|
|archive = Template talk:Infobox election/Archive %(counter)d
}}
== RFC: Should elections include equal-ranked ballots in calculating vote shares? ==
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 05:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1713157278}}
Should elections include equal-ranked and truncated ballots when calculating vote shares? For example, should ballots marked A = B > C be included in calculating the vote share for A against B?
*'''Support''' - Yes
*'''Oppose''' - No
[[User:Closed Limelike Curves|Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 04:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support.''' The convention in the [[Social choice theory|social choice]] literature on this topic is very clear: equal-ranked ballots need to be included, because they can affect the outcome of the election. This is particularly important for [[Pairwise counting|paired counting methods]], because equal-ranking indicates indifference (which dilutes the margin of victory). Even for systems where equal-ranking two candidates does not affect the results, users should know what share of ballots were exhausted or ranked several candidates as tied. It is easy to calculate what the results of the election would have been if equal ranks were excluded, but not vice-versa. [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 04:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose for now''' on the basis that you've not explained adequately what you are seeking to do. I've read your comments at [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums#Including_expressions_of_indifference_in_percentages|WT:E&R]] several times and I am still none the wiser to what the issue is here. [[User:Number 57|<span style="color: orange;">Number</span>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<span style="color: green;">5</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<span style="color: blue;">7</span>]] 19:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
*:I'm trying to find consensus on a consistent standard for reporting [[Ranked voting|ranked-choice voting]] results.
*:As an example, let's take the article on the [[2011 Irish presidential election]]. The infobox says the "final round result" was 56.8% of the vote for Michael Higgins, against 35.5% of the vote for Sean Gallagher. These don't add up to 100%, because some voters have ballots that look like this:
*:# Mitchell
*:# McGuiness
*:# All other candidates (equal)
*:"Any other candidate" votes make up the last 8%. The question is whether an infobox reporting "final round results" should include "all other candidates," or whether these votes should be excluded.
*:Currently, there is no standard, and infoboxes are inconsistent across articles. For example, [[2009 Burlington mayoral election]] uses the opposite convention. "All other candidates" are 6.7% of votes, but these are discarded to report the margin as 51.5% to 48.5%, instead of as 48% to 45.2%.
*:This allows unscrupulous editors to manipulate the apparent margin of victory: a Purple party supporter might report an election they lost as having a margin of 30% to 20%, with 50% of voters being apathetic between the two (an unconvincing victory). Elsewhere, they could report the same election results, but with Purple as the winner, by saying Purple had 60% of the final-round vote. [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 21:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::So, do you just mean we should stick to reporting first preference votes for STV/AV/SV elections? [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 06:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm saying that in every round or matchup, the vote share should be equal to the number of votes for a candidate, divided by the total number of ballots (including those that, in the final round, show no further preferences). This is because those ballots can still affect the outcome under many voting systems. [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 07:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::I suggest we should follow standard practice by reliable sources, and that these may vary from context to context. {{u|Closed Limelike Curves}}, can you show some examples in RS of what you want done? [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 12:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::RS? [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 16:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::There's not really a standard practice from reliable sources for this, because both numbers are correct; they just measure different things. The only time this causes a problem is when vote totals are ''inconsistent'' across infoboxes on Wikipedia, because excluding truncated ballots from some totals but not others leaves the door open for biases and confusion. [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 17:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}I think consistency in a series of articles about elections in the same place makes sense. I don’t think there’s a particular need for how we report Maltese elections to match how we report Australian elections if RS about the former do one thing and RS about the latter do another. I think instead of this very generic RfC, that most editors appear to be struggling to follow given the lack of activity in it, it would be more useful to examine specific cases. [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 12:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
:It's more that the reliable sources differ between ''media'' sources and ''academic'' sources. Journalists reporting election results tend to drop these kinds of ballots. Academic sources (scientific journals) consistently include them.
:By the way, I should note that this is actually an extremely that's created no fewer than 6 edit wars and I'm utterly sick and tired of it. I'm describing this policy as vaguely and generically as possible, without mentioning any specifics or specific articles, because if I don't it'll probably start a flame war and the entire debate will fall back on partisan lines. [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 18:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
== Proposal to change numbers up to ten ==
Hello. For the [[2024 Cork City Council election]] page, ten parties/independent parties can be shown as gaining/losing seats from the previous [[2019 Cork City Council election]] - for either losing all their seats, or gaining seats as a new party. As the box only can show nine parties, this unfortunately means that not every party/non-party elected/unelected can be shown in the box. It would be a great benefit if all ten figures could be in the box, which is why I would propose to increase it to ten. [[User:Lucky102|Lucky102]] ([[User talk:Lucky102|talk]]) 02:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
:This template gets ridiculously large with that many parties. What about just switching to Template:Infobox legislative election? [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 06:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
::Ten wouldn't really make sense as the infobox works in rows of three. But it's already too big once it goes beyond one row, so I echo the comments above about using {{tl|Infobox legislative election}} instead. [[User:Number 57|<span style="color: orange;">Number</span>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<span style="color: green;">5</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<span style="color: blue;">7</span>]] 21:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC) ▼:::I always feel like the legislative election infobox is too sparse for 6-9 candidates, but the current infobox can't handle more than 3 candidates well. Have we ever tried borrowing the infobox from non-English Wikipedias? [https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elecciones_generales_de_Irlanda_de_2020 Example in Spanish.] [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 02:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
== Merging Parametres - "previous_election" and "previous_year", and "next_election" and "next_year" ==
{{Ping|Number 57|Impru20|Vacant0|Siglæ|Rowei99|Μαρκος Δ|Checco|Scia Della Cometa|Yakme|Vacant0|Braganza|Kawnhr|Chuborno|Davide King|Nick.mon|Erinthecute|HapHaxion|Helper201|Vif12vf|PLATEL|Morgan695|Tyrosian|Elg3a-1}} I believe it would be best to merge them, akin to how TILE has them merged. What do others think? [[User:ValenciaThunderbolt|ValenciaThunderbolt]] ([[User talk:ValenciaThunderbolt|talk]]) 16:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
:If this is possible it would be great! [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 18:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Closed Limelike Curves}} It's pretty much a no-brainer, and I'm surprised it wasn't implemented as soon as TILE became a thing. [[User:ValenciaThunderbolt|ValenciaThunderbolt]] ([[User talk:ValenciaThunderbolt|talk]]) 11:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
== Lots of space ==
::I considered something similar to this, however in the US Presidential elections (and probably a significant number of others) the president elect (an alternative but slightly obscure term) is not the president in fact until some time later.
::Prime ministers are indeed often (usually?) appointed, at least technically, by the head of state. But unless there is an election "after election" makes no sense. All the best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]''<small> 10:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC).</small><br />
▲:: Ten wouldn:I' tm reallynot makesure sensewhat asabout thewhat infoboxI worksproposed inwould rowsmake ofno threesense. ButWhat it'sI alreadywould tooexpect bigto oncesee it(and goeswhat beyondwe onehave) row,in sothe Ibottom echoright of the commentsinfobox abovefor aboutthe using[[2024 {{tl|InfoboxUnited legislativeKingdom general election }}]] insteadis "Prime Minister after election: Keir Starmer". Are you suggesting this is nonsensical? [[User:Number 57|<span style="color: orange;">Number</span>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<span style="color: green;">5</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<span style="color: blue;">7</span>]] 21:19 :41, 1118 JuneOctober 2024 (UTC)
::::It looks good, and although there are some niceties<ref>The UK General elections are not between the party leaders, and in the case of a hung parliament may require several candidates in sequence to be invited to form a government by the monarch. The monarch invites the person most likely to command the confidence of the house to form a government. In 1974 this was Edward Heath, although Labour had more seats.</ref> it's probably fine for the UK.
::::Let us suppose, though, that Bart Simpson wins the US presidential election in November. We would then have "President after election: Bart Simpson" But Joe Biden would be the President of the United States after the election until some time in early January.
::::All the best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]''<small> 22:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC).</small><br />
{{Reflist-talk}}
== college_voted parameter needs fixing ==
Could someone please fix the U.S. college_voted infobox so that the infobox will not say “to be determined” in the “elected president” field? We want the article to have this field blank, but we need the college_voted field so that “projected electoral vote” will display on Election Night instead of “electoral vote”. We have already had two users that oppose the “to be determined” field, and I was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_States_presidential_election&diff=prev&oldid=1253645773 reverted] when updating the parameter solely because of this issue. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 03:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
:After playing around on my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Prcc27/sandbox&oldid=1253651143 sandbox], I figured out how to replace the TBD footnote with an underscore (which is a huge improvement), but still have not figured out how to have the “elected president” field completely blank. I hope someone will be able to help me. Thanks. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 04:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
== Default white background for map for better legibility in dark mode ==
Would it be possible to add a white background to the map so dark mode users can better read text? For example, at [[2024 United States presidential election]] if the text does not fit in the state (because the state is too small), then it ends up on the dark background and the black text is then pretty difficult to read. I imagine this is a problem for plenty of other elections as well. Slapping a white background behind the map would be a simple solution. [[User:Arcturus95|Arcturus95]] ([[User talk:Arcturus95|talk]]) 20:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:Looks like switching to an SVG in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_States_presidential_election&diff=next&oldid=1255672812| this edit] for my example article effectively did what I was asking. But regardless, the default should always be white. [[User:Arcturus95|Arcturus95]] ([[User talk:Arcturus95|talk]]) 02:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
== Extra cell in nominees row on mobile ==
Compare the presidential election example on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_election#Presidential desktop] with [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_election#Presidential mobile]; in the latter, there is an extra cell in the '''Nominee''' row with a bottom border visible. This can be seen on, for example, every US presidential election article. [[User:Annoyedhumanoid|Annoyedhumanoid]] ([[User talk:Annoyedhumanoid|talk]]) 17:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
| 