This article 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.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Parties and alliances; Male and female candidates[edit]
Is it necessary to include the percentage of seats contested by males and females? Since there is a column for the number of male and female candidates, I think a separate column for percentage is excessive detailing. I am removing that column for now; please discuss if someone wants to add it back. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 09:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it needed to not include independent candidates of NDA in the respective columns? My point of contention being, as far as independents are concerned, even in the case of LDF and UDF independents, they too are backed by the alliance, although the only difference in NDA's case was the with the rejection of the initial candidates. DogeChungus (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring with regards to tables of address and constituency wise results[edit]
This article is one of the longest on the wiki, with 435,297 bytes, so I propose that we split this article. After looking at the section sizes, we may be able to split this not once, but twice:
The Candidates section is currently 344,087 bytes long, so if we split that into its own page this article will have 92,210.
Furthermore, we could split the List of Contestants for Kerala Legislative Assembly Election 2021 from the separate Candidates page into its own article, as that subsection has 291,753 bytes. That will leave the separate Contestants page with 52,334 bytes.
So here is how the splitting will work:
This article -> List of 2021 Kerala Legislative Assembly Election candidates -> List of Contestants for Kerala Legislative Assembly Election 2021 (the subsection is already called that)
I agree with this proposal, although the person who took the effort of making that huge candidate's list did not specify any source. Highly doubt admins approve that article due to it. DogeChungus (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't agree with this proposal for the reason being its more convenient to have it this way. We can change it a month or so after the results are announced. --Sitaphul (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True, I actually did not think of that. Maybe we can wait a while but if the page gets to like 500,000 bytes then we should definitely do something. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For a state election, hasn't the article become way too long and exessively detailed? I suggest removing the section 'List of Contestants for Kerala Legislative Assembly Election 2021' is it is a repetition of 'List of contestants from major alliances' which has both the alliance and individual party. The only difference is that the names of several independent candidates have been added- something which is not done for any election in India (at least at legislature level) --YoYoRockNRoll (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Make Kerala page similar as other assembly election pages[edit]
For all the other election pages - Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, etc. we have a section in the table for party but not alliance. I can understand why it might be better in Kerala's case to have an alliance section in constituency result pages but I don't think it's needed. Also, like other tables relating to parties, we should not be using the legend template to display party colours. Create a separate column with nothing in it and have it filled with party colours. This is how all election results have been formatted in 2016 elections for Kerala and in other states. C1MM (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
C1MM, not giving the alliance information would not make sense in Kerala's political context. The Nationalist Congress Party is in the Left front, the Communist Marxist Party is in the United Front, etc. I think we should put making this page useful to readers over enforcing uniform standards. - Jose Mathew (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DogeChungus: & @ChandlerMinh:, I replaced the old infobox, which was a complete mess with fields mixed up and no space in between. Please do not edit the structure unless you know what you are doing - it is a pain to fix later on! Please add any information you have to the new version. (Also please do not make edits that break other parts of the article.) Finally, should we keep NDA in the infobox? They got 11-13% of the vote, but did not win any seats. Thoughts? - Jose Mathew (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, article gives significant focus on NDA in other sections, would be fair to indicate that they lost their seat beforehand. DogeChungus (talk) 05:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Block colours and EC Map colours - Alignment[edit]
It is better if the colours used in tables to represent parties are aligned with the colours used in the EC results map. Anish Viswa 10:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:
@TheSandDoctor, "List of contestants from major alliances". I have moved the table of candidates to List of candidates in the 2021 Kerala Legislative Assembly election. There is already a detailed table with runner ups in the result section. Readers can refer that if they want to look up candidates of any constituency. Result is more important. As a result the article is 25% slimmer without any loss of useful content for the reader. I believe the split is no longer needed. Would you agree to remove the split tag from the article now? --Venkat TL (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]