Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums

WikiProject Elections and Referendums (Rated Project-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

1986 California Proposition 65Edit

Hi together, phaps sombady can look for the 4 last qestion at Talk:1986 California Proposition 65 thank you--Calle Cool (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


Seeking some thoughts on whether this is worthy of an article on Unlike in most countries where people have to collect signatures to force a referendum on an issue, in Uruguay people actually vote on whether to have a referendum. However, as not enough people voted, the referendum won't take place. Should we have (a) a new article on the failed vote, (b) a new article on the trans law that mentions the vote, or (c) add a section to LGBT rights in Uruguay. Cheers, Number 57 16:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

(a) I think it's worth an article: it clearly passes WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Appropriateness of the term 'statutory referendum'Edit

Impru20 and myself have been having a dispute over the use of the term 'statutory' with regards to referendums on Statute of Autonomy in Spain. The articles were originally located at (e.g.) 1931 Catalan autonomy referendum. Impru moved them to 1931 Catalan statutory referendum. This led to a discussion about the meaning of 'statutory', which Impru had interpreted as being 'about a statute' as opposed to 'required by statute'. As a compromise the articles were then moved to 1931 Catalan Statute of Autonomy referendum.

However, Impru has now insisted (by way of reverts) on inserting the word 'statutory' in the first sentence of the articles, so they read A statutory referendum on the approval of the Catalan Statute of Autonomy was held... I do not believe this is appropriate as the meaning will not be entirely clear to readers, and suggest 'statutory' should either be replaced with 'binding', or simply removed (for clarity, the referendums were required by law and were binding. I have argued that the latter is more important and worth mentioning in the introduction; Impru argues that 'statutory' covers both).

Comments on the appropriateness of using 'statutory' here would be welcomed. Earlier discussion can be found on both our talk pages. Cheers, Number 57 21:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I think a mountain out of a molehill has been made here. It should be noted that, despite what Number 57 is exposes in his first paragraph, I'm NOT defending the use of "statutory" as "about a statute": this was an issue in a previous discussion yesterday which (I thought) had ended in compromise. "Statutory" is used in the lead because those referendums, beyond binding, were specifically required by law, i.e. their cause was that a specific law required for them to be held (and of course, result in specific thresholds of affirmative votes being gathered) in order for the Statutes to be approved. This is specifically explained (and sourced) in the lead sections next to the A statutory referendum on the approval of the Catalan Statute of Autonomy was held...-bit, so I cannot understand what is the argument for this not being clear. I think it is of much more importance to convey to readers that these referendums were legally mandated by law (because that is their direct cause), rather than being merely "binding" (which a legally required referendum would always be, in any case).
Nonetheless, I think the description that Number 57 makes of me personally is very unfair. Yes, I reverted your edits that "this wording doesn't work as it effectively means 'A legally required referendum...'" by replying that it was "INTENDED to mean "legally required" in this sentence and context", then you went on reverting again (going against WP:BRD along the way) by merely replacing "statutory" with "binding", and only arguing that it [the use of "statutory"] "may not be entirely clear to readers" (despite having been confronted on this and despite the issue having been made very clear already), and that this somehow went against "English that is correct and understandable". Yes, it may be that in your whole history researching to write Wikipedia articles, you "do not recall ever seeing the term 'statutory referendum' used", but this does not change the fact that, in the end, even you yourself acknowledge going against this because of a personal preference on wording. I'm not even intending for "statutory referendum" to be recognized as an expression or anything like that. I've merely used "statutory" as an adjective defining the scope of an event that was held because it was legally required. As simple as that. I think all of this is way excessive. Impru20talk 22:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I did not acknowledge that this is about personal preference, and I explicitly told you that it wasn't when you made the accusation during our earlier discussion. Also, with regards to WP:BRD, these articles did not have the word 'statutory' in them until yesterday (see last version before this started), so it is not me who is breaking the convention by reverting it back in here. Number 57 22:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you have. And about breaking convention for using one word??? Which convention? Again, you are not explaining why "statutory" is not "correct or understandable English" or what is the exact clarity issue with its use. But I don't really care. Change the word if you wish, I'm not getting embroiled in a massive and absurd discussion with personal accusations just because of an user's obsession with a single word. However, I do really hope all of this mess you have created around it, including your personal accusations on me along the entire process, was really worth it. I'm out of this, bye. Impru20talk 04:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
So is this is all you wanted? To force me into submission through personal accusations, edit warring, greatly magnifying the issue and trying to feign some discussion-seeking willness, just to have your derided word removed without even explaining your own motives for it? And all your "convention" and "binding"-attempt of argument... for nothing? You have not even awaited for your mostly asked "third opinion" from other users to conduct your move. You have not even cared to actually reply to the above comment before making your move. All you wanted for was for me to say what I said in the above comment. Sincerely, this whole process has been disgraceful. I sincerely hope no one else puts you through the pressure and menacing behaviour you put me through, just to have a wholly appropiate word removed just because of a personal preference. Surely, I wholly expect I'm not required to have any discussion with you on anything for a long time. Impru20talk 20:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
All I wanted was for the articles in question to avoid being poorly named or using incorrect or unclear language, and I have repeatedly explained that this is the motive. The only personal accusations here are your ones about personal preferences. And the reason I didn't respond to your comment from this morning was that it seemed to have concluded and I didn't see the point in continuing this unpleasantness (I did consider trying to point out that 'the convention' was referring to WP:BRD, but decided it was best to just avoid any further possible confrontation). As such, I certainly agree with your last point. Number 57 21:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
BRD? You mean like the BRD you didn't apply to yourself? Because acussing me of "trying to make a point", referring to me as the one reverting (unlike you, huh?) or opening this same discussion on the premise that my stance on this was that I interpreted "statutory" as "about a statute", when the discussion on such an issue ended when the compromise was reached; from there, it was you making the wrong assumption that I was using "statutory" with such a meaning. Far from acknowledging your error, you went on reverting again under a different premise. The reason didn't matter, it was just a matter of getting that word out for you at any cost. So yes, it is quite unpleasant to find one user organizing such a fanatical melodrama to get one word removed without even caring to explain his motives, while rather trying to win over by assertion, intimidation and lies. Hope it was worth it. As said, I'm out of this. Impru20talk 22:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Next elections notabilityEdit

Need your thoughts on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(events)#How_soon_can_someone_post_about_the_next_election? Thanks. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

External links updateEdit

After discussions spread over the last couple of years, we have finally updated Wikipedia:External links#Links in lists with some new advice about how to format external links in some stand-alone lists. This format is not mandatory, but it may be helpful in some cases. Please feel free to try it out in pages that you think are appropriate, and leave feedback on the guideline's talk page. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Elections and Referendums".