This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
Latest comment: 1 year ago42 comments30 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.
There is consensus in favor of including the leader_since parameter. — Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 13:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Updating close based on concerns raised on my talk page:
It has been brought to my attention that my close was insufficient at summarizing the consensus in the discussion. In essence, the divide between votes can be understood as whether an editor believed the parameter under discussion contained "key" facts that appear in the articles where this parameter should be used (see MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). This belief does not have to extend to every instance where the template is used, as the paramater is an optional aspect of the template, nor did an editor have to explicitly mention relevant PAGs to hold the belief. Because of the aforementioned optionality, I believe the onus lied on the 'no' voters to convince the community that the parameter contains key facts in a negligible proportion of articles such that it fails to satisfy INFOBOXPURPOSE. Based on my reading of the discussion, they were unsuccesful in this and thus there was no consensus to remove the parameter from the infobox template. However, this does not mean that the parameter must or should be used in every instance where the template is used.
Editors are encouraged to include appropriate guidance on when to use the parameter (per MOS:INFOBOX) in the template documentation, i.e. only when the information is also included in the article.— Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 11:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Should {{Infobox election}} have a leader_since parameter (for parliamentary elections) for the date when a party leader took office?
No This is not key information about an election (which I would say is limited to parties, leaders, seats, votes, percentages, swings, seat change, turnout, date and government before/after), and in the vast majority of cases, is contrary to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE as the information is not in the article. In articles where it has been included in the past, the information has rarely been referenced, and is prone to being changed on a regular basis as there is no source to WP:Verify the information. Number57 18:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
No - The less complex the infoboxes of these Westminster style elections? the better. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes – it’s certainly relevant how new a party leader is and there’s no need to have to make the reader scroll down to access that information. Additionally, for leaders whose leadership elections have Wikipedia articles, that “leader since” date has a hyperlink to the article on the leadership election where they were elected, allowing the reader to easily navigate from the article on an election to, the article on where the winner of the election became the leader of their party (such as the 2019 United Kingdom general election infobox linking to 2019 Conservative Party leadership election). In situations where such a hyperlink does exist, the information of the “leader since” data can easily be verified by clicking on that link; in other situations, a citation can easily be added in the body of the main article text as suggested in the above discussion. Chessrat(talk, contributions) 18:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
The issue with your point is that the information is very rarely in the article to scroll down to, which makes it not only a violation of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE in the vast majority of cases, but also problematic from a WP:V perspective. Number57 18:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
YES - It doesn't clutter an infobox, it has been included in the infobox for well over a decade and, in echoing Chessrat, provides a hyperlink to an article on the leadership election which they were elected. It is essential. HAAKO8 (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
It is absolutely not "essential" – that description would probably only cover parties, seats won and government before/after. I would not even say it's in the second category of important context. At best it's a nice to have. Readers do not need this parameter to understand the outcome of the election. Number57 19:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
And that's your opinion, not a fact. Again, I disagree with you completely. HAAKO8 (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
If it is "essential", why has it never been included in so many elections' infoboxes? Take 1975 Thai general election as an example; the infobox has been in the article for a decade, with the main parties, their leaders and seats won, but no-one has ever considered it necessary to add the leader_since parameter. It's clearly not "essential" to the understanding of an election's outcome. Number57 19:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
And guess what, I think they should include it in that infobox. At this rate we might as well just include the Parties and the seats, and scrap everything else from the infobox. HAAKO8 (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes - agreed, even if some don't find great use for it, others will. Providing the strictly necessary for a minority should not be our ceiling. 141.87.213.88 (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes - Echoing comments that have already been made above, the information is in my opinion relevant, does not clutter an infobox, and has existed for well over a decade without any issue. It should be included. Tholden28 (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes For what it's worth, I respect a point made by another editor that the 'leader since' parameter is often original research in things like local elections. I feel less strongly about the inclusion of this parameter than I do the 'leader's seat' one below. Nevertheless, where such information is verifiable, I find its inclusion in the infobox to be interesting and useful. Gopchunk (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Question I suppose on second-thoughts I might be open to agreeing to No as some of the more established editors here say they have constant problems maintaining some order with this parameter on certain articles. Sorry to ask for a retelling but can they explain further? Gopchunk (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
No The purpose of an infobox is to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. Circumstances under which the appointment date of any party leader are a key fact about the election are very rare and do not mean that the appointment dates of every other party leader in question. When they are relevant, they are not self-explanatory. This is the kind of material which is significantly better dealt with in prose. If it's not already being dealt with in prose, it should not be in infobox anyway. This is not material which is typically included in election summaries in reliable sources which otherwise contain the level of detail we encompass in election article infoboxes. Ralbegen (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Because I'm actually curious, do you think including Home State and Running Mate is relevant information in an election infobox? HAAKO8 (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
That's not what this discussion is about. The vast majority of election articles I edit are in the UK, so inappropriate use of leader_since and leader_seat are things I come across rather than home state and running mate. Ralbegen (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Running mate is relevant because there are countries other than the US that have vice presidents elected on the same ticket (for example: Brazil, Indonesia, Kenya, Bulgaria), and even for things like substitute Deputies in France. Home state is really only relevant for US presidential elections, and doesn't really warrant a parameter of its own. Glide08 (talk) 09:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes of course, for the same reasons as Chessrat and others have brought up. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
No: Unneeded clutter; unhelpful except to very few and in very rare cases; not everything needs to be in InfoBoxes. InfoBoxes still are not even required for articles you know. GenQuest"scribble" 22:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes: Oftentimes these come with links to leadership election articles. It is a quick and convenient way to navigate to them without having to read through the text and discover if it is inside the text or not. The benefit of having these links to allow readers to see different articles if it interests them outweighs the potential for unsourced, unliked information to clutter up the box and leave a false impression of the party's leadership. It's an obvious benefit to readers to have those links. I feel that WP:Ignore all rules applies here even if we are debating if it violates MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Wikipedia is a place for people to easily acquire knowledge. the leader_since parameter is harmless, inobtrusive, and helpful to readers. I would be in favour of a rule that requires a link in the leader_since parameter. If a leadership election meets W:Notability, it is a key fact of the election and should be in the wikibox. MsCosmicAsh (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
It also provides context as to how that person became leader of their party. How a person got elected leader isn't necessarily going to be mentioned in every election article, so it's nice to have a link to an article which explains that. Leaders change from election to election. I don't expect the article to explicitly talk about how Thomas Mulcair replaced Layton or Singh replaced Mulcair, but the leader since parameter gives us the opportunity to find out and provide further context for the election article. HAAKO8 (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes: While I consider the leader_since parameter less essential than leaders_seat, I agree with Chessrat and MsCosmicAsh that it serves two important purposes: to provide a quick and easy indication of how long leaders have served, and a convenient way to link to leadership election articles, which can be surprisingly difficult to find elsewhere. Erinthecute (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes This is even more relevant than the seat, as it easily shows if it's a new leader or a longer incumbent. Infoboxes shouldn't include this just because it's a parameter when less relevant, but I don't think it needs to be broadly excluded. Reywas92Talk 02:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, for reasons amply explained above. CapriceFrenata (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes. No need to elaborately repeat what's already been well explained above--these parameters serve valuable purposes for summative presentation of details and for navigation. Karmachameleon69 (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
No The infobox is supposed to summarise key facts that appear throughout the article. In the case of the {{Infobox election}} template, the leader_since parameter should rather be mentioned in the body/lede of the article if this fact appears to be notable enough otherwise, it should be excluded from an article. While this parameter existed, it was (in most cases) unverified in the body or not backed up by a source, which is also a problem. --Vacant0 (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
No, not crucial to the infobox, of varying relevance to each specific election. CMD (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, agreeing with what's been said by other users about usefulness and relevance for showing how long a leader has served, as well as the ability to easily link to a leadership contest. ShoppingCartographer (talk) 06:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
No, matters even less than leader's seat does in practice, and can be a fairly minute piece of detail, likely better served by inclusion in results summary table further down the page, CaelemSG 18:26 2023-01-18 (UTC)
Yes, I agree this is vital information that gives great context and I agree with what the other Yes users had said about relevance and the importance for showing since when a candidate has served as leader of their party and the convenient and informative link to a leadership contest which demonstrates how the individual became leader in the first place. Agree with the already said points that it does provide a quick and easy indication of how long leaders have served, and a convenient way to link to leadership election articles, which are often difficult to find elsewhere.Yeungkahchun (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
No: In most cases it is irrelevant, and in cases where it is relevant, we should "write" it into the prose, like an actual "encyclopedia". If something is so obscure that it doesn't merit inclusion in article prose (which is like 95%+ articles today), it being on infobox is a violation of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X}) 17:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes: I think these provide a helpful context to elections, and I echo what Erinthecute said above: this parameter provides quick and easy links to the leadership election articles, which are otherwise a little difficult to locate. — Kawnhr (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes: Yields important context and as many have pointed out already, provides a nice opportunity to link to the respective leadership contests. ΙℭaℜuΣatthe☼ (talk). 15:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
No as per my comments in the prior discussion, we should follow WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and avoid infobox bloat. In the rare cases where this information is important, it can go in the lead section. Generally, it is not a key part of the election. This is apparent from how little coverage some information generally gets in the article prose. Bondegezou (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes: Per ΙℭaℜuΣatthe☼ (talk). We could really use some leadership contest pages too, such as the 1976-77 Democratic leadership contest between Hubert Humphrey & Robert Byrd. Mycranthebigman of Alaska ^_^ 20:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes. Not as directly important as the leader's seat, but still nice to know for context. Ideally this type of information would be in the article body and/or would link to a leadership contest page where this is cited. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
No. Marginally more relevant than the leader's seat, but still not that important. The infobox is meant to be a summary of the core information about an election - not about a leader. Yes, in some cases it's interesting - it's useful to know that Boris Johnson only took power 5 months before the 2019 election... if so, put it in the lead. In most cases, it's not interesting or relevant. As I said on the other vote - try to find any news organisation that includes this information in its election core facts breakdowns. I don't think you will. TSP (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
It depends; check out my comment in the second RFC below. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm not too sure how it's done, but it should be done. Mycranthebigman of Alaska ^_^ 20:58, 15 February 2023 (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.
RfC on leaders_seat election infobox parameter
Latest comment: 1 year ago42 comments26 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.
There is consensus in favor of including the leaders_seat parameter. — Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 13:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Updating close based on concerns raised on my talk page:
It has been brought to my attention that my close was insufficient at summarizing the consensus in the discussion. In essence, the divide between votes can be understood as whether an editor believed the parameter under discussion contained "key" facts that appear in the articles where this parameter should be used (see MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). This belief does not have to extend to every instance where the template is used, as the paramater is an optional aspect of the template, nor did an editor have to explicitly mention relevant PAGs to hold the belief. Because of the aforementioned optionality, I believe the onus lied on the 'no' voters to convince the community that the parameter contains key facts in a negligible proportion of articles such that it fails to satisfy INFOBOXPURPOSE. Based on my reading of the discussion, they were unsuccesful in this and thus there was no consensus to remove the parameter from the infobox template. However, this does not mean that the parameter must or should be used in every instance where the template is used.
Editors are encouraged to include appropriate guidance on when to use the parameter (per MOS:INFOBOX) in the template documentation, i.e. only when the information is also included in the article.— Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 11:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Should {{Infobox election}} have a leader's_seat parameter (for parliamentary elections) for the seat held by party leaders? Number57 17:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
No This is not key information about an election (which I would say is limited to parties, leaders, seats, votes, percentages, swings, seat change, turnout, date and government before/after), and in the vast majority of cases, is contrary to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE as the information is not in the article. In articles where it has been included in the past, the information has rarely been referenced. Many parliamentary elections do not have individual constituency seats, and the parameter's existence led to it being improperly (IMO) used to add things like "Party-list (#2)" (for Thai elections). While a leader losing their seat is key information about an election, this happens so infrequently that it is not worth including an infobox parameter especially to cover the rare instances that it happens. Number57 18:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
No - The less complex the infoboxes, the better. PS - I think I'm seeing double. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes – it’s key information in Westminster elections in particular, where representatives are considered representatives of their constituencies first (e.g. the British prime minister is also the representative for Richmond and often referenced as such). Any issues with poor sourcing in elections where the information’s truth isn’t obvious can easily be fixed by a reference in the article’s body, as alluded to above. Chessrat(talk, contributions) 18:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I strongly disagree the claim that party leaders "are considered representatives of their constituencies first" in Westminster systems. I had no idea which constituency Sunak represented until you mentioned it. Number57 18:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
YES - Traditionally Prime Ministers, First Ministers, Premiers, etc, are only able to serve in that position because they are also constituency MPs (MLAs, MNAs, etc). If someone isn't aware of the leader's constituency, all the more reason to include it in the infobox for quick access. It plays a major factor if, for example, the seat they are currently serving is the one which they are seeking in that election, or if they were defeated in their attempt to enter or reenter the House. It is convenient to include this information in the infobox. HAAKO8 (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't know how it is with other countries that have the westminster system. But in Canada, the prime minister doesn't have to be a member of the House of Commons & premiers don't have to be members of the legislatures. Although it helps. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, such as Mackenzie King, who lacked a seat and continued to serve as PM for a few months during the 1920s if I'm not mistaken. Christy Clark is another, more recent example. But both went on to immediately seek seats because in order to have any shred of credibility, or the perception of such, one needs a seat. But it is a de facto political necessity. But my argument still stands, having that info in the infobox helps provide context in a convenient manner. HAAKO8 (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
How do you figure that, GoodDay? As an example, Danielle Smith in Alberta it's true didn't have a seat in the Assembly when she became premier, but convention dictates such leaders have to seek a seat at the earliest opportunity, which she did in a by-election. I can't think of a Canadian general election, federal or provincial, where a party leader didn't have a seat or wasn't seeking a seat. Gopchunk (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
And neither of them contested an election as leader, and thus you won't find them in an infobox. Being in the Senate was part of the problem. HAAKO8 (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Merely pointing out, a Canadian prime minister doesn't have to be a member of the House of Commons. They can be a member of the Senate or neither Parliamentary house. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I am breaking my cardinal rule of not getting involved in Wiki debates, but I do feel compelled to make the obvious point that this was over 120 years ago. I am not sure what relevance it has for elections today in Canada. Gopchunk (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Plenty, if any of the party leaders in the next Canadian federal election, aren't holding a seat or seeking a seat in the House of Commons. Yes, it's customary to hold or seek such a seat. But it's not mandatory. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Then it should be stated and clarified in the infobox. It's a single line of information. And the infobox only includes major political parties, all of which have leaders who seek a seat in the HoC. If you're going to start citing the leaders of the Communist Party or the Christian Heritage Party, come on. HAAKO8 (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes - Again, echoing comments that have already been made above, including a leader's seat is relevant - it's important to know whether or not a leader has won their riding - does not clutter an infobox. Beyond that, this information has been included for well over a decade without any issue, and I see no compelling reason why it should be removed. It should be included. Tholden28 (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes I don't intend to make some impassioned argument. My tolerance of Wiki debates is pretty low. I will simply posit my two reasons. 1) I found such information to be useful and interesting in the infobox. 2) As really what we're talking about are parliamentary or legislative elections, and the infobox features the party leader, noting the party leader's seat would seem to me to be of relevance. I am sure others will disagree, but that is simply my honest view. Gopchunk (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
No Party leaders in some jurisdictions tend to need to represent a geographical constituency. That doesn't mean that which geographical constituency they happen to represent is a key fact from the election that merits inclusion in the infobox. More or less the same I said in the above discussion and RfC apply here too. Ralbegen (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes the amount of "clutter" this adds is minimal. Where leaders represent often is relevant to elections and campaigns. Doesn't benefit our readers to remove this. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
NO: Not everything belongs in an InfoBox. GenQuest"scribble" 22:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes The information is helpful to those who will come to an article for quick information. It has the potential to attract people to read the full article, even if it is only a handful of people. A leader's seat (e.g. if they lose it, or if they ran in a place and failed to win the election) is a key fact of the election. Further, it can help drive civic engagement for those who learn of a leader in their seat. Wikipedia is viewed by millions of people, not all who are politically active. Making things easier to access for more people is a good thing, even more so when it's a single line of information. Change for the sake of change is not necessarily a good thing. MsCosmicAsh (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes: Essential for elections in for instance Westminster systems, where holding a seat in parliament is not only constitutionally important but also plays a determining factor in the tenability of leadership. A leader losing their seat almost always means a swift departure from their position, and in the cases where it does not, such as the 2013 British Columbia general election, it can play an absolutely crucial role in determining the outcome of the election. In such cases the information cannot be left out without compromising the ability of the infobox to fulfil its purpose. Erinthecute (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes Perhaps it doesn't need to be in every article just because it's a parameter, but I don't think it needs to be removed as this is relevant information that fits fine in the infobox. Reywas92Talk 02:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, for reasons amply explained above. CapriceFrenata (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes: to echo what's already been said, this is incredibly relevant for reasons of relevance and to provide a quick, summative, and accurate set of details in the infobox. Karmachameleon69 (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
No, the leader is relevant because of their position within the party, not because of their constituency. In election debates and similar, they are presented as the national face of their party, not as a locally-specific representative. The situation where it becomes most relevant, where leaders lose their seat, is the exception, not the norm. CMD (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, agreeing with other users about relevance about the leader's seat, the importance of showing the loss of said seat, and the lack of clutter this field causes. ShoppingCartographer (talk) 07:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, Makes information easier to see at a glance, but ideally should be represented somewhere else in the article with more detail, e.g. party list / results table further down page CaelemSG 18:24, 2023-01-18 UTC
No What I've said in the RfC above also applies to this parameter too. This is not needed in an infobox. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, Yes - are echoing above users’ comments that have already been made above. A leader's seat is important and relevant - it's important to know whether or not a leader has won their own riding. If a leader does not win their riding, that is always a major news headline. It does not at all clutter an infobox. When you needlessly delete too much, it takes away the substance, and you’re left with nothing and virtually no information: no meat and just bones. Context is key, context is needed to give readers full grasp of the context of the situation and the event. This is an an online encyclopedia. Yeungkahchun (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes – echoing above users' comments, even though not all systems warrant its inclusion (for example, in PR systems where leaders stand in large multi-member constituencies which may even be the same for multiple leaders, or in dualistic parliamentary systems where MPs can't be ministers at the same time), there are systems (e.g. the UK, Canada, Australia) where this information is considered important enough to fit into the "at a glance" view. Glide08 (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
No: I don't think this is really necessary. It's essentially trivia; nobody thinks of a party leader as being a local representative first and foremost (to the point that many are parachute candidates, especially in the UK) and it plays no real role in the election — it doesn't trigger their resignation, they simply find a by-election to run in. It's been suggested that this parameter can indicate being unseated, but a) leaders are rarely unseated, so it's not doing anything most the time; and b) being such an unusual event, it will absolutely be in all election coverage, and can (and should) be addressed in prose to begin with. — Kawnhr (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Comment It's been two weeks since there were last comments on either of these RfCs, and while there's differences in opinion it seems like a consensus certainly won't be reached in favour of the removal of the parameters, so would it be time to close the RfCs soon? Chessrat(talk, contributions) 12:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
You can request a close at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Certainly numerically there is not a consensus to remove it, but closures are based on strength of arguments, particularly alignment with guidelines and policies.
If there is not a consensus to remove it, I hope we can at least agree that the parameter should only be used where the information is actually in the article (so not violating MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). Number57 13:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Will do so in a week's time if there are no more comments and it hasn't been closed already (as it appears that me making that last message brought in a new comment today). And yes, I think it would be a perfectly reasonable rule to say that the information should only be included in the infobox itself if it is mentioned and cited within the rest of the article, so we're in agreement there. Chessrat(talk, contributions) 15:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
No as per my comments in the prior discussion, we should follow WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and avoid infobox bloat. I have edited many election articles and can never remember this information being covered in the main article text, ergo it shouldn't be in the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes - echoing above users' comments. ~ Mycranthebigman of Alaska ^_^ 20:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes. Useful additional information to quickly gauge a party's performance in an election if a leader has lost or won their seat. It does not take up too much space and has been used without issue for a very long time. Furthermore, I'm not particularly concerned about WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE violations. If a leader loses their seat, it should be mentioned in the article, but presumably any election article which involves individual seats will have a seat-by-seat breakdown either in the article or in a sub-page. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
No - in practice, not that relevant or useful. The article is about an election, not about a party leader, and infoboxes have far too much space devoted to details about leaders. Yes, in some cases it might be notable - so put it in the lead. In the vast majority of cases, it isn't - in practice, party leaders work full time for the party and have little to do with their seats. Go and try to find one news organisation that always puts the party leader's seat in its election reporting breakdowns. You won't find one, because it's not that relevant. TSP (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
This depends, and should be decided per country or even chamber, with status quo being preferred. In some countries, what is important is which district/constituency the leader came from, sometimes, it's both the district and when that person started as leader, sometimes none of this is notable, or even none of it applies; sometimes this even depends on the electoral system per chamber. For example, in the U.S., and I guess most presidential systems where legislators are elected per district/place, where it came from is noted by WP:RS, but not when he became leader. In parliamentary systems, when someone became leader looks to be important, with the district's importance depending if the chamber has been electing members solely per district for decades, or even centuries (e.g. UK). Generally, leaders under the parliamentary system are more important than legislative leaders in the presidential system, so I suppose both district and start date are important in parliamentary leaders, but again, this varies per country and even per chamber. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2023 (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.
Proposal to reinstate “leader’s seat” and “leader since” parameters
Latest comment: 1 year ago39 comments14 people in discussion
I’ve noticed that this information was removed from the election infobox template. I would propose the reinstatement of that information because-
In some elections, the seat is clearly relevant information, for example, in the British parliament, party leaders are considered representatives of their constituency first and foremost. The length of time a party leader has been in power is also relevant, for instance in summarizing whether the PM/opposition leader is well established or just a new leader.
Previous discussion suggested that the information was an WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE violation, but the information is actually generally detailed further down in the article (see, for example, 2019 United Kingdom general election. There may well be elections in which the information is less useful but in such cases it can simply be removed from the individual election pages rather than from the entire infobox template.
Finally, of course, the information had been included for many years with no issue, and there was no major need for removal (the infoboxes never looked excessively clunky).
I’m starting this discussion because me (and many other users) might not have noticed the previous discussion until its results were implemented and the changes became clear, so I’m unconvinced there would actually be a wider consensus for the recent changes. Chessrat(talk, contributions) 12:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Wasn't there a discussion held on this weeks ago, the result being to delete? GoodDay (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree. This information was pretty useful overall, and offered a more whole summary of the article. Knowing the leader's seat and how long they've been leader are key facts for some elections (for example, it is extremely helpful to know that Prime Minister Kim Campbell lost her seat in the 1993 Canadian federal election, which we don't find out until three-fourths down the article text.) Likewise, in the very example you've highlighted, it would be helpful to know at a glance that Prime Minister Boris Johnson was only leader for a handful of months before the 2019 United Kingdom general election. This information should be considered on a case-by-case basis, not a broad stroke that deletes it all at once. While brevity is the goal, someone glancing at the wikiboxes of these articles are now taking away less information than before with a less complete picture, which would be against WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. MsCosmicAsh (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, there was a discussion recently. With regards to Chessrat's claim that the information "can simply be removed from the individual election pages" where it is a MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE violation (which will be at least 95% of articles from my experience), unfortunately it doesn't work like that. I've removed it from multiple articles over the years, and regularly see it being added back in – if the parameters exist, editors will try and fill them in.
With regards to the "it is extremely helpful to know that Prime Minister Kim Campbell lost her seat in the 1993 Canadian federal election" point – this was addressed in the discussion, with the point being made that it should be mentioned in the article's introduction if it is an important detail. Number57 13:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Surely if there’s conflict between editors over whether to include information, there should be a talk page discussion over whether to include it in that particular article, rather than a blanket presumption that the information isn’t useful? Besides, it’s better to include some information that might not be especially needed than to blanket exclude information that is relevant. Chessrat(talk, contributions) 15:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
It's not practical to have to have hundreds of talk page discussions to determine on a case-by-case basis whether the information is appropriate, especially with the level of unsourced information that is usually added to these fields. And I couldn't disagree more with your last statement. As MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says, "The less information [an infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". Number57 15:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
If "The less information [an infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose", would a completely empty infobox not therefore be the most effective? Of course not! There's a level at which, the less information an infobox contains, the less effectively it serves that purpose. And I believe that, without these two fields, infoboxes will be less useful to somebody who, as Chessrat suggests, wants to see at a glance how established party leaders are, or wants a link to their constituencies' pages to see how close or safe they typically are. CapriceFrenata (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Reductio ad absurdum is rarely a good argument... And I'm quite literally quoting a guideline. Leaders' seats and their tenure are not 'key' information about an election. Number57 16:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
If there is no need to have the "leader's seat" and "leader since" parameters since they're already included in the text, why not simply remove everything else that's already found in the text, such as party leaders, vote shares, and seat totals? If the goal is to eliminate redundancy, simply abolish the infobox entirely. /s
That aside, why remove the "leader's seat", something which is actively relevant in election coverage, and keep, say, home states in presidential elections, which are significantly less relevant to the actual elections themselves? (Please do not misconstrue this as actually advocating for the removal of the "home state" row; I simply wish to point this out.)
I do think, regardless, that the discussion from the 2nd and 3rd completely fails to establish a consensus -- it should not take three or four people to make a change that affects hundreds of pages, especially when more than three or four people oppose this. CapriceFrenata (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I think you've got it the wrong way round; the point was that they are not usually included in the text, hence failing MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Number57 16:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm adding my ten cents that I found the information in the infobox to be quite useful and I wish for the parameters to be reinstated. I have nothing further to add. Gopchunk (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Delete the parameters. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
The previous discussions which saw the parameters moved were correct. Even where these details might contain information included in the article—which is infrequent—it's trivial compared to other details with infobox fields. Even in the cases that people are citing as valuable information, it does not stand without context in the same way as other parameters. If a candidate had only been a leader for a few months, and that's a fact established by due weight in the body of the article as a core part of the election, a sentence covering that in the lead is much more valuable than giving the tenure start dates of every party leader in the infobox. The same thing for when a party leader lost their seat. In cases where these facts were noteworthy enough to supposedly justify infobox inclusion, the valuable material should already be prominent in the lead and body of the article, and so removing the parameters is only reducing the prominence of extraneous information and making the infobox briefer, easier to follow, and more compliant with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The fields should not be reinstated. Ralbegen (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
There is debate to be had about the exact usefulness of certain parameters on a case by base or place by place basis, but a blanket deletion is not the solution. The leader's seat parameter is quite important for elections under systems such as Westminster where sitting in parliament is typically necessary to hold a leadership position. In those cases, a leader winning or losing their seat is significant. There are also cases such as the 2013 British Columbia general election where it becomes very important - in that case, the Premier lost her own riding and was forced to enter the Legislative Assembly via a by-election to keep her position. That piece of information, crucial to determining the outcome of the election re: the resulting Premier, is now missing from the infobox due to the deletion of the leader's seat parameter. I would encourage those who oppose the inclusion of these parameters to seek consensus for removal from the pages and series they take issue with, even on a mass scale, rather than brute-forcing the issue by deleting them site-wide without considering the full ramifications. This is what I did when removing the leader's seat and leader since parameters from German election pages. I also want to note the very limited amount of discussion that took place before these parameters were deleted; I don't think support from two people and the proposer is sufficient for such a change to a template used on tens of thousands of pages covering a diverse range of content. Erinthecute (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
The number of elections where the leader's seat is "very important" is a tiny proportion (I would hazard a guess that it is fractions of one percent). We should not have infobox parameters that are relevant so infrequently. As has been pointed out a few times above, if the leader losing their seat is important, it should be mentioned prominently in the introduction. The infobox is not necessarily the place to convey that fact.
As these parameters are relevant so infrequently, it is a waste of editors' time to have to start talk page discussions, or have to point out the discussions every time IPs/newbie editors try and add them in (if the parameters exist). Number57 22:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
The crux of the argument seems to be "this is not necessary in most cases, so it should be deleted". I agree with the first part, but not the second. As noted elsewhere, the idea that the information can simply be put in the lead section could be applied to anything. It's not in itself a good argument in this case. I think it could be much better-applied to different parameters that have not been touched, such as home_state and states_carried which are featured prominently in, for instance, US presidential elections, despite being nothing more than meaningless trivia. Leader's seat is important information in a substantial number of cases, and highly important in a few cases, and I think that justifies its retention. As for the complaint about time and effort necessary to discuss this on various pages, I'm sorry, but that's just the burden of consensus-building. Erinthecute (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
It's not just about time spent discussing, it's about having to check and verify information that is regularly added to articles or changed without any sources. Perhaps because I have several thousand election articles on my watchlist I see this more than most, but the starting point of suggesting these removals was seeing constant changes to the "leader_since" parameters on elections in a few countries, almost always by IPs. And, from the same viewpoint, I strongly disagree that the leader's seat is useful in a substantial number of cases. I've written thousands of articles on elections and I would say there are less than ten where I can recall the leader's seat being key information. I would summarise the key information from an election (information which needs to be provided to summarise the election) as: Number of seats won, seat change, and head of government before and after the election, and secondary information of importance (being important context to the outcome) being party leaders, votes/percentages, swing and turnout. The two parameters we are discussing come nowhere near being important enough to include IMO. Number57 23:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
The argument that material is better included in the lead when relevant could not be applied to anything. The 1979 United Kingdom general election article's lead notes that Thatcher became the UK's (and Europe's) first elected female head of government. There are in fact many elections—far more than in which the leader's seat is at all relevant—in which leaders' genders are relevant. But that doesn't mean that the best way to incorporate that material in articles is to add a leader_gender infobox parameter. The same applies to lots and lots of facts about elections which are very occasionally relevant, like how long a party has existed or what ethnicity the leaders are. The best way to handle them, like leader's seats and tenure, is through prose when they are relevant. Ralbegen (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
The gender of the leader is usually clear from the leader’s image and name, so I hardly think this is a relevant comparison. Ethnic group is broadly the same, and new parties can be seen by the fact the “Last election” parameter tends to just say New party in such cases. So none of those examples you mention would be of much use to add. On the other hand, for example, in first-past-the-post parliamentary systems, a party leader is considered the representative for their constituency foremost and it isn’t convenient or necessary to expect the reader to scroll down through a large amount of prose to find wherever said seat is mentioned. Chessrat(talk, contributions) 00:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I think you missed the point – which was Thatcher being the first female PM, which you cannot tell from the name or photo. And as someone that lives in a country with FPTP system, it really isn't the case that party leaders are "foremost" considered a constituency representative – for example, I have no idea which constituency Rishi Sunak represents (because it's not really important in the scheme of things). Number57 02:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
It seems as though the original consensus that was reached on this issue was done so only with three or four users present in the December/Early January discussion with regards to removing Leaders Seat and Leader since parameters. As more users have become aware of the issue since the change, and the consensus on the issue has changed, perhaps this should be brought to the Arbitration Committee to resolve. Whether either side likes it or not, there is disagreement on the issue. HAAKO8 (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Arbcom doesn't deal with content disputes, only editor(s) behaviour. What might be done? Open a RFC on the topic. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. I don't think it'll be settled in this manner. HAAKO8 (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I wasn't involved in the prior discussion. I agree with Number 57, Ralbegen and others. It is exceedingly rare that this information is of supreme importance. We should follow WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and avoid infobox bloat. In the rare cases where this information is important, it can go in the lead section. Bondegezou (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
My opinion hasn't changed since the previous discussion and I still think that this parameter should not be included in the infobox. Therefore, I'm against adding it back. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I also wasn't involved in the previous discussion. I'm in favour of adding them back - both were useful and often relevant, and the in my opinion the infoboxes never looked cluttered. They're both worth including. Tholden28 (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm also in favor of adding them back. They add relevant information, and I disagree with the notion that it clutters the infobox. At this rate we'll be removing Running Mate and Home state parameters simply because "it'll be found in the Article Summary". HAAKO8 (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Comment – one thing that I've noticed from this discussion is the difference of opinion between more and less active editors (which was apparent because all but one of the opposers have never commented at WT:E&R before), with more active editors generally in favour of removal. Is this because the less active editors don't tend to see the problems these parameters cause on their watchlists on a daily basis? Number57 17:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
So because we're less active, our opinions matter less? Being less active has no bearing on our understanding of the issue (Calling it a problem is a bit of a stretch, but you do you). HAAKO8 (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
My point was that because I edit daily and have so many election articles on my watchlist, I saw a significant amount of disruption being caused by these parameters, hence originally proposing their removal. I am not saying that your opinion matters less, but that not having edited in the last three and a half years, you're unlikely to have the same experience of what goes on. Number57 17:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
The purpose of Wikipedia is not to ease the convenience of a small number of very active editors in cleaning up information, though. It’s to provide information to readers. If there’s a widespread problem of editors introducing incorrect information to articles, the answer is not to inconvenience readers by making all such information harder to find. Rather, the solution to high vandalism rates is and has always been page protection. Chessrat(talk, contributions) 17:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Protection is not a solution. And again, this information is rarely in the articles, particularly the leader since parameter, which makes it highly problematic from a WP:V perspective as well.
Perhaps if there is not a consensus to remove, a compromise would be to reinstate the parameters, but to make an explicit rule that they can only be used when the information is in the article and sourced? Number57 17:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm certainly agreeable to that. HAAKO8 (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
RFC route
Number 57 & Chessrat, recommend you both jointly open an RFC on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Sure, opened below. I've tried to word it neutrally (rather than use words like "remove"/"reinstate". However, should the discussions end in no consensus, the result would be to revert to the status quo and add them back in. Number57 17:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
A note: Food for thought --or-- What is this really about? There are two RFCs ongoing so I am placing some comments here. The main concern I have is mentions of no infobox content sourcing or no mention in the body of the article of something placed in the infobox. Neither of these RFCs will solve issues not addressed or left unresolved.
MOS:INFOBOXUSE: The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article.
MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. There are some exceptions listed ("ISO 639 codes in {{Infobox language}} and most of the parameters in Chembox") as well as a few other things, BUT;
If material is placed in the infobox that is not mentioned in the body it should be a known exception. If not entered under an exception it is subjected to challenge thus removal. The same would apply to any material used in the body with no source and summarized in the infobox. Contested material that has been deleted doesn't qualify for BRD as removal would be maintenance. The onus would be on someone wanting inclusion per BURDEN.
Unless a known exception, information should not be placed in the infobox (sourced or not) that is not found in the body of the article. It's quite simple needing zero wikilawyering, to summarize (and not supplant).
An undeniable argument for keep: "has existed for well over a decade without any issue." This should be a consideration of utmost importance. 10 years with no problems means the parameters should not have been monkeyed with ---without consensus first.
Conclusion: I don't know the end result but there is a "yes" consensus developing on both. If allowed, future battles may be over content sourcing and likely instances of infobox use when not summarizing sourced content found in the body of the article. It would seem these would be things to try to solve in advance. I am sure someone will let me know if I missed something. -- Otr500 (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Support: necessary for parliamentary elections, especially in Australia. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 10:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
@Number 57: The Template:Infobox election template is fully protected so requires an administrator to edit it– would you be able to reinstate the leader_since and leaders_seat parameters to it per the RfC closure result please? Thanks, Chessrat(talk, contributions) 13:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Done, and I have also updated the documentation to say these parameters should only be used when the information appears in the article. Bad news for my watchlist though... Number57 14:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Discussion about font size reduction in election box templates
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Please note that Voting, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBottalk 00:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team
Bar charts
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I occasionally find bar charts below election results table (like the one in 1956_Dutch_general_election). I have generally removed these whenever I've come across them as I don't see the point, but I occasionally see editors adding them back to whole series of articles after they've been removed. There was a very short discussion a few years ago, in which there didn't seem to be anyone in favour of keeping them, so I wondered if we could get a definitive consensus to get rid of them? I just don't understand the point. Cheers, Number57 13:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I think the 1956 article does illustrate a common problem. In a fairly short article, it presents the results in tables twice, plus a geographical map of the results, plus the semicircle visualisation of seats won, plus finally the bar chart. This is massive overkill. What the article lacks is prose explaining and discussing the election. I would delete the bar chart and move the map from the overly large infobox to lower down. That all said, I’m not against the concept of bar charts. They can have a role in some cases, but I would urge a focus on prose and a reduction in redundant visualisations. Bondegezou (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
In this case I am in total agreement, since it is just an obvious repetition of information that is already being presented beforehand. If it were a bar chart on the seat share or some other crucial information, I would likely advocate for keeping it. ΙℭaℜuΣatthe☼ (talk). 15:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Meaning of legends for county/other results maps
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Now, say a given unit (such as a county) had the Democratic Party candidate receive exactly 80% of the vote. Which way would the county be colored? Would it use the "70–80%" color? Or the "80–90%" color? The fact that the ultimate color is labeled >90% and not ≥90% might imply the former, but if so, we should be saying as much. This method of using ranges with dashes instead of > or ≥ signs may be well-intentioned, but I'm not sure it's actually a great way to go about it. Master of Time (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Agree that this is not really consistent or clear here. I would tend towards using the higher scheme (if a candidate gets exactly 60% of the vote, then we use the 60–70% color). However, can see valid arguments against as well. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
I would depict 80.0% as 80-90%. Reason being that all those numbers have the same leading digit. Gust Justice (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
This is unrelated, but the legend is missing a colour for 0–10% to match the 90%+ colour. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
@Kawnhr: it is so extremely rare for a candidate to win a county/precinct/etc with under 10% of the vote that making a discernible color for that case isn't worth it (since it forces the rest of the scheme to be over a narrower range of colors). Elli (talk | contribs) 23:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Switchers vs. Map2 for Election Precinct Maps.
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
There has been a large amount of edit warring occurring on statewide pages for the 2020 election with regards to how to display secondary maps to represent the geographic distribution of votes in a state, be these precinct maps or congressional district maps. I believe that these maps should use switchers to allow readers to switch between the levels by clicking a button, but some users have been insisting that they be displayed completely separately as a Map2, showing up underneath the county map with their own captions. I believe that doing this unnecessarily bloats the page and makes it harder to quickly compare the precinct and county maps. If two maps show the same information (i.e. the geographic distribution of votes at different levels), then I believe that they should use switchers. If two maps show related but different information (i.e. seats gained vs. vote share by district), then I believe that it is reasonable to keep the maps separate. I wish to reach out to the community, however, to reach a firm consensus before taking unilateral action. Please leave your thoughts below. OutlawRun (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Agree with switchers. Map2 makes the infoboxes too big. Either use switchers, or for maps that shouldn't be in the infobox, put them lower in the article. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Image size in multi-party election infobox
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments5 people in discussion
Hello there
A reoccurring issue has been cropping up between myself and User:Number 57. Number 57 has reverted me several times recently over several articles, the vast majority of the time insisting the size of images in election infoboxes must be 130x because the previous versions of the article had image_size to 130x. When we discussed the matter on my talkpage (User talk:CeltBrowne#Cropping), Number 57 said there is no guideline or community consensus stating that images should be 130x, and that 130x is simply what was previously set, but regardless, the images must remain 130x for simply that reason. Conversely, Number 57 said if the previous image_size was was 160x, then the CSS cropped version should be 160x.
I don't think that's rational or consistent. It can hardly be the case that we're playing "first user to edit image_size gets to dictate image_size forever". Wouldn't a consensus formed here on WikiProject Elections and Referendums be more sensible?
I think a county's election infoboxes should be the same image size all way through. For example, currently 2021 German federal election is 160x120, while 2017 German federal election is 130x. In my view, It should be one or the other for every German federal election infobox. Going through the chronology of a country' election, in my view, a user should be seeing roughly the same sized infobox throughout. I'm happy for the size of the images to reflect what the consensus of WikiProject Elections and Referendums is; ultimately I'm more concerned with consistency between infobox than the exact size of the images. That said, Number 57 has made it clear in other comments they do not believe infoboxes should ever have images at all, and therefore seems to always argue in favour of the smallest size possible if conceding to allowing images. I don't agree with that absolute minimum approach, in my view between 140x and 160px is a reasonable size for images in multiple party election infoboxes. As it happens, 160x is what's used on recent British, Canadian, German, Swedish, and Irish elections, without much controversy.
WikiProject Elections and Referendums, For multi-party election infoboxes that DO use images, What size typically should the images be; 160x120? 150x113? 130x98?
For infoboxes with two images, stick to the default 150x (which is set in the infobox code). For infoboxes with three images, I prefer to reduce it to 130x to avoid making the infoboxes too wide. Anything over the default 150x is inappropriate IMO. Also somewhat disappointed to find my earlier comments misrepresented in several ways; for example I did not say "infoboxes should ever have images at all". I said parliamentary election infoboxes should not have images (as it is inappropriate to give more visual weight to a party leader than the party), but images are appropriate for presidential/mayoral elections where people are voting directly for the individuals pictured. Number57 20:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
In Westminster systems it is entirely reasonable to give that much weight to a party leader Newystats (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
I usually make sure the infobox is 300px wide or less. So that's 100px or less for 3 columns of photos. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
With regards to this particular dispute, 160x looks much more visually pleasing and does not make the relevant infoboxes too wide. Agree that it's best to have a standard (as well as to have a standard on what dimensions images in infoboxes should be). Elli (talk | contribs) 00:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Partisan affiliation in non-partisan elections
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments6 people in discussion
Should a candidate's partisan affiliation be mentioned in an article if the election itself is non-partisan?--User:Namiba 18:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
If everyone is an independent, then I don't think it needs mentioning (although it could just be said somewhere that all candidates were independents). Number57 19:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
None of the candidates are party nominees so, in terms of the election, there are no parties.--User:Namiba 22:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
What do reliable sources do? If reliable sources mention a candidate's partisan affiliation, so should we. If they don't, then clearly we can't. Bondegezou (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I know there are those who will disagree with me, but personally, I generally I would prefer de facto to be represented rather than de jure. If a politician is an active member of a political party, and the election is for a political office, then functioning they are securing that office for their political party. This is even more so the case when there are multiple candidates who are members of political parties running in the election. To truly be a "non-partisan", you cannot simultaneously be an active member of a political party.CeltBrowne (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Depends If we are talking about an info box - no. If we are talking about the mini biographies of the candidates on an election page, if it is verified, certainly that is appropriate, especially if they are endorsed or supported by a party. That said, in some US states, there is no party registration, so we would need to be careful in how party affiliation is described. --Enos733 (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Stupid maps in US election articles
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion
SEE ABOVE SECTION
Basically just a duplicate of what is already being discussed above. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X}) 09:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At this point these stupid maps are a meme on Twitter and I really don't find anything of knowledge value being added by uploading them on Wikipedia. For those active over at Commons, they should question the knowledge value of these maps. Commons isn't an indefinite web hosting site for shit posters. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X}) 08:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
See the above section for more discussion on this. Bondegezou (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
@Bondegezou: Thanks, I was way too quick to comment here without taking a look at my watchlist first, which I just did. Sorry, for splitting discussion. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X}) 09:35, 12 April 2023 (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.
Next Japanese general election - opinion polls
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
User(s) have clearly conflated convention votes and closed door deal making with actual primaries in overhauling the articles for early presidential primaries. As a result, they have created articles that need to be reconstructed to separate actual primaries from closed-door state party conventions and other ways that were used instead of primaries and open caucuses to determine votes.
Elections on primaries are supposed to be about, well, primaries.
Swing, trend and flip maps for US states in own infobox?
Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments4 people in discussion
Recently I have been adding maps of county flips to US Presidential Election state pages (I have added them to every 2012-2020 Presidential election page for a state in which a county flipped during that year), and another user suggested I also add swing and/or trend maps by county to the pages as well. My question is should I put those and the flip maps in their own infobox with a switcher to save space? I've been putting these maps in the Results section below the county tables, where there is already a list of flipped counties, and the infoboxes would be located there as well. NinetyDegreeZ (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm imagining something like this, with the title on top and maps with a switcher below. NinetyDegreeZ (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
@NinetyDegreeZ: I think I am not in a position to comment on this yet until this above discussion comes to a conclusion. Feel free chime in if you would like. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X}) 07:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Since that conversation hasn't had anything added to it since Wednesday, I'd say it has pretty much concluded. Since my maps are by county I don't think there's any good reason to remove them (the one on 2020 Pennsylvania was the most recent edit to not get reverted post-vandalism), the only thing I think this infobox might violate is the infobox purpose rules, but I'll need to read them in full to see exactly why. NinetyDegreeZ (talk) 11:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Actually now I'm unsure about creating a new infobox template, even one this small, since this doesn't really fit the usual election template (it's kind of similar to the legislative election infobox but for individual races). Now I'm probably just going to put the swing and trend maps alongside the flip map with a switcher. I don't think that clashes with what anyone has said above. NinetyDegreeZ (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
This would clutter the infobox; adding things to infoboxes has always been contentious on Wikipedia. I'd recommend against this. Iseult Δx parlez moi 15:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
First off I had meant adding a completely new infobox to the results section, secondly I don't think anymore that the "info" part of the infobox is really necessary, I can just make it an image with a switcher. NinetyDegreeZ (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Oh no, not MORE infobox shennanigans Alexcs114 (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
