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

Should equal-ranked ballots, abstentions, or other expressions of indifference be included in wikiboxes reporting vote totals? For example, if 20% of people abstain in a vote, should the results be reported as 50% support and 50% opposition, or as 40% support vs. 40% opposition? (vs. 20% abstention, which might not have its own column for space reasons, but can be reconstructed from the other options.) Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that would be appropriate. It can be mentioned in the text where relevant, and should be where there is a requirement to have a certain percentage of registered voters in favour for a proposal to pass. Number 57 20:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

To clarify context, I'm thinking of situations with 3 or more candidates—e.g. A, B, C—and a voter expresses an opinion between A and B but expresses indifference between B and C. For example, on some ranked ballots, voters may mark A > B = C > D. I'm leaning toward yes, because in many voting systems, equal-ranked ballots still affect the results.

(I'm not referring to cases like referenda where, say, 5% of voters don't vote on a question, presumably because they don't care.)

> I don't think that would be appropriate.

As in, excluding would be inappropriate, or including would be? Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you give an example of an election where this would be relevant? Elli (talk | contribs) 20:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

With pairwise counting (Condorcet) methods, highest median voting rules (like graduated majority judgment), and in many variations on the two-round voting system (where a candidate needs a majority of the vote, including votes for none of the above), equal/tied ranks dilute a candidate's margin of victory.

As an example, a candidate who wins a one-on-one matchup by 60-40=20% is considered more decisive than one who wins by 48-32=16%, even though the ratio of winning to losing votes is the same. The second election might force a runoff. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm asking for an actual election article this change would apply to. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

As examples of abstain being included: 2022 Nevada gubernatorial election, and other NV election articles, where NOTA is included. (NOTA votes have no effect on results; they're ignored even if a majority or plurality of votes are NOTA, making them behave like an unusually-labeled abstain option.) This seems to be the case across NV election articles.

The 2011 Irish presidential election is an example of equal-ranked votes being included in counts near the top of the article. OTOH, 2009 Burlington mayoral election excludes these ballots from the count.

I bring this up because in 2024 there's going to be a bunch of elections using systems where "exclude blanks" doesn't make sense (approval voting); it seems likely that this will increase in the future. Hopefully we can find a consensus that resolves this issue ahead of time, so we don't have to deal with accusations of bias as soon as we need to discuss a highly-controversial election. —Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I'd be in favor of adding parameters in referendum templates for "abstentions" as if they're a choice just like yes or no, but only for such referendums that mandated that. Otherwise, invalid votes are listed as per the usual. It's obvious primary sources may distinguish these in certain referendums. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

The article 2024 West Yorkshire mayoral election has one opinion poll which has been noted for being poor quality. Would it be better to remove that poll and have no results, or is a poor poll better than none? Someone's raised this on the article's talk page and I think the opinion of an editor whose spent more time on election articles would be helpful. -- D'n'B-t -- 07:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

(The same polling was also done for Tees Valley). ---- D'n'B-t -- 09:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Did Censuswide retract their poll results? I'm getting a 404 error when I try to access the result tables from their website . Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

That's strange, I the link was working when I raised this and I can't see anything about the results being withdrawn. It was a series of charts rather than raw data though. ---- D'n'B-t -- 07:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Why don't all articles have the same type of table? Would it be smart to implement a template that generates these tables instead, similar to how we have Template:Election results? Why or why not? I am thinking more about the proportional representation system with electoral districts and than show percentage and mandate.

I don't think it would be possible for this new template to be used for a First-past-the-post election system due to the presence of single districts.

Examples

• 1948 South African general election
• 2023 Finnish parliamentary election under "Distribution by electoral district"
• 2000 Finnish presidential election
• 2018 Swedish general election
• 2022 Swedish general election
• 2013 German federal election under "Results by state"
• 1892 United States presidential election in North Dakota under "Results by county"

Johshh (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I noticed an editor added opposition arguments to 2024 Florida Amendment 4. I haven't seen this sort of coverage in other referendum articles and I worry it will lead to these articles being used for actual campaigning, i.e. partisans spamming the article with arguments for or against in order to sway readers. When is including this sort of content OK and when is it crossing the line? Should it have limits or requirements for balanced viewpoints? Nosferattus (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this section. It just says that DeSantis and Moody oppose the referendum and provides a few short quotes. Their opposition was documented in reliable sources. This kind of coverage seems to be common in referendum articles; e.g. 2022 California Proposition 30#Support and opposition. It would be useful to add information about the campaign in favor of Amendment 4, as well as the background behind the referendum. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I looked at at least a dozen other referendum articles and none of them had coverage of support or opposition, so it doesn't seem common. Then again most of them were rather short and didn't have a lot of information beyond the contents of the referendum and the election results. Nosferattus (talk) 05:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The reason this isn't common is because it's generally more effort to find these arguments and present them neutrally -- compared to creating a page with just stats -- but it definitely should be done. Just have to make sure the arguments are well-sourced and not original research (as well as being balanced -- including only pro- or anti- arguments wouldn't be appropriate, provided both exist and have gotten coverage). Elli (talk | contribs) 05:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Is there an existing IRC/Discord/somesuch channel for low-level communication related to the project? Out of curiosity. Juxlos (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons has an official Discord: https://discord.gg/wikipedia

Several Wikiprojects have dedicated channels on the Discord, however they tend to be larger Wikiprojects. That said, if people were determined, they could join the server and request a channel.

I'm already on the server, but tends to just use #English-Wikipedia (which covers all Wikipedia related queries) and #Commons (which covers all of Wikimedia Commons) CeltBrowne (talk) 12:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)