-to-date and effective result of the electoral process as a whole. A footnote should be included briefly explaining the delay, and possibly including the totals before the delayed polls. MarioGom (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, per Nahtrav - Idealigic (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Party wise seat won & valid votes polled in each state".
  2. ^ "ECI releases an Atlas on General Elections 2019".

Note to participants

Participants: please stop contacting/pinging multiple users to this discussion, it's way too WP:CANVASS'y. First, Nahtrav contacted Vijethnbharadwaj directly, then Vijethnbharadwaj pinged 5 additional users. Please don't erode the fairness (perceived or otherwise) of the process. Also, Idealigic, a "per User X" !vote (per se.) is the weakest !vote there is. And generally super-lame. El_C 17:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

  • A simple essence of the request: Entire results table is referenced by ECI files (table modified and referenced by the same user who now reverted the updated reference), now the same file gets updated, so it's necessary to update the results table with updated references Nahtrav (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
  • You missed my point, Nahtrav. It's about allowing the discussion to develop organically and living up to the spirit of the WP:CANVASSING guideline. El_C 17:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Nope, I obey the guidelines But what I said is the short of my earlier discussion, but the worrysome thing for me is A user with a simple and updated edit referenced by updated ,new and strong article has to go for several discussion and should prove the point valid but the user whom revert the edit (even the user referenced the same source but old) can just revert without seeing that it is the updated reference seems to worrying the me like users of Wikipedia Nahtrav (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Nahtrav, that response does not inspire confidence, I'm sorry to say. Please do better. El_C 17:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Let me say it simple, results table is referenced by ECI's files, now those files are updated with new records, so I tried to reference it and updated it, but the user reverted it Nahtrav (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Let me say it simple: that is unrelated to my note here. El_C 17:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Only the above said user reverted and objected not any other, so why I am reverted inspite of having references? Everyone accepting that the table needs to be updated Nahtrav (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

change pularity to plurality in the side graphic. fixes spelling change. 49.204.134.170 (talk) 09:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Which image? I'm assuming the typo is in an image because Ctrl+F for "pularity" has no hits. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


Sorry, I meant 'pulrality' should be changed to 'plurality' which is the correct spelling.

  Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 05:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
27.61.121.19 (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Under the Aftermath section , in the International part , a comma is missing between Kyrgyzstan and Latvia.

  Done Thanks! — DaxServer (t · c) 17:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Alliance tables

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@Syrriana you did not provide any reliable source for the alliance table. Every figure need to be properly sourced. @Fowler&fowler I feel that this content once appropriately sourced should be included. The alliance section right now is just an intro. Link to respective pages does not prevent us to cover the alliance situation in this election. Venkat TL (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Citing or not citing is not the issue. It is undue weight and creating content forks, especially with pictures. Please read WP:Content fork. The subject is treated in the links mentioned in the Alliances sections; there are templates, in addition, for each alliance. No encyclopedic purpose served by another table being plonked in the middle of a fairly well-developed article, especially one which has more sophisticated tables. To do this now brings up the inevitable question if it is being done with the past in mind or the future, for the same editor is also heavily involved in editing Next Indian general election with similar tables. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
27.57.10.200 (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Pls allow me to edit

  Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. MadGuy7023 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019_Indian_general_election/Archive_3&oldid=1207414279"