Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics

Help!?

Hi, can someone join me in this discussion to help me figure out what is the status of some of these legislators from the 15th Andhra Pradesh Assembly, especially when they have left the party (initially won) to join the other but haven't officially considered by the Speaker since that would have disqualified them from the party as per the anti-defectipn law. Now while some of the legislators party is reflected in the article, the others isn't. It is quite confusing and I seek your comments. Thank you. 456legendtalk 01:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Endless edit warring on general election infoboxes

Hello. I have all the Indian general election articles on my watchlist, and I see endless edit warring on them, primarily over (a) which parties to include beyond the main two and (b) images of party leaders.

Can I suggest than Indian general elections adopt {{Infobox legislative election}}, which allows all parties to have won seats to be listed and has no images of party leaders, which should end the edit warring? As an example this is what the 1967 election article could look like (although it would need someone to fill in the missing party leaders). Despite listing all 20 parties, it takes up less space than the version with only five parties. It also has the advantage of avoiding using images of party leaders like this, which always looks a bit odd.

It is also possible to split the infobox up into national parties, state parties and other (like this). Cheers, Number 57 14:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Just a a follow-up to this – edit warring over the infoboxes of historic elections seems to have markedly increased in the last few weeks – constant changes of leader photos and removals and additions of certain parties. Does anyone have any objections to this being rolled out across the general election article series? Number 57 20:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

No objections to this suggestion. It seems like a good idea to prevent edit warring. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment I am in favor of this approach only until the results are declared. But once the results are declared, I would like to include only the notable and winning parties in the infobox. As for historical elections, we must enforce the rule: The major contenders should not be removed from infobox after the results are declared even if they get 0 seats, because they "were" the major contenders "during" the election. It would be beneficial to discuss and document who the major contenders were during an election (all the Indian historical general elections), in my opinion. Maybe this could be achieved by setting a realistic standard?

456legendtalk 02:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, there is no "rule" that must be enforced. But more importantly, the whole issue is that no-one can decide what "notable and winning" parties are, hence the endless edit warring over which parties to include. In some cases very small parties are "winners" because they are part of the winning coalition. Keeping the existing infobox format also doesn't end the endless edit warring over leader images. What is your issue with just including all the parties in the infobox? Number 57 11:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

India is a country with huge number of political parties and including all of them in the infobox will only make it very lengthy and might not be suitable for the reader to focus their attention on the election highlights. I don't think hosting information regarding all the parties contesting in the election on the infobox even after the election results declared is feasible. Regarding the criteria on "notable and winning", I am of the opinion that a maximum of 4 parties should be allowed to be on the infobox provided they have secured 3% of vote share with atleast 1 seat in the election. (This is a ideal case that they are treated notable when they are contesting in a election in a state or in the general. There would be a huge probability that they are covered by the reputed and reliable sources.)456legendtalk 17:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian politics/Election: Article structure. We can use Infobox legislative election too. So, don't edit war and remove this from Kerala and Tamil Nadu লাল সেলাম কমরেড (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with just like 2022 Italian general election লাল সেলাম কমরেড (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Opinion poll criteria

A lot of surveys don't mention their margin of error, there could be even surveys without margin of error as they are confident enough about forecasting the exact numbers in the result. If they come from reliable sources and renowned news agencies, I think it still can be added with mentioning N/A for margin of error. For pre-poll surveys, I thing the numbers are the most important things. Any unreliable survey-conducting agency can also publish the datas with mentioning the sample size and margin of error. Hence I think things like margin of error are not must-need-things, the reliability of the publisher should be the criteria. What are the views of you guys about this? Ku423winz1 (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment I see your point, but I tend to disagree. While I agree that the reliability of the publisher is crucial, I believe that including the margin of error is essential even for confident forecasts. This transparency helps readers understand the certainty of the survey results and allows for a more informed interpretation. Also including the sample size is important. Overall, I think both the reliability of the publisher and the inclusion of the margin of error are important factors in assessing the credibility of survey data. 456legendtalk 11:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)