Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation) § Redirects to yearly election lists for visibility

So I have been on the platform for a bit, though I am still learning the ropes to an extent, and I have noticed Template:Party shading/Independent (US) is used on a lot of older or more prominent current election articles. Does this color need to exist on a fundamental level? Especially since a US independent is no different to independents in other countries in any legal, historical, cultural, or electoral way. The color seems arbitrary and is not even used as a basis for colors on maps, which use the internationally-based independent colors instead for holds/gains, or vote % colors. Talthiel (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I completely agree with you on this, I have been going through and editing pages to change it to the generic Independent color. Am I alone in this or are they both just shades of gray? I had someone describe it as gold to me and that surprised me. Nevermore27 (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I suppose it's more of a yellowish-gray, but regardless, the way to go about making this change is to make "Independent (US)" an alias or redirect for "Independent" in the color coding templates. Going through and making this change to every page makes it extremely difficult to make changes in the future. The gray color is confusing and very similar to the "Vacant" and "Hold" color templates used in other US politics pages. It is also inconsistent with coloring used by most US-based publications: the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and Bloomberg use a shade of gold or orange for Independents; CNN, Fox News, and Politico use purple; and the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, and USA Today use green (for "Other"). NBC was the only publication I found that uses gray. The color templates exist for a reason and have been used for years without issue. WMSR (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is also inconsistent with coloring used by most US-based publications: the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and Bloomberg use a shade of gold or orange for Independents; CNN, Fox News, and Politico use purple; and the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, and USA Today use green (for "Other").

This feels like a lot of American exceptionalism, American independent politicians are no different to ones in any other country, and other countries would in theory have the same issue of "confusion," yet do not have differently colored independent templates. The US is the only one and it is a very redundant and pointless color with no basis in legal, cultural, or political history in the US. Talthiel (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also, yellow/gold has been used for 1) tossups (see here and here) and 2) the Libertarian party, so does it really reduce confusion? And if the proposed fix is to use the current color, which is merely a different shade of gray, then what's the point? The idea that American independent politicians must have a separate color code is nonsense. Nevermore27 (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The point is that hue of yellowish-gray that is currently coded to "Independent (US)" is not similar to any other parties that I am aware of, while the shade of gray coded to "Independent" is indeed similar to templates used for other purposes in US politics pages (including Party shading/Hold, Party shading/Loss, Party shading/Vacant, etc.). The nature of the templates used on Wikipedia for US politics necessitates a color other than gray for independent politicians, and we have done so since 2012. Would it solve any issues if the regular "Independent" color was changed to the one currently coded to "Independent (US)"? I can't see why it would be a problem for other countries to use country-specific templates either. I'm honestly confused about what the issue is here — is the current color causing any confusion? If not, why does this need to be addressed or changed at all? WMSR (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Because it is largely redundant, these are colors for parties, as it stands there is no difference between independents across the world and the US, and as such a separate color is unnecessary and should be removed. Talthiel (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

So then, does changing the regular "Independent" color to the one currently coded to "Independent (US)" solve that problem? WMSR (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

No because America is not special, not much different than the rest of the world. It would be absurd to apply a standard erroneously applied to one set of articles, to all the others. It only makes sense that the Independent (US) template should be phased out for the international standard. Talthiel (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is worth noting that Ireland also has its own particular shade for independent politicians ( #DDDDDD ), as do India ( #DB7099 ), Vietnam ( #FF6666 ), and the UK House of Lords ( lightgrey ). This is not a case of American exceptionalism, but simply a matter of what makes the most sense for a certain country's pages. The "international standard" color (currently  #DCDCDC ) is too similar to other templates used in US politics spaces on Wikipedia, which is why it was replaced with  #DDDDBB . I understand your preference for one standard color, but I have repeatedly said why that isn't feasible. Something being "unnecessary" is not justification for removal on Wikipedia. Indeed, all of these colors are technically unnecessary, but exist on this platform because they are helpful to readers. Changing the color to something that means something else in other US politics templates makes it much less helpful. WMSR (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

You have yet to articulate a colorable (no pun intended) reason why having different colors for a different country is somehow "better". You're just pointing out that different colors exist. Which, ok? Though the Ireland and House of Lords examples are functionally identical to the "international standard" so it's a distinction without a difference. As to the "feasibility" question, the fact that something would take a fair amount of work to standardize is not a reason to do nothing. Nevermore27 (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh and I double checked, I am not seeing where you came up with those colors for India and Vietnam, because both the Lok Sabha and National Assembly of Vietnam and previous elections pages for both use #DDDDDD or #DCDCDC for their Independents. Nevermore27 (talk) 03:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Those come from {{Party color|Independent (India)}}, {{Party color|Independent (Vietnam)}}, etc. And I have articulated several times that similar shades of gray are used to indicate hold/gain/vacant/loss in US politics templates. The point of using colors is to aid readers, and if they are too similar to other colors in common use around the same same pages, they do not serve that purpose. All of that said, I don't know if the onus is on me to make a case here, as I'm not the one who made the change. Standardization is not a requirement on Wikipedia, and there are countless country-specific templates in use around the project. I don't see why this should be treated any differently, and I don't understand what is accomplished by such an undertaking. How do readers benefit by seeing gray next to American independent politicians instead of buff? WMSR (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Maybe the case should be made #DB7099 and #FF6666 should not exist either, as again the color has no functional reason to exist, but this is more so about the US's #DDDDBB, and the normal "Independent color" #DCDCDC, is not hard to understand for readers nor does it cause confusion. It is simply solving a problem that does not exist, serving a redundant role which should not exist anymore, which is not used anywhere else in US politics articles. Show me where the color is used for maps, or for gains/holds? Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/USA legend colors#Seat control uses #999999 for holds and #666666 for gains, removing "Independent (US)" would only bring it in line with those pre-existing colors. Talthiel (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

to the "not used anywhere else in US politics articles" I will admit that I have been on a campaign of changing pages away from the #DDDDBB so if you haven't seen it, it might have been due to me. But the fundamental question remains the same: Why should a separate color for Independents from the United States (or any other country) exist? I have not seen a compelling answer. Nevermore27 (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Honestly, the legend should probably switch toward using a color that isn't so similar to "no election", and #DCDCDC is exceedingly similar to the "no election" color on that legend. And the reason you aren't seeing it is indeed likely @Nevermore27's campaign of removing it from every possible page, which has continued even during this discussion. I have also been saying consistently that various shades of gray are used all over Wikipedia, especially on US politics templates, for lots of things that I've already listed, including party shading templates and images representing "no election". Perhaps this would be best addressed by an RfC? WMSR (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Make a RfC, I don't really care, but it doesn't change the fact that  #DCDCDC  (Independent) does sorta look like  #d3d3d3  (No election),but its irrelevant when you realize these two colors would never be used together, and have never been used anywhere together that I have seen. But to cover our bases, ( #DCDCDC ) does not look like  #999999  (Hold) or  #666666  (Gain), which would not be used in the same context either. I don't really know where you are coming from, having compared all the colors, about "Reader confusion" when the color in question is used to denote parties on charts, not on maps, the "no election" color is not used in charts, it is used in maps, which use a different color for independents. @WMSR @Nevermore27, if an RfC is made, I'll look at it tomorrow. Talthiel (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seem to me it would be better to use #DCDCDC for independents lile in most other countries, and just change the no election color.--Aréat (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Here's the thing though, the "no elections" color is not used in the same context or situation as #DCDCDC, so it is kinda a moot point. Talthiel (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Let's switch independent to #DCDCDC, then ! --Aréat (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Talthiel This isn't true. The colors are used together on election maps. WMSR (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why not change all independents to #DDDBB? I still don't understand what the problem is here. WMSR (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Which color is chosen is not super important, the point is there's no reason to have more than one color for independents, period. Why is #DDDDBB better though? You have an unusual attachment to it. Nevermore27 (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

#DDDBB is only used in the US, while almost every other country use some shade of grey akin to #DCDCDC. It make sense to just switch the US, rather than nearly two hundreds countries.--Aréat (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I suppose every country or culture may have different colors for independent candidates, just as with the various liberal and conservative parties. Would you guys consider having separate entries for Independent (U.S.), Independent (South Africa), Independent (Solomon Islands), and so on? Howard the Duck (talk) 07:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is what I've been trying to say. It's not American exceptionalism, it's just that a certain color works better in the US. There is no need for this to be internationally standardized. WMSR (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is this difference one observed in sources, or just a habit of editors? Because if it's the later, there's no real reason to keep it inconsistent, when it's already consistent in almost every other countries. --Aréat (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I could swear independents in Australia use a darker shade of gray here in Wikipedia, at least maps. I saw BBC TV coverage of the UK local elections and independents are denoted by a pink color. This does seem to vary per country. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

What shade of gray is not particularly important. And while news coverage may vary from country to country or even channel to channel within a country, I think it's pretty well understood on Wikipedia that gray means no party, and there's genuinely no reason to stray from that or have multiple colors. There is nothing that makes an American independent politician distinct from a British one or an Indian one or an Australian one, etc. There needs to be a better reason than "I like it", which is all I've seen here. Nevermore27 (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

All due respect, you are the one proposing the change here. While you may like using a standard color internationally, there is no policy requiring standardization across countries, and therefore no policy-based reason for this change. The onus is on you to demonstrate consensus. The Independent (US) color has been in use for 12 years, so it's pretty well understood on Wikipedia that gray means no party doesn't quite pass muster. WMSR (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

besides just appealing to tradition, you really haven't made the case yourself. Talthiel (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

and that "tradition" was created on a whim in the first place Nevermore27 (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Again, I am not proposing a change here. There isn't a case for me to make. WMSR (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling Nevermore27 (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Where is the policy- and guideline-based discussion to be had here? The only objections given here to maintaining a separate color code for Independent (US) have been that "we don't need it" and "it should be standardized." Frankly, both of these sound to me like "I don't like it", and neither is backed by any policy. I have made plenty of substantive points about maintaining: it is more consistent with colors used by US-based media outlets (few if any use gray), it is less similar to other color templates, it is on par with other countries that have separate color codes for independent politicians, and there is simply no policy-based reason for a change. In most countries, red is associated with progressive politics, but in the US, it represents the more conservative party. Should that be standardized too? I'm sorry if this comes off as rude or uncivil, but I truly don't understand why this is such a point of contention in the first place. WMSR (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

1) Wikipedia does not take its cues from "US-based media outlets", 2) the template has only been at its current hex code since January 2022, so there's no longevity argument to make 3) there is nothing that distinguishes an American independent politician from an independent politician from any other country. 4) "other countries that have separate color codes for independent politicians" don't actually use those templates, they use gray. 5) you of course don't agree, which is fine, but "there's no need for any country to have their own hex color for independent politicians" is a policy-based argument.

There is no actual, colorable (again, no pun intended) reason for a separate color except "I want to have a separate color", which is again meaningless because in the end it's just a slightly different shade of gray, which you used as an argument against it "(few if any use gray)"! Google "Hex code DDDDBB" and both color-hex.com and colorhexa.com (the top two results) say that the "web safe" equivalent is...#CCCCCC. i.e., gray. Nevermore27 (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

as someone who makes election maps, "no election" is not similar to the colors used to show indepdendents on a map Talthiel (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Election_Percentages as to whether we use a source's percentages or recalculate them on a different basis when presenting them in infoboxes. NebY (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd actually quite like a manual of style on election percentages/infoboxes, to have a way to kill off all these arguments. "The percentage is wrong" is an annoying source of edit... I don't want to say "war". Edit low-intensity conflict, perhaps.

Most recently this has spread to the question I posed over here, with annoying disagreements on reporting requirements for elections using anything but FPP.

To give a simple example, say an election is held using Minimax. That means that each candidate's score is equal to their worst performance in a one-on-one matchup. e.g. if Charlie loses to Alice 45-50% and to Bob 40-55%, Charlie's score is 40%.

I'd be interested in hearing @Number 57's thoughts on having such a manual of style for elections (assuming such a thing is possible). Because non-FPP electoral systems are fairly niche, I think that particular question can be delegated to the folks over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Voting systems. –Sincerely, A Lime 04:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Talk 00:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

2024 Multnomah County District Attorney election#Endorsements Is it customary in election articles to have a massive name drop naming out businesses, people and organizations who endorse them? I am not too familiar on this subject area, but it seems totally undue and I removed them in Special:Diff/1226817944 but I want to get second opinion on the general feeling on the appropriateness of including list of endorsements like this. Graywalls (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2023 Perth City Council election#Requested move 9 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. So, we have two articles with similar titles, namely Bahati Constituency, which is a constituency in Kenya, and Bahati (constituency), which is a constituency in Zambia.

Are the brackets on the Zambian article enough for a disambiguation? And if they are, what hatnote can we put on either article (maybe we should use not to be confused with)? GeographicAccountant (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

It looks like there are different naming conventions for Kenyan and Zambian constituencies, so it might be enough under WP:SMALLDETAILS. I've added hatnotes to the two articles as an interim measure. Cheers, Number 57 21:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi editors. I have started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox legislative election#Suggested changes to change possible row headers for future election, suggesting an edit that would allow any page using Template:Infobox legislative election for a future election to say "seats at dissolution" or list the number of seats won at the last election when the "ongoing" parameter in the template is set to "yes". --TedEdwards 22:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have been off Wikipedia for a long time now but aware of this situation thanks to Twitter and the hate campaign online against @Number 57 for changing {{Infobox election}}to{{Infobox legislative election}}. Personally, I think that the changes are positive in most cases (multiparty systems), because current system fails to account for parties beyond the major 4-6, thus failing its WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, as it fails to summarise elections, but also includes unnecessary information such as pictures of leaders, which generally doesn't have any effect on election results, and current infoboxes with many entries unwieldly too, so much that it is impossible to view without scrolling vertically (and horizontally in mobile), which is not the case with tabular infobox. Note that the new infobox also has a column for leader's name which might be an important fact depending on country and its electoral culture. So, nothing of value is lost. But, since there is so strong an opposition, do we need to discuss it formally if it hasn't been done already? Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 16:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

TIE and TILE has its own strengths and weaknesses. Not all elections are created equally, and it's good we have multiple options for cases such as this. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree, but it seems that Twitter is hellbent on reverting any and all uses of TILE to TIE, because... it looks good! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes I just noticed this in Talk:2022 Philippine House of Representatives elections when someone must have checked where TILE was being used then saw it. This had used TIE but I had to use TILE since (1) politics in the Philippines is personality-based, in the House elections, campaigning is by district-level, so there are no actual "party leaders" in the US sense when they had Pelosi and Ryan during the last decade; (2) the political parties don't stand for anything, so it doesn't really which party had the most seats; (3) after Duterte his supporters had splintered into different parties, with the best performing party just getting 22% of the vote in 2022; (4) the party-list election sees 50+ parties win seats, with no party winning more than 3 of the 60+ contested seats. How are you displaying that with TIE? Howard the Duck (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think that over the years we have had a (very) loose, nominal consensus on deciding on the use of TILE in a case-by-case basis. This has most successfully happened in some of the cases under specific conditions and with some limitations (UK and Italy I can think of), which is good. However, TIE has been in place over decades and is seen by many people not only as the actual status quo version, but also as an emblem for Election Wikipedia and as a quick and easy summary for elections that most people have found as useful. The way TILE has been implemented over the years in many articles (through imposition by few editors rather than through consensus by most editors or even readers) has greatly contributed to the recent uproar against TILE.

Yeah, TIE may fail to account for parties beyond the major 4-6... but maybe in many elections we don't need to have more than 4-6 parties in the infobox. That would depend on the country's actual political reality. Has a party securing 1 seat the same relevance in illustrating and summarizing an election than the party winning it with 200 seats? Remember: infoboxes are meant to summarize, not to replace. And they are meant to help, not to compete against each other. For the full results you already have a section for that; TILE has worked best there where it fulfills additional purposes other than "hey this shows all the parties, let's go with that". Proven usefulness works better than imposition. TILE also has severe limitations, which have not been seriously considered when replacing long-standing TIE versions in many election articles.

The intrinsic nature of the local political system is a strong factor to consider the use of one or the other (personality-based systems, relevance of parties, electoral system, etc.). TILE may work for Knesset or Dutch elections, but may prove a disaster for UK or Spanish elections; it may work for some periods of time (Italy 2018 onwards, though there is some confusion there as far as I see) or even with some forms of combinations with TIE. Again: meant to help readers, not to compete against each other. Analyzing each problematic situation in a case-by-case basis should be the way to go, under the understanding that not all election articles may have problems nor improvement requirements, and under the assumption that broad consensus-based solutions are the most likely to result in long-lasting, conflictless solutions. Impru20^talk 17:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd agree that it is a case by case basis, country by country, election by election. TIE works if there are at most 4 leading parties. Articles using TIE with 6 or more entries look ugly. TILE can be improved upon in its current state, but people should keep an open mind on this. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

From my experience in Spanish election articles, TIE can work well with up to 9 (though up to 6, i.e. two rows rather than three, should be preferred). Also, don't think of this as if "people should keep an open mind on this", as if TILE was actually required... you know: for years, this mentality by a few users (that somehow TILE was destined to become "the new standard") is what has brought us here in the first place. It is what has brought weird (and perhaps undesirable) results such as 2022 Philippine House of Representatives elections. Don't force it. If there is an actual need for it, it will naturally come through in those cases where it is needed. And as I say, there is room for even using some combinations of both in those cases where such a need is required. Impru20^talk 19:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

3×3 photos using TIE is a lot. We don't do that redudancy on other infoboxes. How many screens would that be? Imagine in the Philippines House of Representatives, you'd have 8 parties that had more than 1% of the vote in the FPTP election, then another infobox for the partylist election with 29 parties that won 1%. Imagine that on TIE. The article previously used TIE, with just the FPTP election, with I guess top 6 parties with make believe leaders that I made up. The partylist election was not in the infobox. That fails in so many metrics lol. The Philippines example is an extreme one though and if you have better ideas, I'm all ears. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am not saying necessarily using 3x3 with TIE. I actually said 3x2 is preferable. Cases using 3x3 are rarer, since countries in which more than 6 parties/blocs can be considered as "major" are not that common. For those cases where this may pose a issue: analyze it case-by-case. Impru20^talk 20:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Even 3×2 is a lot. Does the MOS recommend showing three different photos on one row in such a small space? That's too much info crammed into 300px. Even if we'd ditch portraits, three columns crammed into 300px is a lot it leads to the infobox being wider. You'd think 55 entries is nuts, wait until you see infoboxes actually being wider than the space alloted for prose on some computer monitors. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, that has been commonplace in election Wikipedia for many years and has seen (far) less conflicts and edit warrings than those caused by the imposing of TILE across many articles in the last few years. We don't have "to wait", we are two decades ahead of time to see how each one has worked and has been met by the community as a whole. TILE may be the personal preference of some, but it's still as of currently an unfriendly template that requires improvements (plus, the MOS does not require us to copy-paste the results table as the infobox with over 50 parties, either, yet some people think it's like a good idea). Personal preferences aside, but obviously this should come down to what is best for each country according to their specific circumstances. Many will probably stick to TIE, others may feel TIE is preferable. And this can only be ascertained case-by-case. Impru20^talk 21:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do you actually have a suggestion on how to cram to an infobox an election where 55 parties won but the top 10 parties won just 20% of the seats? Even a 3×3 TIE won't fit the ten. Previously the partylist election was not even added to the infobox.

One of my favorite discussions to read through is on that one Canadian election where people wanted to add a party that won 5% of the vote but no seats on a TIE infobox. There was an RFC and consensus was to exclude but it still remained there for some reason. Apparently if this was TILE that party won't be in the infobox at all as the threshold is 1 seat. TIE works in some areas, TILE works in others but apparently if an election allows more than 10 parties to win several seats you're screwed lol. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Oregon House of Representatives election#Requested move 10 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply