Template talk:Infobox election

RFC: Should elections include equal-ranked ballots in calculating vote shares?

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

Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Support. The convention in the 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 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. 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 WT:E&R several times and I am still none the wiser to what the issue is here. Number 57 19:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm trying to find consensus on a consistent standard for reporting 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:

  1. Mitchell
  2. McGuiness
  3. 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. 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? 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. 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. Closed Limelike Curves, can you show some examples in RS of what you want done? Bondegezou (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

RS? 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. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

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. 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. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Merging Parametres - "previous_election" and "previous_year", and "next_election" and "next_year"

@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, and Elg3a-1: I believe it would be best to merge them, akin to how TILE has them merged. What do others think? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

If this is possible it would be great! Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@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. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Lots of space

Kia ora, something changed and now a bunch of these have lots of extra white space for some reason? Like 1978 Gilbertese Chief Minister election TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I fixed a typo in some other routine edits today introduced in June. Izno (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

the problem appears to have been fixed TheLoyalOrder (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Leaders seat/Leader since only to be mentioned if included in text?

Should this still be a requirement of the infobox's usage? Especially considering the longstanding usage of it in United Kingdom and Australian general/federal elections, none (or very few) of which include the seat in the plain text. It feels like an unnecessary caveat to add, and a newer addition to the documentation relatively speaking as well. I personally propose officially allowing the infobox to include the "leaders_seat" and "leader_since" parameters without the info being included in the plain text of the body, which seems to be unofficially allowed on dozens of articles already.

Essentially, codify that leader's seat and leader since should be permitted to be included without explicitly being listed in the article's text, as is already de facto permitted in dozens of articles about UK and Australian elections, Support? Oppose? why/why not? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 12:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

It's an MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE violation to include it. The inclusion predates the RfC that ended with an outcome for them not to be included, and just needs putting into practice. Number 57 20:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC projected electoral votes USA

There is an RfC here regarding when to add projected electoral votes to the infobox for U.S. presidential elections. Prcc27 (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 24 August 2024

Description of suggested change: Add link argument to custom flag images

Diff:

−

{{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage|image={{{flag_image|}}}|size=50px|alt=|link=}}<hr />

+

{{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage|image={{{flag_image|}}}|size=50px|alt=|link={{{flag_link}}}}}<hr />

DimensionalFusion (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe (but am not 100% sure) that the reason |link= is disabled is because any links should be in the |caption= for the image. Primefac (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

If this is true, then when flag_image is used it shouldn't link to the flag file when clicked. Maybe I'll look into that too DimensionalFusion (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@DimensionalFusion I think the idea is that since the flag is a purely decorative image, adding a link to the flag file would cause screen readers to unnecessarily read out the file name. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

How to use the poll1 parameter?

I was trying to add polls to the Next United Kingdom general election box and cannot work out how to do so, so I had to use the blank parameter instead. Are there any examples of the poll fields in use, so I can find what I'm missing about how to do it? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen that function used. However, it also strikes me as something that would be a very bad idea to include, given the frequency with which it would need to be updated and the potential for arguments over what is the latest poll, for example, if two are published on the same day or the latest one is disputed. I think it would probably be best to delete this from the infobox given it appears to be used very infrequently, if at all. Number 57 00:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I second this. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Support deleting this parameter as well. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Question

How am I able to display an alternative name for a party in the Infobox? I want to link the Reform Party (Northern Mariana Islands) without displaying it as the full name. Rather, I want to link it as Reform. I've always struggled with the parameter and I've never fully figured out what to do to resolve this. Ornithoptera (talk) 05:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I've added the party to Module:Political party/R. It should now display as you've wished. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Adverse interactions with dark mode and Template:Composition bar compact

This template seems to break compact composition bars in dark mode. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Valid vote parameter

Ideally would be nice to have parameters like valid_vote and spoiled_vote so we can calculate percentages and turnout automatically, while enforcing standard guidelines (e.g. including spoiled ballots in turnout, but not percentages). – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Help with template

Hello. I created a new election template (Template:2024 United States presidential election infobox). Can anyone help me add the view, talk, and edit perimeter on the infobox? Prcc27 (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Why would you want this as a template? Infoboxes should be coded directly onto the article they appear on. Number 57 00:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

For two reasons: a) the article is under WP:1RR which could make it harder to enforce consensus and maintain the infobox if each user only gets 1 revert for the entire article on Election Night, and b) I was thinking about possibly adding the infobox to other subarticle(s). But if users disagree with this, I will yield. Prcc27 (talk) 05:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

See {{2024 United States presidential election infobox/sandbox}} and the testcases page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

If the article is under 1RR, the template would also be under 1RR IMO. I can't see this is a valid reason for creating a template. The infobox can also be transcluded to other articles from the main article, which is better than having it in template space (one of the reasons the vast majority of election results templates were deleted was because template space is more prone to vandalism due to its relative lack of watchers). Number 57 20:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

1 revert for the article and 1 revert for the infobox is better than 1 revert for both only. Prcc27 (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to work out any technical issues in a temporary place, then move it to the article, when it would, correctly, come under 1RR. It might also be worth mentioning that 1RR doesn't, as far as I know, include self reverts. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC).

I wonder why the templates' protection status wasn't just elevated. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC).

If it's just a matter of 1RR, there isn't a protection that can be added. If the templates does need to be protected to match the article, though, please let me know. Primefac (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I was referring to "(one of the reasons the vast majority of election results templates were deleted was because template space is more prone to vandalism due to its relative lack of watchers)". All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC).

Elected

We have two headers, <Officeholder> before election and Elected <Officeholder>. Because there is only one field we are using the capitalised version. In August I put in a fix for mayors Mayor before election and Elected mayor. I don't want to try to capture all possible titles that should be lowercased, or the lesser number that shouldn't (though that might be doable). Nor do I want to add to complexity by having a separate field or flag. What I propose therefore is: <Officeholder> before election and <Officeholder> elected. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC).

IMO this would be better solved by rewording the second one as <Officeholder> after election, primarily because this infobox is also used for elections in which the officeholder in question is not elected (e.g. many parliamentary elections, where a Prime Minister or Speaker is the officeholder listed). Number 57 00:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

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: Rich Farmbrough 10:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC).

I'm not sure what about what I proposed would make no sense. What I would expect to see (and what we have) in the bottom right of the infobox for the 2024 United Kingdom general election is "Prime Minister after election: Keir Starmer". Are you suggesting this is nonsensical? Number 57 19:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks good, and although there are some niceties 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: Rich Farmbrough 22:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC).

References

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 reverted when updating the parameter solely because of this issue. Prcc27 (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

After playing around on my 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. Prcc27 (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)