Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums

I've presented an idea to have the Template:Infobox legislative election expanded upon

This is so it will be able to showcase both current seat figures and last election seat figures, due to Talk:Next Danish general election#Seat figures, and input would be very appreciated. Discussion is Thomediter (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Is this the place to discuss? On face of it an additional column of last election seat figures would be good iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply if you would be so kind) 09:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Gain or Hold?

What is the consensus about when an incumbent candidate has switched parties since their election i.e. was elected as a member of Labour but then later defected to the Greens or the Liberal Democrats. Should it be a gain since it's a gain compared to the last election or a hold since the incumbent had already switched parties before the election TheHaloVeteran2 (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I personally would say a gain as the comparison should (IMO) be with the previous election. A sort of comparator is that seat change parameter in election infoboxes is meant to show seat changes compared to the previous election, not to the situation before the election (although I am also aware this is misused for a small number of countries). Number 57 20:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. The comparison is strictly with the most recent election, so what the incumbent does in the meantime is irrelevant.-- Earl Andrew - talk 20:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

We've always treated defections and by-elections as "in isolation", because general elections should always be treated 'like for like'. I've sometimes found myself in editing conflicts because some editors want to treat by-elections as the comparison. That is not standard practice outside Wiki and shouldn't be inside. doktorb _words^deeds 21:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2025 Miami mayoral election#Requested move 2 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2025 Miami mayoral election#Requested move 2 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 07:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Blair Babe#Requested move 4 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Blair Babe#Requested move 4 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 08:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Query: order of candidates in two-round presidential elections

I wish to bring up an issue since I have seen there is some confusion (and, probably, a generalized lack of consistency across election articles). It involves the ordering of candidates in the "Results" section of articles for two-round presidential elections and, particularly, those cases in which the candidate coming out on top in the first round is not the same as the one securing the most votes in the run-off.

At 2025 Romanian presidential election there has been some back-and-forth, as a new "interpretation" by some users concluded that the candidate securing the most votes in the first round should be placed first, regardless of whether that candidate lost the second round. Past precedent in other articles for Romanian elections showed that it was the winner of the second round that was placed on top, then all other candidates (though some users were bold and changed these throughout June 2025; examples include 2014 Romanian presidential election and 2004 Romanian general election; also 1996 Romanian general election, which has remained in its original version without edits). Looking a little outside Romanian elections, the same precedent was applied for Polish elections (such as 2005 Polish presidential election), Argentine (2023 Argentine general election or 2015 Argentine general election) or Croatia (2014–15 Croatian presidential election, which was also re-edited in June 2025). This makes sense, as it's whoever wins the run-off that goes on to become president. However, some articles like those for some elections in France, Peru or other countries, show the losing first round candidate on top (sometimes, even when these lost by wide margins in the run-off).

So, my question is: how should this be sorted out so that it is both consistent across articles and logical in terms of what information is conveyed to readers? Any input is welcomed. Impru20^talk 11:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

My standard for these are French presidential elections, where it is sorted by first round result, irregardless of who won the second round. See 1995 French presidential election for an example. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

See also 1925 German presidential election. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but what is the point of that? 1925 German presidential election is a perfect example: the first two candidates did not even run in the run-off (they are entirely absent from the infobox altogether!), and the candidate that ultimately won is placed last. Impru20^talk 16:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Aren't the participants in the runoff the people you should see in the infobox anyway? I have seen non-participants in the runoffs in infoboxes, even on the first row and always thought of it as weird.

I would suggest to boldface the eventual winner in results tables of runoff elections though, or add colors to the rows. Pale yellow for runoff participants, then not-as-pale yellow for the eventual winner. Like this:

Candidate		Party	First round		Second round
			Votes	%	Votes	%
	Karl Jarres	German People's Party	10,416,658	38.77
	Otto Braun	Social Democratic Party	7,802,497	29.04
	Wilhelm Marx	Centre Party	3,887,734	14.47	13,751,605	45.31
	Ernst Thälmann	Communist Party	1,871,815	6.97	1,931,151	6.36
	Willy Hellpach	German Democratic Party	1,568,398	5.84
	Heinrich Held	Bavarian People's Party	1,007,450	3.75
	Erich Ludendorff	German Völkisch Freedom Party	285,793	1.06
	Paul von Hindenburg	Independent			14,655,641	48.29
Other candidates			25,761	0.10	13,416	0.04
Total			26,866,106	100.00	30,351,813	100.00
Valid votes			26,866,106	99.44	30,351,813	99.29
Invalid/blank votes			150,654	0.56	216,061	0.71
Total votes			27,016,760	100.00	30,567,874	100.00
Registered voters/turnout			39,226,138	68.87	39,414,316	77.56
Source: Gonschior

Howard the Duck (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Also I think the other candidates should be listed invidually if there are stats on them. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

It's interesting though on how the actual source of this table presented the data. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

So, basically, the proposed table as per what the source states would be:

Candidate		Party	First round		Second round
			Votes	%	Votes	%
	Paul von Hindenburg	Independent			14,655,641	48.29
	Wilhelm Marx	Centre Party	3,887,734	14.47	13,751,605	45.31
	Ernst Thälmann	Communist Party	1,871,815	6.97	1,931,151	6.36
	Karl Jarres	German People's Party	10,416,658	38.77
	Otto Braun	Social Democratic Party	7,802,497	29.04
	Willy Hellpach	German Democratic Party	1,568,398	5.84
	Heinrich Held	Bavarian People's Party	1,007,450	3.75
	Erich Ludendorff	German Völkisch Freedom Party	285,793	1.06
Other candidates			25,761	0.10	13,416	0.04
Total			26,866,106	100.00	30,351,813	100.00
Valid votes			26,866,106	99.44	30,351,813	99.29
Invalid/blank votes			150,654	0.56	216,061	0.71
Total votes			27,016,760	100.00	30,567,874	100.00
Registered voters/turnout			39,226,138	68.87	39,414,316	77.56
Source: Gonschior

I don't think it's a bad take: second round results order, then use first round results for all other candidates. Which is what the very same source uses. Impru20^talk 09:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

• Should be sorted by first round results IMO, otherwise it just looks odd that the column with all the candidates (in nearly all cases) is not sorted as expected. It's also simpler as it only required one order of sorting, whereas sorting by second round means sorting twice. While a few examples have been found above of this not being followed, I think it is our standard practice to sort this way and suspect the vast majority of articles do. Number 57 20:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Also worth noting that some of the examples given above as evidence of second round sorting being used were only very recently changed to that method (2014–15 Croatia, 2015 Argentina, 2023 Argentina and had been stable at first round sorting before that). Number 57 20:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
    • Well, if you are going to worth note some of these changes, you should also highlight that some did indeed show the method I mentioned and were later re-edited ([1])*, and that some of the very recent edits you show are merely re-reverts to the old method. In another case, the design was your own from the start ([2]) until it was later changed. The problem is: none of that is explained or justified (other than "first round order should prevail", as it should be somehow obvious to everybody when it isn't). As HTD mentions, sources themselves do highlight the actual winner of the election (see results for the 1925 German presidential election). I could see the usefulness of alternatives such as boldface the final winner, but a system which allows such winner to be shown in eighth place in a table is seriously flawed.

(* Note: funnily enough, here we have the same guy editing to either method in a timespan of barely seven months with no explanation whatsoever as to why.) Impru20^talk 09:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

• The 1925 German presidential election is incredibly unusual – it shouldn't be used to determine what we do in the other 99.9% of presidential elections where new candidates don't appear in the second round. It probably warrants a standalone discussion. Number 57 15:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Is this a case of "Hard cases make bad law"? Howard the Duck (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

The case is the same both for average presidential elections and for the 1925 German presidential election (which is: the winning candidate being shown in second or further places in the "Results" table having little sense); the latter just being an extreme case where the flaws of the system prioritizing first round order are exposed in the most crude way.

More than "hard cases make bad law", I would say this is a case of "not seeing the forest for the trees". Impru20^talk 13:41, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

The "winner" of the election should always be in the most left section of the infobox, at least for Presidential elections. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, no one disputes that. The discussion is on the results tables further down the article. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Oops. Well, in the same vain, the "winner" should be first on the results table. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

When reading a page, I read the first round first and the second round second. If I'm reading the first round first, then I'd expect them to be in order of votes. Wowzers122 (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

The problem is: unlike other elections (such as parliamentary ones, which see a mere distribution of seats among several candidacies), in presidential elections there is an actual winner, with the remaining candidates being losers. It makes little sense to prioritize the first round over the second, as it means you will be potentially prioritizing a loser over the candidate that actually wins the election (which is the scope of the article all along). Impru20^talk 09:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

You haven't seen discussions on how parliamentary results are to be ranked. Is it via votes or seats? Howard the Duck (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh dear, I have even participated in those. And so far: it is typically seats in the infobox, votes in the Results table. Though I have yet to see a parliamentary election where a single winner is elected in a nationwide runoff (maybe the dissonance here is that some people are applying the logic of parliamentary elections into presidential elections?). Impru20^talk 12:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Apparently for both it should be by vote.

Yet another discussion is if there are two votes, by constituency and by party-list; if we're ranking by vote, which type of vote?

FWIW, for IRV elections, it's always ranked by first preference, which is sorta the argument here for runoffs. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Funnily enough, several examples used at the IRV article use second round order to sort candidates... so does the 1990 Irish presidential election article where such system is used. Impru20^talk 14:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

As well as the 'sort once' simplicity argument, for me the first round results not being in order draws the eye as an error. Of course we all see the world differently, but I can't get my head round the table on the right below being the 'right' way to do this. Number 57 15:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

First round sorting Candidate Party First round Second round Votes % Votes % Person 1 Labour 10,000,000 22.22 11,000,000 47.83 Person 2 Conservative 9,000,000 20.00 12,000,000 52.17 Person 3 Liberal 8,000,000 17.78 Person 4 National 7,000,000 15.56 Person 5 People's 6,000,000 13.33 Person 6 Alliance 5,000,000 11.11 Total 45,000,000 100.00 23,000,000 100.00

Second round sorting Candidate Party First round Second round Votes % Votes % Person 1 Conservative 9,000,000 20.00 12,000,000 52.17 Person 2 Labour 10,000,000 22.22 11,000,000 47.83 Person 3 Liberal 8,000,000 17.78 Person 4 National 7,000,000 15.56 Person 5 People's 6,000,000 13.33 Person 6 Alliance 5,000,000 11.11 Total 45,000,000 100.00 23,000,000 100.00

The one on the right seems better to me; who finished first in the first round is trivia, while the second-round winner is the only result most people will think of. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

So it turns out it was Irish constituencies election results that ordered candidates by first preference votes. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Number 57: You are right of course in that we may see the world differently, but in such a discrepancy, I believe we should stick to the view that sticks the most to the actual election dynamics (and to sources, of course). First round results are only relevant to determine who gets to the runoff, but the actual winner is determined by the second round result (unless he/she gets enough support in the first round, obviously). If a candidate gets 49.99% and a 20-point lead in the first round, but then goes on to lose the second round with the same 49.99%, he or she would still be the losing candidate and their result still be less relevant than the one winning the election with 50.01%, even if that candidate did not fare strongly in the first round.

On sources, take the 1925 German election one, it sorts candidates by second round results (sources for other elections are not so obvious since these tend to show separate tables for first and second round results, but in all of these sources the result depicting the final winner is prioritized). Prioritizing the first round is not only not strictly adherent to sources, but also inconsistent with the election workings and also with the article's design itself (the aforementioned issue of infoboxes prioritizing second round results). Impru20^talk 09:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

France has to be the country with the most extensive experience with runoffs. Le Monde's per constituency results presented the results in two tables if the district needed a runoff. In fact, our constituency articles, such as Paris's 9th constituency presented this similarly. Now, I'd suggest to follow this way of presenting things, just take care not violate things such as MOS:COLHEAD. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

French interior ministry also presented the 2022 presidential election in two tables. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Would you consider having the second round results listed first, ordered by votes, then first round results, ordered by results of the non-participants from the 2nd round?

• Options:
  • One table, first round results shown first, ordered by votes from first round
  • One table, first round results shown first, ordered by votes from first round, with colors
  • One table, first round results shown first, ordered by votes from second round
  • One table, second round results shown first, ordered by votes from second round
  • Two (or as many) tables, first round results shown first, ordered by votes from each round

One advantage of having two tables is that there are endorsements and jockeying in between rounds. If the "Results" section has lengthy prose, having just one results table messes up the story (i.e. "spoilers"). Howard the Duck (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I would favour one table, first round results shown first (because this is how the Template:Election results works, anyway), ordered by votes from second round. Impru20^talk 07:45, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to say we would not be restricted by current templates and ways of presentation here in Wikipedia. As demonstrated above, French elections show two tables instead of just one. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

For example 2022 United States Senate election in Georgia, where there are two results tables, one each round. There is even prose, polling and per county/district result per round. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

French elections show one table. You are mixing the sources with the articles here. Having two tables feels like an unnecessary duplication of information that can be easily displayed in a single table (and sincerely, splitting these into two tables just because some people can't stand a candidate order different from the one they would like does not feel right; there is no other purpose for such splitting other than that).

The US is its entirely separate ecosystem (they even use their own specific templates) and we shouldn't take these as models for elections in other countries. They do many things that aren't done (and mostly shouldn't) in election articles for other countries. Impru20^talk 13:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, there was just one family of election results tables until {{Election results}} was created. Even France (see Paris's 9th constituency for an example) still uses the old family of tables. I've been converting the old ones to {{Election results}} but is a chore LOL. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, but US elections typically use these (and others) as a general feature, and many design features of US election articles seem to come from how election articles were 15 to 20 years ago (but changing the consensus for formatting US election articles is, basically, a nightmare). That is one reason (not the only one) why extrapolating US elections elsewhere is typically not a good idea. Impru20^talk 13:45, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd agree on American exceptionalism (not just on elections articles) here at Wikipedia, but as demonstrated with French constituency articles, these present results virtually as two tables anyway. It's not just American ones. Writing prose in-between rounds can be tricky: where do you put the results table? At the beginning, middle or end? Having two tables sorts this out.

Also, we can also have two infoboxes stacked on top of each other for both rounds. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Reminder that this discussion is about presidential elections, not parliamentary ones (I highlight this to you because this one is not the only reply in which you are treating both indistinctly, despite the topic of this thread being more specific).

Why would you want to write prose-in between rounds? Unless these are very separated in time (and US ones typically do, which adds to the exceptionalism) it makes no sense.

Two infoboxes is also a very bad idea (first round results are not that relevant, they are only meant to determine the candidates going to the run-off, which is the key race of the election). We should avoid duplicating information as much as possible. Impru20^talk 14:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

These are runoff elections. Runoffs are normally scheduled a month or so apart. Do you mean to say we'd have separate rules for runoff elections if it's an executive or legislative position? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

"order of candidates in two-round presidential elections" is the topic of this discussion. Parliamentary elections have their own dynamics when it comes to second round elections, namely:

1. That there are very few of them.
2. That the most commonly-known case of this, France, uses a particular system under which multiple candidates can pass into the run-off (the triangular, quadrangular, quinquangular or sexangular elections). These would allow for particular rules to be used there to adapt it to their particular situation, yes (worth noting: the possibility of withdrawal in French legislative elections would make this a very comparable case to the situation at 1925 German presidential election).

If I had to choose, I'd say let's apply the same for parliamentary elections at the constituency level (i.e. order candidates by second round results, then first round results, in a single table). But since this discussion does not revolve around legislative elections, and since I understand that particular situations may require particular solutions, I left them out of the discussion. Impru20^talk 14:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Mathematically, French legislative runoffs can have up to 8 candidates, provided all candidates got 12.5% (that's impossible IRL, so possibly the most is 7). Withdrawals are also sort of different from the German one, as withdrawing French candidates cannot be replaced by another person, unlike that Weimar election.

Since there's very few of them, and even fewer that we have actual articles on, and I'd suggest we encompass all. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

If we encompass all, my criterion would be the same: order candidates by second round result, then the remaining ones by first round result, in a single table.

But maybe others may have different views depending on whether it is a presidential election or a parliamentary election, and I fear the issue will get dilluted (specially if US legislative elections come into play, which is definitely not the intention of this discussion), so I will still say to stick to presidential elections for now. Impru20^talk 15:24, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

The templates we use are universal. If we're making exceptions we could, in theory, make exceptions for everything it no longer is universal.

It's tantamount to saying we have different rules on French presidential and Paris 9th constituency elections, and both are runoffs. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Who is speaking about templates here? We are discussing types of elections. I believe you are really mixing up things here.

Of course different elections under different electoral systems may use specific rules that better fit them, that has nothing to do with the templates. Factually, the discussion here revolves only on the precedence of candidates in a presidential election: whether to order them by first round or second round results. Impru20^talk 16:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

You're the one who brought up templates above?

French presidential elections use two tables. I'd say order the candidates and present the results in the manner the reference presented it, for any multiple-round elections. That means the aforementioned German election has one table, ordered by second round, while the French elections have two tables. The root of this discussion, 2025 Romanian presidential election, (gasps) presents this on two tables as well. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Only to highlighting that election templates allow to show both rounds combined into one table. I dunno what does "template universality" have to do with that. Precisely, if you can simplify results by having them all in one single table, what's the point of having two tables.

French presidential election articles use one table (?).

I also don't know why we keep arguing here. I just picked one of your options, then it's you seemingly attempting to push me into picking another one that comprises two tables. Again, for me it's one table, first round results shown first, ordered by votes from second round (if anything, more convinced than earlier on). Impru20^talk 16:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Previous and next elections in infoboxes

Lately I've ran into discussions with Yilku1 on previous/next elections. Yilku1 actually has a point, where the 1941 Philppine Senate election should have its previous election to the 1934 Philippine Senate elections and not to the 1938 Philippine legislative election. I said that the Senate's (and the House's) successor in 1935 was the National Assembly, which was the 1935 Philippine legislative election, then the 1938 Philippine legislative election, then a constitutional change restored bicameralism in 1941, so that the 1938 Philippine legislative election points to 2 next elections.

Now, YssaLang changed the next election in 1934 Philippine House of Representatives elections to two elections: the 1935 Philippine legislative election (for the National Assembly) and the 1941 Philippine House of Representatives elections (for the House of Representatives). (This is not YssaLang's first brain-bending edits. See, for example, the MOS disaster that is Nacionalista Party#1941–1971: Bicamercal Commonwealth to Third Republic.)

What's supposed to be the rule here? Howard the Duck (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Generally I think you would like to the next equivalent election, but lots of 'it depends' here I think. If a parliament went from being bicameral to unicameral but the single house was a continuation of one of the previous ones (e.g. keeping the lower house), I would say you'd link the one that was continued, but not the other (so you wouldn't link the last upper house election article to the first unicameral election article). If the new unicameral parliament was a completely new institution, then I think fair enough to link both. And vice versa if it was split in a way that neither of the new houses was an obvious continuation of the unicameral one.

On a similar note, I have seen an editor adding 'previous election' links in the first Czech and Slovak presidential election articles to the last Czechoslovak presidential election article. I'm not convinced this is a good idea as IMO it isn't a continuation of a series of elections. Views on this? Number 57 15:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I can live with Yilku1's logic here and have the lower house elections link to 1934, 1935, 1938, 1941, 1943, 1946, etc., then upper house to 1934, 1941, 1946, etc. YssaLang's just doesn't make sense as it links to the name of the legislature/chamber.

Re: First post-divorse Czech Rep/Slovakia elections, I'd do it similarly on what was done on the first elections in West/East Germany post-WWII, which was linking to the last all-German election in 1938, which then links to the first West and East German elections post-WWII. But Czechoslovakiaphiles may think otherwise. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

"I can live with Yilku1's logic here and have the lower house elections link to 1934, 1935, 1938, 1941, 1943, 1946, etc., then upper house to 1934, 1941, 1946"

That is what I was thinking, but I don't know much about Philippine elections. Yilku1 (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

@Number 57, "If the new unicameral parliament was a completely new institution" can be open to interpretation. In the Philippines' case, the transition from 1934 bicameral Philippine Legislature, to 1935 unicameral National Assembly of the Philippines, then to 1941 bicameral Congress of the Philippines is arguably one "lineage". The wartime 1943 unicameral National Assembly (Second Philippine Republic) is not in this lineage for being a Japanese puppet republic. You can still argue to link 1934, 1935, 1938, 1941, 1943 and 1946 elections in sequence though, but you can argue that the two National Assemblies are distinct entities. You can argue that the 1943 body is a "completely new institution".

Another thing is the 1978 parliament. Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law in 1972 and ruled by decree until 1978. The old Congress was dissolved in 1972, and a new parliament was created in 1978. You can argue that while the 1987 bicameral Congress, although harkening back to the old pre-1972 Congress, is a direct descendant of the 1984 parliament.

Summary of succession suggestions:

• Me:
  • 1934 Philippine Senate elections to 1935 Philippine legislative election
  • 1934 Philippine House of Representatives elections to 1935 Philippine legislative election
  • 1938 Philippine legislative election both to 1941 Philippine Senate election and 1934 Philippine House of Representatives elections
• Yilku1:
  • 1934 Philippine Senate elections to 1941 Philippine Senate election
  • 1934 Philippine House of Representatives elections to 1935 Philippine legislative election
  • 1938 Philippine legislative election only to 1934 Philippine House of Representatives elections
• YssaLang:
  • 1934 Philippine Senate elections to 1941 Philippine Senate election
  • 1934 Philippine House of Representatives elections to 1935 Philippine legislative election and 1941 Philippine House of Representatives elections
  • 1938 Philippine legislative election both to 1941 Philippine Senate election and 1934 Philippine House of Representatives elections

Howard the Duck (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

The simplest solution is to have all unicameral and lower house elections linked exclusively, then upper house (Senate) elections are linked exclusively, just as in {{Philippine elections}}; i.e. Yilku1's suggestion. This avoids discussions on how a body is completely new, and avoids arbitrary linking by name just as what YssaLang did. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Should Special elections on the US house election in Infobox

Recently someone decided to remove the link to Special election on the US house elections.

Should We have Special elections in Infobox? Fad8229 (talk) 01:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, you added a link to all articles without any discussion, which was then contested. I do not support linking special elections because they are not standard practice. (But personally, I wouldn't have reverted the edits either.) —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 08:19, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Which infobox are we even talking about? Nevermore27 (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

This seems to be individual US House elections infoboxes, where aside from general elections on prev/next, special elections are linked. See this example.

I would've linked general elections to general elections, then special elections to general elections.

Also, shouldn't odd numbered elections be named differently? Howard the Duck (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I would be interested in modifying how special elections are listed on Template:United States House of Representatives elections maybe, but adding them to every infobox seems a bit much. Nevermore27 (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I asked the question because there was a guy that removed the house special elections off all the US house elections (The ones that were even numbered). He said it was because it only happens in a few districts, so they don’t deserve to be in the info box. Fad8229 (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

FWIW all election infobox prev/next links should link only to even numbered ones. I'd even suggest odd numbered election articles be renamed into something else. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Notice of last opportunity to weigh-in on discussion about Trump infobox photo for 2024 election article

At Talk:2024 United States presidential election, there is a discussion that was started in early June on the question of whether to use a January portrait of Trump in the infobox, or switch to a newer portrait from June. There was division between editors as to what photo should be used, and the what would be an appropriate rationale to justify either a change or retention of the status quo. However, this discussion seems to have died down.

I am posting notice here and other task forces and projects related to that article so editors un-familiar that it was taking place but interested in weighing-in can comment. After opportunity for any additional editors to comment has been given, I go to the admin notice board and will ask for any uninvolved admin to consider a closure. SecretName101 (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Secular Democratic Alliance#Requested move 12 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Secular Democratic Alliance#Requested move 12 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Lead

Recently, I've noticed a trend in election articles regarding the lead section wherein the bold text is being supplanted with very similar sentences. For example: Elections to select members of the House of Councillors were held in Japan on 20 July 2025, with 124 of the 248 members of the upper house of the National Diet to .... I don't, however, believe this to be the best way of starting articles: elections are not held to select someone, they are held to elect someone, so the sentence should technically read Elections to elect members of the House of Councillors .... But obviously an election is held to elect someone, so this feels redundant. I feel this can be resolved by simply using the standard bold method of introducing articles: The 2025 Japanese House of Councillors election was held on 20 July 2025 to elect 124 of the 248 members of the upper house of the National Diet of Japan to ...

But does anyone have any thoughts? Should the sentence or the bolding be used? DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 22:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I've been a part of a discussion last week about this. It's essentially WP:AVOIDBOLD, as election titles are essentially descriptive titles. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

How about Elections for the House of Councillors were held in Japan on 20 July 2025…? — Kawnhr (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

That would be better. I would very much avoid trying to shoehorn the article titles into opening sentences, as they tend to make them repetitive (the year and country usually gets repeated) and somewhat awkward. The 2022 article starts "House of Councillors elections were held in Japan on 10 July 2022 to elect 125 of the 248 members of the upper house of the National Diet, for a term of six years." Number 57 00:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this format is better (and I myself have adapted some election articles to this format during the past weeks to better comply with WP:SBE and MOS:BOLDAVOID). Impru20^talk 07:42, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

RfC on sourcing for political candidates in the United States

There's been an ongoing debate on pages for elections in the US about what kind of sourcing you need to move a candidate from the "Filed paperwork" or "Potential" section to "Declared." A lot of editors seem to agree that an FEC filing is not enough, because it is very common for people to file with the FEC without ever actually campaigning. Ideally, we want to cite a news article that says the candidate is running. However, it's easy to find candidates who've filed with the FEC and launched a campaign website but who haven't been mentioned in any news articles. Moreover, some news articles say that a candidate is running purely because they've filed with the FEC, even though the candidate has no online campaign presence and the author of the news article doesn't seem to have reached out to them to confirm they're actually running. In my eyes, there are three proposals for how to deal with this:

1. Maintain the current system. A candidate can only be moved to "Declared" if there is an article from a reliable news source that says they're running.

2. Allow someone to be listed in "Declared" if they have filed with the FEC or the relevant state/local elections agency.

3. Allow someone to be listed in "Declared" with two citations: first, a filing with the FEC or the relevant state/local elections agency, and second, a self-published source from the candidate that says they're running--e.g. a campaign website, campaign social media account, or fundraising page where the candidate explicitly says they're running (so "I'm exploring a candidacy" or something like that wouldn't be good enough).

Which do you think is the best path? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Status quo (option 1). It's the closest to the GNG right now. Wikipedia Policy has traditionally merited inclusion by due weight and some form of the GNG, and I see no reason why we should deviate. If Mitchell Random Hunt of Charlotte, North Carolina, decides he wants to run for president and only the FEC is filed as a source, but no major news reliable independent websites mention it with significant coverage, then Mitchell Random Hunt shouldn't be included. We follow, not lead. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC) (summoned by YapperBot)

• Question: When you say "it is very common for people to file with the FEC without ever actually campaigning", do you mean that they file with the FEC but don't appear on the ballot paper, or that they appear on the ballot paper but don't campaign (i.e. are a paper candidate)? Number 57 19:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  The former. Every election you get plenty of people who file a declaration of candidacy with the FEC, but they don't have any online campaign presence, don't really report any fundraising, and don't appear on the ballot. So, in my opinion, an FEC filing is not enough to list someone in the "Declared" section--that's what the "Filed paperwork" section is for. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1 until the ballot is finalized. Once the filing period is over, we should use the official record of who will be on the ballot. --Enos733 (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 or as Enos733 puts it above. Bondegezou (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 I agree with Enos733's suggestion as well. WCNo47 (talk) 04:02, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 with Enos733's proposal, which I see as a good compromise. Impru20^talk 11:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: Most (all?) states have requirements that candidates must meet for their name to appear on the official ballot -- sometimes it is paying a filing fee, sometimes it is filing a certain number of signatures on petitions, and sometimes it is both. The states then have "filing deadlines" by which those requirements must be met. I suppose some states provide online lists of who all managed to pay the fees/collect and file the signatures. But, also, that some of these people won't actually appear on the ballot because their signatures end up being insufficient. The states might not officially certify a candidate as having made it onto the ballot for some (possibly lengthy) period of time. There's having your name appear on the state's list of people who appear to have met the filing requirements, and then there's actually being certified by the state. I don't know if it is worth it to define those stages.Novellasyes (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Should there be additional rows about events in polling tables?

Hi all. Some opinion polling articles are like Opinion polling for the next Italian general election or Opinion polling for the 2024 French legislative election: you have a table where each row is a different poll. And that's it.

However, some opinion polling articles have tables where there are additional rows to note other events. With UK articles, we have a standing consensus that this should be limited to other elections (e.g., local elections, by-elections), changes in a party leader, and when an election is called. You can see this at Opinion polling for the 2017 United Kingdom general election. Other countries' articles seem to have moved to this sort of approach, e.g. Opinion polling for the next Japanese general election.

We then see what one might call mission creep! What gets a row sometimes then expands further. Opinion polling for the 2017 United Kingdom general election also includes two notable terrorist attacks during the election campaign as rows. Opinion polling for the next Israeli legislative election has all sorts of events noted. The matter has come up recently at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Add_creation_of_Your_Party_to_the_main_table because a new party is being created in the UK, so should we note that?

I think it would be good to get a broader consensus from the WikiProject on this. What do you all think?

Personally, I favour no or few event rows. I think adding these rows is a form of editorialising, because you are saying to the reader that this is an important event that affects polling, and that's WP:OR. Most of these events don't actually affect polling and I think any big events can be described in prose text accompanying a table (with citations), rather than breaking up the table. These articles are meant to be tables of polling, not timelines of events. If people want a timeline, they can create a timeline article or graphic. But that's just me! Other views welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

• No. Entirely agree with Bondegezou. My view on this is the same as always has been, as this is a recurrent debate in opinion polling articles, such as here and here (also a practical example here and the real example on which it was based). First and foremost, opinion polling tables are not meant as listings or timelines of events, nor as a way to project a narrative. So: why would we be adding them to the tables? Most of the time, the answer will be "because X or Y event has an impact and/or is relevant/important to opinion polling". Which is a problem, because this will mean that adding events into opinion polling tables means making an editorial decision that such events have an impact and/or are relevant to opinion polling (and implies so to any casual reader), despite this being, most of the time, a very difficult (if not outrightly impossible) situation to prove. Polling trends tend to be influenced by many events, sometimes by a chain of them, and many times their impact cannot be ascertained until weeks or even months later (at which point, subsequent events will have taken place that may have made the initial changes moot). In order to add an event, we would have to solve several issues, among which:

1. What does "event" mean: it's an executive order? An election? A leadership change? A whole campaign? A single protest? A chain of protests? A war? A pandemic? An announcement? A declaration? An interview? A speech? If it's a speech, it's a particular word or sentence? It has to be an event from the polled country or an event happening in another country? What if there are several inter-connected events? Etc.
2. What should we consider as a "impactful or meaningful" event?: A party gaining (or losing) 1 point would count as a relevant enougn impact to justify having an event for it? It has to be 10 points? 5? 20? No impact at all, just a random event that is considered as important (and if so, how is such importance determined)?
3. If we base the addition of events to tables on the measure of their "impact", for how much time does such impact have to last in order for it to be considered as "significant" for inclusion?: Most opinion polling trends tend to not last forever. They usually last some weeks, then subside. And for trends lasting longer, you'd typically have multiple other events that could be contributing to such a trend. A government will typically wear out after many years in power and a chain of unrelated, insignificant (by themselves) events may end up triggering a new polling trend. Also, new trends will make previous ones moot, meaning that the relevance of previous events will be cancelled by future ones.
4. Once we have somehow agreed on which events to add, how should they be described? What's the particular text to be added?: How an event row is described? What text is to be added? This may seem a nuisance, but practice has shown that edit wars and long discussions may spark just because of the exact wording of an event row in an opinion polling table. Is it really worth the effort?

Most of the time, you would have to end up justifying that an event affects polling with circumstancial evidence, but that's it. And that is wholly within WP:SYNTH (if not outright WP:OR) territory. In order to avoid that, you would have to list every-single-event that "may" "possibly" affect polling, which would mean you would clutter the table with events in order to avoid cherry-picking which events should be in and which should not (thus going against WP:NPOV). This is not feasible.

Some opinion polling articles provide an alternative solution, which is to add a line above the tables linking to articles that actually cover events that took place during the opinion polling period: Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election#National poll results links to 2025 in United Kingdom politics and government and 2025 in the United Kingdom; Opinion polling for the 2024 Austrian legislative election#Poll results links to 2019 in Austria, 2020 in Austria, 2021 in Austria, 2022 in Austria, 2023 in Austria, 2024 in Austria; and so on. In my view, choosing this over the "event row approach" would not only solve the aforementioned issue with events, but would also encourage people to edit those other articles (which at times are left underedited), without the need to duplicate information nor creating additional problems to opinion polling articles and leaving to the readers' themselves to reach any conclusions they wish without us pre-establishing what influences polling and what not for them.

All in all: no to any event rows in opinion polling tables, open to alternative proposals that help build Wikipedia stronger. Impru20^talk 13:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you about political events such as executive orders or but no one (at the very least in the UK polling thread) is arguing for their inclusion and you have already been reassured about this. Whilst debating their inclusion makes this, as you correctly point out, a scale that is unreasonable to do in a completely neutral manner.

However, the true scale of suggestion (and what has been done successfully in the 2019 page, although I do understand you wish that to be removed) is much lower in scope and much more reasonable. We are talking about mentioning changes to the actual political structure of parties such as a change of leadership, creation/deletion of a party, or the merging of two parties.

This is does not make the page a list of political events, it merely explains very direct impacts and a change of Prime Minister (for example) is something you'd find on most graphical summaries of voting intention polling and they manage it perfectly fine.

As for "how do we decide what is too big or too small", we do not. If it is a party that exists within the table, it will be mentioned. If the party does not, it will not be mentioned. I'm sure you remember well, we have already decided how to judge whether a party should be included in the page, this follows the same rules.

I understand completely you wish them not to be included and believing them not to be necessary is a completely valid place to stand but these fears of violating some larger wikipedia guidelines are blown out of proportion in my opinion. Kirky03 (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

This topic is about event rows in polling tables in general, not just at the UK opinion polling articles, so that is the approach of my comment (it applies to UK articles as well, but not only). Executive orders are just one out of many examples that some users have cited in the past as "significant enough events that should be added" to these tables. Obviously, the perception of what is signicant is a very subjective one, and we can have as many "significant events" as users, if not more.

The UK 2019 example you cite is not truly "successful": I already pointed out how some of the examples you cited at the UK talk page were done without consensus and without an explanation on how they adhered to the established consensus there, so I would not say that is successful (indeed, I would have removed these right away if the issue was not being currently under discussion).

I think your reply hints exactly at my point: you say that the scope of application is much lower, but it isn't. Throughout the years (and up to the present day), some users elsewhere have used the UK opinion polling articles as a reference on why event rows should be added elsewhere (in some sort of circular argument that, just because something is done in some place, it should be automatically done elsewhere), despite that one being a very specific compromise solution made for a specific set of articles a couple years ago. Time has shown that such solution is not working properly. It does not work even for the specific UK articles themselves, as the compromise solution has frequently been used to attempt to justify including even more events than those agreed for (even to the present day: "if leadership changes are added, then the creation of a party should be added too"). For the specific issue of party creation, it was already mentioned here and here that, if a party is significant enough to get polled, it will be shown in the tables with a column. You do not need an event row to establish a party as significant, it would be a pointless and redundant feature anyway.

All those events (and any that you may think of) ultimately meet the issues and concerns I raised above. You cannot have a truly "neutral" set of events, because the issue is not the event themselves but the narrative (and, ultimately, editorialism) their addition attempts to establish. You want to consult events? Use the "[Year] in [country]" articles which are (much) better suited to list all relevant events in a given country. Impru20^talk 15:52, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the [year] in [country] articles are useful, but I disagree on the idea that these articles mean there shouldn't be events of major significance to the election shown in the table. The biggest problem is that articles such as 2025 in the United Kingdom or even 2025 in United Kingdom politics and government are highly verbose and actually include far too much information to effectively replace the listing of only the most important events, as is currently shown in the opinion polling articles. When trying to follow opinion polling in relation to the most significant events like party leadership changes, removing the events from the list would make this very difficult. Those most significant events being included improves readability, and often provides important context to the numbers shown (e.g. with events surrounding Liz Truss in the 2024 UK polling article).

In my opinion the events should be kept, and I maintain that it's reasonable to consider a new party creation (of a party significant enough to have its own column) to be more significant than a leadership election. I think it only makes sense, given the existing "compromise" standard. It's a leadership change (from no-one to someone), and a creation of a new party, combined into a single event. Looking at the 2019 UK polling page, I'm not sure that specifically the closure of candidate nominations should be included, although I'm sympathetic to everything else that is shown there, which currently seems to be leadership changes, party creation, major events like the beginning of the campaign period, and by-elections or similar. I think these four categories at least should remain. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I think I'd also personally add an event to the 2024 UK polling article on 4 January 2021, for the renaming of the Brexit Party to Reform UK. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Events listed at 2025 in the United Kingdom and 2025 in United Kingdom politics and government are no more than 2-3 lines long (and most are 1 line long). I cannot see how this is "highly verbose"; I'd say that, in most cases, this is the required info to properly describe an event. You cannot do that with event rows without distorting the whole table.

"actually include far too much information to effectively replace the listing of only the most important events" Just to remind everyone here: opinion polling tables are not timelines of events. The "[year] in [country]" do not "effectively replace" any listing because opinion polling tables are not meant as listings of events. There is a misconception on what opinion polling tables are meant for, here.

"e.g. with events surrounding Liz Truss in the 2024 UK polling article" It is so? The death and state funeral of Elizabeth II is not mentioned. Neither is the mini-budget, nor the pound sterling fall, nor the IMF criticism of UK fiscal policy, nor the government's cancellation of their plan to abolish the highest income tax band, nor Truss' Conservative Party Conference speech (together with the Greenpeace protests), nor the rail workers' strikes, nor the Bank of England's warning of a material risk to financial stability, nor Kwasi Kwarteng's dismissal, nor Jeremy Hunt's emergency statement, nor the events surrounding the chaotic 19 October 2022 parliamentary votes. Do you think these events are not needed to provide context? Do you think we need to add them? Do you think an opinion polling table is suited to include these and other events "to provide context to readers"? And these are just a handful of examples related to the specific case you brought: I could go on with many other events related to this and other cases.

"When trying to follow opinion polling in relation to the most significant events like party leadership changes, removing the events from the list would make this very difficult." Opinion polling tables are not meant for this. You are acknowledging that the purpose of event rows is to create a narrative that readers should follow, which is exactly what I am criticizing, and is exactly what poses a problem. Who determines the narrative? Who determines what are the "significant events"? Who determines how should readers follow opinion polling? In relation to which events? Even leadership changes may prove insignificant in opinion polling trends, or easily eclipsed by other events.

"I'm not sure that specifically the closure of candidate nominations should be included" This may be one of those events that some user added because they thought that it "added context". Just as you may think that some other events may "provide context". And another one will think that other events do "provide context". See my initial comment as to why this may (and does) pose a problem. "I think I'd also personally add an event to [whatever]" And yes, this just highlights why this is a problem: we cannot keep adding what everyone does personally think that should be added. This is exactly the point I have made in my initial statement. Impru20^talk 17:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I shouldn't have said "verbose", rather I should have said "excessive". Most of the events on the list are trivial, the actually important events for the next election such as leadership changes are lost in the sea of "random councillor resigns seat", or "politician said something". I agree it's difficult to get a consistent standard for events that doesn't get blown out of proportion, but I think we've got a fairly good balance as is - the number of events is miles away from being a problem right now. I think the Israeli article is an example of too many events clogging up the actual content. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

You don't even have to go to the Israeli example. Take Opinion polling for the next Australian federal election, which allegedly only shows the "minimalist approach" of events (leadership changes, party creation). It depicts five events in a row (some of them cancel themselves) without any intermediate poll. What impact do they have? How are they relevant? What context do they provide to opinion polling? Why are those even selected?

And you still miss the key point. You speak as if events should be taken for granted as a feature in opinion polling tables, as if these were designed for that, but they weren't and that isn't their purpose. The correct balance for something that doesn't belong in a place is for it to not be placed there. Impru20^talk 22:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

That looks fine to me, those are all major events that occurred right after the previous election, so makes sense they were consecutive. "but they weren't" They're just wikitables, you can design them to include whatever you want. "The correct balance" That's your opinion, there's no objective right or wrong. If you want to get rid of excessive details, then these tables don't need to include whether every poll was online or by telephone or what the same size is. We're already presuming that these are reputable pollsters who strive for a representative sample and moderate margin of error (right?), so these aren't really significant details or informative to most readers like these contextual notes can be. — Reywas92^Talk 23:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

The difference is that you cannot fully provide context for an event (or chain of events) with the design of a wikitable for opinion polls. They are not intended or designed for that, and it is not that you are proposing a design revamp either. The SYNTH and NPOV concerns are not even remotely addressed, which I find troubling. Impru20^talk 06:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

However, in the event of the creation of a whole new party, whatever they are polling at is by the nature of its existence changing polling. It is also, if I may be blunt, common sense that a change in leadership would.

But there are also more complex changes that may need to be recorded. If two parties merge (or a party splits in two), it may help the reader of the article to be able to see a note telling them that that happened so that they can better interpret the information.

It is a small matter for these articles which ultimately are incredibly negligible but can provide useful bits of information that make the articles better for their users. Arbitrarily using wikipedia guidelines in dubious ways ignores the reason they exist. They exist to make wikipedia better for the readers, not the editors, and obscuring incredibly relevant information does not create a better experience for the user.

Does it really hurt in any way for these not to exist? Kirky03 (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

You do not explain why do the opinion polling tables need to explain or record that, when that is not their purpose. This is ultimately the issue that almost no one seeks to address when confronted with it. Also, when you say abitrarily using wikipedia guidelines in dubious ways seems a serious accusation: what are the "dubious ways" here? I could say the same about using opinion polling tables in "dubious ways" and for purposes that are not their own. You yourself acknowledge that adding such event rows seeks to lead readers to specific interpretations, which is exactly what I am countering (and denouncing) here. Impru20^talk 15:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Why do we do anything? Why do we colour code the parties, or put the sample size, or (in the case of UK polling) whether it is UK or GB? Why, why, why? We do them to make a better experience for the user where all the relevant information is easily obtainable. The balance is between ensuring the information is there without clutter.

What is currently in place provides information without adding clutter. There is little reason to remove.

Also, to add further context to my comment on wiki guidelines being used in dubious ways. I was simply trying to say that they are only relevant in a strenuous way and so are at best a thought to be considered rather than a leading argument in of itself. I am not sure it is original research to have a note explaining that a new party was founded on x date and that's why a new column suddenly appears following that date. It is simply clarity. Kirky03 (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

• Yes It should be limited to items directly relevant to the election such as changes of party leaders, but these events can often provide relevant context of the election timeline like what parties might be included in polling and major swings so they should not be completely excluded. The events in the Israeli election article are mostly quite relevant because they directly explain changes in what might be included in the Government bloc or Opposition bloc or what parties are being polled in the first place; however, the resignations of some members are not very explanatory here and should be removed or limited. Reywas92^Talk 15:46, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Just as stated above: all of these purposes seem legit, but that is not the opinion polling tables' job to do. If this is relevant, explain it in prose in the relevant article. You cannot explain the full context of an event in a single row in a table, and you can get too many "relevant events" that you may feel that need to be added "to provide context". There are better (and more policy-compliant) ways to do that, but not in a table whose purpose is a different one. Impru20^talk 15:58, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. These are unobtrusive and informative, and readers shouldn't have to cross-check the campaign prose with the table to get the context. Per WP:NOTSTATS, context should be provided for statistics, and that's better within the polling page than only on the main article. There can be better limits on what type of events to include as is appropriate for that country's politics, but there should not be a ban. Nor can a sweeping consensus be made here, especially with no other pages notified about this. — Reywas92^Talk 18:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I should remind you that opinion polling articles are content splits from the main election article, due to size. The main election article is still (and should be) the primary topic of information regarding the election and polling trends. If a polling trend is relevant for election context then it should be included into the main article. If you do not wish to include it into the main article, then it is not relevant for the election and should have no place elsewhere either. Further, event rows do not even properly give context or analysis: they are purely decorative, while forcing readers to interpret that such event has an impact in polling without even caring to explain how and why. If you cherry-pick a few of them, even if individually sourced, you can lead readers to your preferred narrative without the need of sourcing that narrative as a whole (that is a blatant WP:SYNTH violation). And yes, Opinion polling for the next Israeli legislative election is a perfect example of what is wrong in including such events (some parts of the tables have more event rows than polls): what context do these provide? What impact do these have in polling? Why is each of these events relevant? Where is even any of it explained? Of the aforementioned concerns I raised above, no one is making the slightest attempt at addressing any of them. Impru20^talk 19:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and I would agree that a consensus in any way would require a properly formatted RfC (specially considering this affects a wide number of articles), but I think this was aimed at getting some preliminary input, though. Impru20^talk 19:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your judgement about member resignations. Those are unnecessary amounts of detail. Kirky03 (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, within reason. The UK and Israeli pages brought up here definitely have gone to an extreme; these pages supposed to be for Opinion polling, not an exhaustive list of every event between elections. That's more what in the Next Foo election Background or Timeline sections are for, and in the case of by-elections and floor crossings, even nth Foo Legislature. But some events can be relevant and useful information for readers. In countries where politics are very leader-centric, a party changing leaders is both a significant event in the lead-up to an election, and one that can have an impact on the party's polling. Likewise, it seems reasonable to highlight the formation of new parties, assuming they're ones that get media attention and appear in polling surveys. Anything more than that should be included sparingly, and only events that are truly exceptional: things like war, massive and sustained protests, a coup attempt, etc. that could reasonably be expected to significantly affect public opinion. One editor suggests linking to 2025 in Foo articles offers a compromise, but I don't think this is actually very helpful: if a reader is going through the data here to see how a leadership change affected something, or is curious about a sudden change, they're going to have to open two tabs are cross-reference the pages. That just sounds cumbersome and obnoxious to do. Again, we should absolutely be culling which events we put in here, but I think a blanket ban on all events is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

"could reasonably be expected to significantly affect public opinion" And how do you determine this?

"if a reader is going through the data here to see how a leadership change affected something" If you think a reader needs to see how a leadership change has affected something, and you have sources backing up that claim, then by all means add such bit of info into the context/background section in the main election article. Opinion polling tables are not meant to lecture readers into how X event affected something (and indeed, adding an event row does not even properly address this, since you cannot explain the full context in a single row). Basically every "Yes" !vote is (indeed) falling into the same issues I just denounced in my initial comment. Impru20^talk 19:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Have you read WP:BLUDGEON? I'm just curious. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I am merely asking people to be coherent and answer simple questions that were raised in the process and that affect nuclear points of the issue at hand. Worry not, I will assume you just cannot. Impru20^talk 06:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

(And yes, I am attempting to back down on this to write less, but it is fairly frustrating how people here seem to be falling under the exact same problems that have plagued this issue for years, that I have raised on the basis of my own experience with this issue and that, despite all of it, it does not even look like a slightest attempt to read what I said is being made). Impru20^talk 07:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I Appreciate you mentioning under which context leadership changes/new parties should be mentioned. It is an important aspect. I would personallynargue this should be every party listed in the columns and no party not listed, that way we avoid any amount of original research that goes beyond that which determines which parties get a column.

I'm not personally affronted by the idea of including major events such as a war however this is what gets a bit subjective and is the issue that other editors have been raising, so I would argue against their inclusion for that reason. Kirky03 (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, within reason - If reliable secondary sources such as national newspapers indicate an event, such as a change of leadership in a political party or a split, had a major effect on polling, then that is sufficient to include that event in the table and help give the reader context to major shifts in polling. CeltBrowne (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

• Yes Coming from someone who mostly edits Eastern European polling pages, these events are really important to the understanding of any user of the set-up of the table and the polls. For example, in Czechia there has been quite a complex process of coalition forming/joint lists. I understand that this could be explained in the main page (and it still should be), but equally when the information can be right there and provide a short helpful explainer, that is no bad thing. Or, in another example, take Hungary, where parties have begun to announce they are not running in the upcoming election; especially when few pollsters to begin with include the minor parties, it is not obvious to see when they ceased to run and makes it easier for the user to locate it with an event in the table. I do not see the point in removing information like this when it is just helpful to anyone who arrives on the page. Quinby (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  Never thought about that, but I think this is useful context! iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply if you would be so kind) 09:16, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but only if multiple RS report that an event influenced the polls.. Koopinator (talk) 07:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that's possible to establish in all cases, and might create some unusual events that by all other metrics shouldn't be there. Quinby (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I considered this standard myself but I think I agree with the response above - It'll likely create a flood of events when opinion polling changes, so I think we should stick to the four that seem to be included already - leadership changes, party creation (controversial - see above), by-elections and similar, and important dates such as the parliament dissolving. I'd add to this list the beginning of a major war, particularly one that involves the territory of the country being polled for as has been done in the Israeli and Ukrainian articles. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I also agree.

It's a good solution but I am concerned it is open to the issues others have been raising when backing a no stance. Even if those issues don't come to pass, we probably need to be cautious about creating a solution everyone can be happy with which unfortunately I don't think this would be. Kirky03 (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes event rows within reason. Agree that eg Opinion polling for the next Australian federal election has it excessive amount right now, but even then I think it’s just a matter of being flexible and cutting where needed, rather than outright bans.

I think it is helpful providing context - eg the pre-campaign polls for Opinion polling for the 2025 Canadian federal election, and I think it wouldn’t be good to prevent these markers being added here and there. It also isn’t a major change visually, unlike eg changes between TIE and TILE election infoboxes iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply if you would be so kind) 09:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes but only if its affect the polls Braganza (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I've added my opinion further up, I personally think there are four categories that I would include.

• Leadership changes/party changes (e.g. new parties founded or party renames)
• Major events effecting the country (like invasions or similar)
• By-elections and similar (like local elections)
• Election related events like the election being called

I agree that sometimes they go too far, but I actually am not sure if most of the examples mentioned have. The Australian example is unfortunate because there were so few polls in the chaotic post-election period, I'm not sure if anything included here is unjustified though. Maybe Dutton's resignation itself could be merged with Ley's election? Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Post-election periods tend to be chaotic (typically, parties will see leadership changes and such most frequently in this phase), whereas very few or no polls at all will be published (because interest in conducting opinion polls temporarily wanes during this time). We cannot say "X example is unfortunate" while still defend the value of adding event rows, because those unfortunate examples are the consequence of enforcing event rows into opinion polling tables (yes, adding event rows has many undesirable and unfortunate consequences, so of course you have to account for them). Also, of these four categories, the first and second ones are wildly problematic ("leadership changes" and "party changes" when it comes to decide which parties are considered as relevant enough to have their leadership changes mentioned, if we account for both resignations and appointments, etc.; "major events affecting the country" is a wildly broad category subject to interpretation and synthesis, probably the most problematic category by far). While this has been discussed ad nauseam throughout Wikipedia, Talk:Opinion polling for the 2022 Australian federal election#RfC on commentary rows together with Talk:Opinion polling for the 2022 Australian federal election#Macron claim that Morrison lied and its relevance to voting intention provide an example of a particular "major event affecting the country" being discussed. Impru20^talk 11:29, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I would say that determining which parties are relevant is not a problem, it can be narrowed down to the parties that are regularly polled and as such have their own column in the table. If a particular figure forms a new party or becomes its leader, and then the party is polled, that event can be retrospectively added (or often, as there has often been hypothetical polling, added at the time e.g., Omtzigt, Magyar). Quinby (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

For party formation/changes: if it is narrowed down to the parties that are regularly polled, one can ask what the purpose of such event row is if you are gonna have a column for that party anyway... wouldn't it be a redundant and unnecessary event row? What info would it provide, exactly? Wouldn't it be already visually evident with the additional column?

For party leadership changes: would regional parties that get polled regularly (but that poll consistently around 1-2% of the vote) be considered as "relevant enough" to get their leadership changes mentioned, even if the leadership change itself is not relevant in reliable sources related to/mentioning the country? Also, leadership changes do not necessarily take place simultaneously: frequently, it is the leader announcing his/her departure, then his/her formal resignation, then the leadership contest, then the formal appointment of his/her successor. If that leader is a prime minister, then the date of his/her appointment as PM may not be the same as their appointment as party leader. This could account for four/five event rows alone if these do not take place on the same day. Should event rows for all of them be included? If yes, why are all of them relevant? If not, which criteria are you going to establish to determine which ones are relevant/have an impact in polling and which ones aren't/haven't?

This while other issues still remain unaddressed. Impru20^talk 12:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I think you are confusing arguments, I don't think 'polling impact' is measurable from events nor should it be used to determine whether something should be added to the page. The events should be for user understanding of the relevant parties shown in the table, and the elections that go on. The only other events I can imagine including are ones that pause the campaign, such as terror incidents as briefly mentioned above. Quinby (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

So, who decides "which events should be for user understanding of the relevant parties shown in the table"? Then, if it's only for "understanding of the relevant parties", surely that information can (and should) be in the main article of the election, so I do not understand how its presence in the polling tables is relevant. I see some attempt at squaring the circle here: somehow we should aim both to have some events in the polling tables to "provide context/information", while being careful at it becoming absolutely chaotic, but the question remains at how would you determine which events "provide context" and which ones do not. Particularly, when having event rows will inevitably lead to other users jumping to add event rows of their own. We do not need a discussion to reach that situation as that is the situation at present.

This, this or even this are perfect examples of what should not be done: event rows being added (and, at many times, stacked one on top of the other in a long continuum of events without any opinion poll in-between) that provide little to no useful context to any casual reader, while cluttering the table and making it more complex to read and navigate. Here we have up to ten event rows compared to just one poll. Impru20^talk 14:56, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I would be perfectly fine agreeing to remove events from all tables that are not the main polling table, that's just repeating content, and leads to some of the problems you outline. Please see below for my proposed categories Quinby (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, I am against those categories and I think I have thoroughly explained why in my numerous comments. I will not repeat myself, but those fail to address any of the raised concerns (and indeed, leave way too much room to interpretation, which is precisely the problem that Bondegezou and myself have denounced). Impru20^talk 16:07, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, to some extent I don't think a hard and fast rule is achievable on this, since different countries inevitably have different event and political situations, which may vary different treatment. I would say that in general the tables are not supposed to contain a list of every event that can possibly affect polling. I would say it should be reserved for events that are so significant that knowing about them is neccesary for understanding subsequent polls. Not all leadership changes neccesarily qualify (particularly for minor parties or immediate post-election changes), but some do, particularly if it's in the ruling party. Joint lists/coalitions/parties being formed or dissolved do qualify in my mind, at least if the parties in question are politically significant. Also for other events, it should be a case-by-case assessment. Personally I would use the format sparingly. Gust Justice (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, within reason – as per the rationale of the users above DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 18:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

There has been a lot of discussion, so thanks to all for their contributions. I'm adding a break to make it easier to continue the discussion. Just as a summary so far (and I hope I've not misrepresented anyone), broadly there are three camps. Myself and Impru20 favour no event rows. The largest group (Kirky03, Eastwood Park and Strabane, Reywas92, Kawnhr, iamthinking2202, Quinby) favour a limited set of event rows, broadly what has been the consensus on UK articles to date (leadership changes, party mergers, etc.), although with maybe some disagreement on the precise details. Finally, CeltBrowne and Koopinator favour event rows when there is WP:RS that it has affected polling; Braganza is possibly also in this group. Bondegezou (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I would describe that as a fair characterisation.
I would propose the following categories building on those from @Eastwood Park and strabane

• Party changes: the date a new leader takes over (discussion over whether resignations should also be done, especially as they often happen immediately after elections), the day of a merger/split of a party, or the day a party announces it is not running. Name changes can be covered with a note next to the party's name/logo in the table.
• Election-related events: this can either be done (depending on the page/integration) in the table or by separating tables, e.g., having one for the campaign period.
• Other elections: by-elections, local elections, supranational elections (though these often are included with their results, e.g., EU). It is worth saying that many by-elections (especially in the non-anglosphere world) are not covered on ENWIKI, so this may be harder and require more country-specific consensuses (also if by-elections are seen as particularly important potentially).
• Country changes: changes of government and the leader of the government. This one I am not sure about its full practical implications.
• Major events: events like invasions (e.g., Ukraine) should be included. This can be done on an ad-hoc basis, as (one hopes) events like these do not come about regularly. This should also include events like the killing of a candidate/politician (e.g., 2016 UK referendum, 2023 Ecuador presidential), which can pause campaigns.

I know this potentially throws up quite a few questions, but I think considering the plurality support some events, we should agree on the buckets those events should fall under. Quinby (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

If we have party leader changes, I think it should just be the day the new leader takes over. We don't need, as some have added in the past, a separate row for when the prior leader resigns. I note Gust Justice's comment above and also feel that changes in the leadership of minor parties seems less relevant, but then it gets complicated deciding which leaders count. Bondegezou (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the main instance where leadership changes is kind of irrelevant is where a party has two leaders (e.g. Green Party of England and Wales) and one (not both) of its leaders resign. In those cases it doesn't seem like a pivotal event. Same thing for political parties where the "official" party leader is not really the face of the party. Gust Justice (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

If we have party leader changes, I think it should just be the day the new leader takes over. We don't need, as some have added in the past, a separate row for when the prior leader resigns. I think this depends on how quickly the replacement is named. If we're looking at a country like Australia, where a leader stands down and is replaced within a week, you might be right that just a single event (for the new leader) is sufficient. But in Canada, leadership races can take years, during which the party is led by an interim leader… so not mentioning the first leader's departure can be a little misleading, as if they had been the face of the party when they actually hadn't. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

In prose, you can easily explain this situation in a single, continuous line. In a table, you need to have at least two separate rows at different dates that may or may not be contiguous (and, if they are not, how are you even expected to "provide context" years apart? Are readers supposed to know the separate dates in which each event takes place and make the connection themselves?).

Most, if not all, of the problems discussed up until now come from the very simple fact that such tables are not meant nor designed to explain or give any written context. So yes, it is prone to be misleading either way. Impru20^talk 16:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Sadly, we cannot nor should not be providing the full context behind such things for reasons you've pointed out but that doesn't mean we should not provide what we can. Kirky03 (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I am really not seeing the objection here. How is having two rows years apart (separated by several polls, if not dozens) excessive clutter? How is "January 15, 2017: Smith stands down as leader" and "March 8, 2019: Jones becomes leader" supposed to be impossible for readers to decipher? But I also didn't use the words "provide context", so maybe this comment is in the wrong place. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, I have not pronounced the work "clutter" in this section at all, and indeed the comment you are replying to relates to an entire different issue, so is it possible that it is your comment, not mine, that is in the wrong place? As for providing context: wasn't that the reasoning behind adding event rows? What is their purpose, then?

Answering Kirky: we can (and should) indeed provide the full context whenever needed. You can do that in the main election article, where it should be, and where you can do it in an easier and more effective way. Obviously it is sad that opinion polling tables cannot fully meet our desires in that regard, but maybe that is because such tables are not meant nor properly designed to provide such context in prose. Impru20^talk 19:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh my god, I'm not playing these games with you. Peace. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Which "games", if I may ask?

Earlier on, you accused me of bludgeoning without even caring to address any of the points I legitimately raised in the discussion.

You then accused me of placing a comment "in the wrong place" after claiming it stated something it did not. Again, without addressing the (legitimate) points I raised within it.

You now say I am "playing games", again avoiding to actually reply to the comment's content. I dare you instead to play the game of assuming good faith.

You are free to ignore me if you do not wish to address my points, but please stay on topic without making any personal considerations on other editors. Thank you. Impru20^talk 22:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I suppose the general solution would be to consider the moment an interim leader takes over to be a "new leader" however really we'd have to just trust the individual editors. Kirky03 (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

As for which leaders count, I don't think this has to be complicated. Just the parties that get polled and are included in the table already. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

This seems to make the most sense. Kirky03 (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd personally include within the party changes section the founding of a new party or renaming of an existing party, the former being why this discussion came up in the first place. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Hatnotes on state-level US presidential articles

I would like to notify members of this Wikiproject that the vast majority of state-level US presidential election articles use {{main}} as a hatnote. The template is not meant to work like that; it is meant to signify daughter articles of a subject related to a heading within the article. Also, multiple articles could claim to be the parent article of the state-level US presidential election articles. I have been chipping away at the templates for a while but over a thousand articles are affected. ✶Quxyz✶ 21:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

United States House of Representatives - seat gain in state represented with an infographic instead of a table

I'm sorry if I come off as uninformed, but I really can't find anything about it on this talkpage. Is there any reason for the US HoR elections 1924-2006 not having a net seat gain per state table? Instead, the seat gain in each state is presented with this awkward infographic where the states with 1-2/3-5/6+ gained seats are being lumped together. osuh (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

2025 New York City Democratic mayoral primary has an RfC

2025 New York City Democratic mayoral primary has an RfC for determining the colors used for electoral result maps. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Einsof (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

MOG:GEOCOMMA in local elections

There is a proposition to amend the examples in MOS:GEOCOMMA for local elections. You'll find it here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:GEOCOMMA in article titles. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Last election in the infobox – what to list first? Percentage or seats

A discussion that might be of interest here. Cheers, Number 57 18:37, 2 August 2025 (UTC)