Elections and Referendums Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

India: Himachal Pradesh / Politics Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Himachal Pradesh (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

@Dhruv edits I would like to revert this edit Special:Diff/1111333562/1111340389. This type of table structure is followed by Election commission of Gujarat and I find it more easier to navigate. Since the constituencies are basically numbered according to District it makes sense that District is the first entry for the reader to view. Most important benefit of this type of table is that the sorting functions works. After your edits the sorting function no longer works. I know previous tables used the version that you edited, but in the face of the more benefits, we should use the sortable table structure. Would you object to my revert? Venkat TL (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824 for opinion. Also thr voter data is informative and it should be kept in table Venkat TL (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I too like the district info as a column, just because of the sortability. If Dhruv agrees to the revert then its ok, otherwise you might solicit a wider opinion on the IndPol project.

I'm not sure about having the electors column in this (candidates) table, unless it is temporary. That info can be moved to the results by constituency table later. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Venkat TL @MPGuy2824 I am fine with the sortable table suggestion. I agree with MPGuy2824 regarding the electors column. Seems unnecessary to include it under candidates section. Though I think it will be better if it is moved to Voter statistics section (rather than result by constituency table), which seems like the best place for this information. Dhruv edits (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dhruv edits, MPGuy2824 thanks for comments and agreeing to sortable. Of course when the results are declared, the new voter info will be available and will be added into result table. After the results are declared, this column can be removed from this table. Butt Till the time the results are declared, I believe this can be included here, as it signifies the size of the electorate. Creating a separate table just for one column looks like an overkill to me. Venkat TL (talk) 09:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians change party all the time. Switch by unelected leaders is not relevant because none of them are notable politicians. Venkat TL (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are not random politicians, these are state presidents and vice-presidents, and I don't see how you can say they aren't notable politicians. In my talk page, you just said that you didn't agree with it hence you removed it, without giving a good reason. If you don't have any good reason to counter the above argument, please revert it back. Ok123l (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes they are random, non notable person. If any of them had their own Wikipedia article, then we could consider. Since they are not MLA or famous person. There is no need to add them. This is a good enough reason. Please follow WP:DISPUTE and WP:ONUS. Onus is on person adding the content. You added without a good reason. I objected and removed it. you cannot add it back without getting Consensus. It is clear that there is no consensus to add it there. Venkat TL (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anoop Kesari and Mamta Thakur are not notable politician. They do not have Wikipedia article. Nobody cares what they do hence they should not be added here. --Venkat TL (talk) 11:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheWikiholic Please do not restore without WP:CONSENSUS. See WP:ONUS. There are too many defections. Do you think 20 years later anyone will be interested in reading which nobody (without wikipage) changed to which party and when? If you think their acts and they are notable, create a bio for them first. Venkat TL (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball assuming whether people will be interested to read the page after 20 years or 30 years. The people are notable as their party in HP, hence warrant a mention as it was widely reported in multiple independent reliable sources. TheWikiholic (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that is published in newspaper cannot be added to Wikipedia. Please read WP:NOTNEWS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:ONUS. I have started the RfC as you asked. Venkat TL (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the below content related to switch of party by non notable politicians be added into the election background section? Currently only notable politicians are listed --Venkat TL (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 April 2022, AAP's Himachal Pradesh state president Anoop Kesari, along with organizational general secretary Satish Thakur and Una president Iqbal Singh joined the ruling BJP.^[1] Further, AAP's state women wing president Mamta Thakur and four other members joined the BJP on 11 April.^[2] On 16 July, former AAP Himachal Pradesh president, Nikka Patyal joined the Indian National Congress, disillusioned with Delhi's interference of AAP affairs in Himachal Pradesh.^[3] On 30 August, AAP's Himachal Pradesh unit's vice-president SS Jogata left the AAP and joined the Indian National Congress.^[4]

• Oppose addition : Per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:ONUS. The above proposed text should not be added into the article, because of reasons discussed in the section above #Switch by unelected leaders. Irrespective of the party, these politicians listed above are small time, never elected politicians who fail WP:NPOL and do not deserve their own wikipedia page. The party offices they previously held is also not notable. It is common in Indian election season for the politicians to jump ship from one party to another. Example [1] [2] [3] The switch by the elected leaders who are notable is different because they are currently holding (or held) notable elected public offices and have their own Wikipedia page. Their switch is of note to the general public. --Venkat TL (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Even though being a state president and general secretary of a political party is not notable to warrant a standalone article, the WP:POL doesn't prohibit mentioning them in the article. If it did there shouldn't be any names of AAP listed in the candidate's list, as none of them have contested in the past and not many have standalone articles per your logic. And besides that, the defections of the state president and the top-level leaders from the party are significant, as their defections have led the party to dissolve its state unit later.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should reconsider, If non notable politicians are added, then a huge list of BJP and Congress leaders defecting will have to be included. example. "At least 1,000 BJP leaders in Himachal Pradesh set to join AAP: Sisodia". The Indian Express. 14 April 2022. Retrieved 13 October 2022. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Venkat TL (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that being a state president and general secretary is not notable for a party? They are worth a mention as long as their party is a newbie in state politics. I'm not opposing the inclusion of the defection of any state-level politician, as this is a page related to state politics. Otherwise, we should remove AAP from the article by considering it as a party that is contesting the election for the first time, and the inclusion as an undue promotion until the election is over. TheWikiholic (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. You should read again, what I said. Venkat TL (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Venkat TL: From what I can gather, a lot of politicians are switching parties. To include them all would bloat the article far too much with inconsequential and non-notable information. Only notable switches and notable politicians should be included. Bowler the Carmine | talk 19:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Nobody is asking to include all politicians that has switched political parties. A state president and head of the party's organization are two of the hight political positions in a party. Switching parties have compelled their party to dissolve its state unit. I don't understand how this would not be considered a notable event, just so as long as we have listed the candidate, their manifesto, and campaign in the article. I have never seen any political party that has ever contested an election in the state enjoy such a privilege on Wikipedia. TheWikiholic (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (summoned by the bot) I lean oppose, per User:Venkat TL's point that there have been too many non-notable politicians switching parties to include them all. But I'm open to being convinced otherwise. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A state president and the head of the party's organization are two of the hight political positions in a party. Switching parties have compelled their party to dissolve its state unit. And nobody is asking to include all politicians that have switched political parties. TheWikiholic (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Switching parties have compelled their party to dissolve its state unit. Could you clarify what this means? Is this a development that should be mentioned in the article? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mx. Granger, to answer your question, if a person holding party office (non notable, non elected) switched party, it is expected that fresh appointments to those party posts (and his subordinates) will be made due to vacancy. TheWikiholic is exaggerating and overstating things here. Dont take the click bait that some newspapers post. Venkat TL (talk) 10:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (summoned by the bot) I Weakly Oppose the addition. I take Wikiholic's point that WP:NPOL is not about the internal content of articles but about who can be the subject of one. Nonetheless, I think that the politicians above are too trivial and from a purely stylistic standpoint I think they should be excluded. It is also difficult to draw the line. If there is a particularly good reason to include a non-notable politician then that's fine, though. Jtrrs0 (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A state president and the head of the party's organization are two of the hight political positions in a party. Switching parties have compelled their party to dissolve its state unit. I don't understand how this would not be considered a notable event. TheWikiholic (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @TheWikiholic you have already made and repeated your point. You have been warned not to WP:BLUDGEON this RFC Special:Diff/1116008203. Venkat TL (talk) 09:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: The leaders leaving the party have received a lot of press coverage and it caused the party to dissolve its state party unit, as mentioned above by @TheWikiholic. Leaders do leave parties often, but it's not common for an entire state unit to dissolve just because they left. This would be a big blow for the party in the elections. And it's not just 2-3 leaders who have left, the whole senior leadership of the party has left. This is quite a notable event leading to the elections and should be covered. @Venkat TL had supported adding Harsh Mahajan leaving Congress and joining BJP but Mahajan is not an MLA and is not elected. If he could be added, I don't see what stops adding these people leaving their party. Ok123l (talk) 09:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ok123l Harsh Mahajan has his own article. "He is former Vidhan Sabha Speaker and Cabinet Minister". Why are you make false assertions against him. Please note that WP:BLP prohibits you from making such false assertions against living people. Venkat TL (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I never denied that he was not former Vidhan Sabha speaker but he is not an MLA, that is what I'm trying to say. Please don't twist my words. He hasn't been an MLA since 2012. Ok123l (talk) 12:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Those mentioned who switched parties can't be called non notable as they are not MLAs who defect in fear of not getting a ticket to fight elections again and are promised ticket by their new party, but they are organisation members. Organisation members quitting not post, but the party shows lack of belief in Leadership. But politicians switch parties all the time, more so before upcoming elections for various reasons like lack of belief in leadership, disgruntlement, insult, better prospects, and promise of candidacy etc. But I support their inclusion, since these members leaving parent party directly resulted in dissolution of the party's state unit. I think this dissolution & it's cause deserve to be mentioned in the article along with the defections. @Venkat TL The article which you're quoting about 1000 BJP leaders set to join AAP is a "political" claim, not fact, by a 'politician'. And as we all know politicians are free to say & quote anything from reality to fantasy. So that is a hypothetical scenario. FofS&E (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please finish the discussion on the talk page. Not in edit summaries. I have not created that table. I understand it was created as it is one of the three major parties in the contest. Because Media covers it as a 3 Party contest. This is one example. https://thewire.in/politics/himachal-pradesh-polls-aap-bjp-anti-incumbency-youth . You can pull any article about HP election. It is covering AAP along with the other two. Venkat TL (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.deccanherald.com/national/north-and-central/despite-aaps-himachal-foray-state-headed-for-a-bipolar-election-1136035.html

https://www.business-standard.com/article/politics/despite-aap-s-himachal-foray-state-headed-for-a-bipolar-election-122081400173_1.html

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

also local body representation more important than media coverage, media can say anything Ok123l (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even the 2 links you cherry picked to show that AAP is not major, mentions AAP in the headline and also discussed AAP in the article body. That is exactly my point. AAP is one of the three parties that are routinely covered in any HP election article. Media can say anything, but Wikipedia depends on media and what the media says gets reflected in Wikipedia. Venkat TL (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

how do you say AAP is not major without mentioning AAP though, its kinda like how RLD was pretty hyped in UP election yet did not exceed 10 seats. Ok123l (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"BJP defensive, Congress looks worried as AAP's political clout grows big in Himachal | Ground report". India Today. Retrieved 2022-09-04.

"Himachal Pradesh: AAP Promises Free, Quality Education If Voted To Power". outlookindia.com. Retrieved 2022-09-04.

I am not saying, it is the media that is saying. --Venkat TL (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Venkat TL,

When we check all the past Indian election candidates in 2021, and 2022 you will notice a common trend that we have an alliance with background color and on the row below the district its # name and then the constituencies then district constituencies and repeat. Districts are NOT to be on the side and the number of electors is not needed, if you wish to add them please add them to the result table. Plus empty spaces are not helpful? Yes, they may not be however you need to remember that candidates will be announced slowly considering the election will be done by November in the next few weeks (all candidates' names). So they will slowly be added. So please not that this current table is the table we had before and the empty spaces will be filled in the coming weeks the table you had put too has empty spaces but just merged and removed lines.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Repto79456 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Repto79456 BJP has not declared any candidate yet. There is no point in adding empty rows. When BJP declares its candidate you may add them here. Dont add empty boxes till then. You are not allowed to add empty columns. Add it when the candidate list is declared. Not before. This is not a draft article or staging area. There are many editors including me who will add the names of candidates as and when they get declared. So you don't have to worry about them. For columns, read Talk:2022_Himachal_Pradesh_Legislative_Assembly_election#Candidate_table_District_vs_sorting. Venkat TL (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so when BJP starts declaring its candidates lets revert to my table? Repto79456 (talk) 08:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Repto79456 when BJP starts declaring its candidates, they will be added to the existing table with rows that have consensus. See the discussion thread I linked. If you wish to change the consensus, you will need to start a discussion to gain a new consensus. See WP:CONSENSUS. Venkat TL (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ok123l Please refer to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian politics/Election: Article structure#Surveys and polls. Only reputed polling agencies who are transparent and released their sample size error % data can be added. C Voter has not released their sample size or error % so they should not be added. Venkat TL (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

see below disclaimer in this ref

Disclaimer: The present opinion poll/ survey was conducted by CVoter. The methodology used is CATI interviews of adult (18+) respondents with random numbers drawn from standard RDD and the sample size for the same is 68,638 across 2 states (Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh). The same is also expected to have a margin of error of ±3 to ±5% and may not necessarily have factored in all criteria.Gidua (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock.[reply]

@Venkat TL see above Ok123l (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidua @Ok123l CVoter has been established to have conducted fraud polls see The Fraud Called Opinion Polls by Outlookindia.com. The error percentage is not a range by a number. That itself is a sign that this is another fraud poll. All political parties and the Election Commission of India have called these opinion polls as fraudulent. Wikipedia should not be used to promote these paid news and fraud polls. In any case Please do not restore this section without a clear consensus. If internationally reputed polling agencies (e.g. Nielson) conduct polls and release data they can be suggested to be added. CVoter is neither trusted nor reputed, in fact they have a history of being caught manipulating. Please do not add it again. Venkat TL (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is used in almost every other election wikipedia page for india, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Goa. Wikipedia technically trusts it. Punjab page is also extended confirmed, which means experienced users from WikiProject India have added it. Ok123l (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you said once, it is Wikipedia's opinion that matters, not someone's personal opinion... Ok123l (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Those articles did not add the polls until the election was over. After elections were completed, it was added. You can check article history.
• "Congress cries foul over manipulation of opinion polls, Election Commission urges Centre to act". The Economic Times.
• "Chandigarh Congress files complaint against online pre-poll survey". Hindustan Times. 23 December 2021.
• Please do not add these unreliable polls that are proved to be fraudulent. --Venkat TL (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Political parties always cries foul about the opinion polls if the results are not in there favor, this is not a valid argument. Contest the reliability of source on RSN. There is a clear consensus to add this section only you are in disagreement @Venkat TL. Gidua (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gidua ALL political parties except one have called out these Opinion polls fraudulent. Let alone parties, Even the Constitutional Body, Election Commission of India have called it as fraudulent and asked for ban on it. See below.

  Election Commission of India (ECI)

  (2014) "We have reminded the Union government a dozen times since we made our first request to ban opinion poll and exit poll surveys in 1997…Opinion polls influence unlettered and undecided voters. They can misguide young voters, too". The Election Commission (EC) of India cannot ban opinion polls ahead of elections; all it can do is remind the Union government about its long-pending request. Source

  (2014) In a communication to the ministries of Corporate Affairs and Information and Broadcasting, the EC has said the matter involves allegations of conspiracy to prepare false reports/polls for publishing misleading information on consideration of illegal payment of money in return. "Therefore, it is requested that this complaint may be looked into urgently for appropriate action at your end," K Ajaya Kumar, the Principal Secretary of Election Commission of India wrote to the secretaries of the two ministries. "The allegation is that the organisations have agreed to manipulate the results of opinion polls by tweaking figures for publishing to the general public," the poll panel noted.

  "Congress cries foul over manipulation of opinion polls, Election Commission urges Centre to act". The Economic Times.

  There is no consensus to add the controversial and fraudulent polls. Please dont misrepresent consensus. Venkat TL (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What political parties of India or Election commission of India says about any polling agency which is widely used as RS previously is immaterial. If you have any doubt about reliability of C Voter dispute it on WPRSGidua (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Again you are misrepresenting, I have shown with links why it is not reliable. Just because you believe this Godi media source is reliable does not make it one. Since you want to add this. Please read and follow WP:ONUS. Venkat TL (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Venkat TL, :@Dhruv edits

Looking at the new candidate table proposed by the Venkat TL is not a better table compared to the table we have been using for a while now. When we look at the new table it has too many rows at the width not giving it the shape needed. There are too many rows containing information that might not be needed for an average reader. The old table was simple and got the job done where had rows, for constituencies' number names and candidates on the side, and the district would be the header with the list below. This table has been in use for a while and is a better table in my opinion. The new table has made it a bit tougher to navigate and with the district coming next to the constituencies number and having the number of electors is also not a good choice. It wakes way for more width which is not good. Having the district header at the top is a better option and having the number of votes in a constituency is not a good idea as turnout will vary and an average joe may not need it. It really looks like overkill for me tbh. If Venkat wants to divide the number of voters he can instead follow what we did in 2022 Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election where we first listed the phases into ACs and district and then had district vise voter turnout for that phase. personally prefer the older tables we used and these new tables are not useful and rather just make it tougher navigation for the regular person. In addition, if Venkat TL us concerned about having empty spaces/rows, for the time being, we can create a draft page and fill the candidates there or we can use the table made by him and once all candidates are out we can revert to the table we always use. And after that if a party is not competing for a seat we can just leave it blank and merged as we did in 2022 Manipur Legislative Assembly election. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Repto79456 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Repto79456 See Talk:2022_Himachal_Pradesh_Legislative_Assembly_election#Candidate_table_District_vs_sorting. Even though the earlier format looked better, the new tabular format (with districts as the first column) has been adopted because sorting functions do not work under previous format. The electors data has been temporarily added to that table. It would either be shifted to Voter statistics section, if and when voter statistics information is made available by state EC before the election, or to the results table after counting of votes. Dhruv edits (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

okay my bad then lets keep this but move the voter statistics to its own section! Repto79456 (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Repto79456 Let's wait for more info on this since it's just one column right now. It can be moved to turnout/ results section after the vote. Dhruv edits (talk) 10:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted thanks! Repto79456 (talk) 10:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Repto79456 yes, as @Dhruv edits said, this is a temporary table, till the results are declared. I understand that you want District as rows instead of columns. Please understand that this is not a standard format of making tables on Wikipedia. Also Election commission depicts District as first column not rows. See https://ceo.gujarat.gov.in/All_ACDetails.aspx . It makes the table sortable which is a solid advantage. Venkat TL (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congress MLAs Pawan Kumar Kajal and Lakhvinder Singh Rana joined BJP in August 2022.^[1] Kajal was the head of Congress Working committee.^[2] The defection of the two senior Congress officials was deemed to be a major blow to the party just a few months prior to the Assembly election.^[3] On 28 September 2022, Himachal Pradesh state Congress working president and former cabinet minister Harsh Mahajan joined BJP. The defection was another shock to Congress.^[4][5]

@Ok123l Your removal Special:Diff/1114415940 is not appropriate. where else do you want to mention this content, this is relevant in the background section. Venkat TL (talk) 11:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could probably create separate sections for this like in 2022 Punjab Legislative Assembly election but I will revert it back for now. Ok123l (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ok123l for 2 lines, it is not appropriate to create a subsection. For now I have renamed it to Defections. Venkat TL (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jolt For AAP In Himachal As State Unit Chief, 2 Others Join BJP,AAP dissolves Himachal unit as more leaders join BJP, Himachal BJP ex-chief joins Congress. I think this is also worth mentioning for some neutrality.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @TheWikiholic will get to it. Ok123l (talk) 05:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheWikiholic You think this too is worth a mention? (diff) Ok123l (talk) 05:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Venkat TL I've restored your revert based on my previous edit summary. Even though being a state president and general secretary of a political party is not notable to warrant a standalone article, the WP:POL doesn't prohibit mentioning them in the article. If it did, there shouldn't be many names on the candidate list. And it's been two times your edit has been reverted by two different editors. If you still think there isn't any consensus to include this you better start an RFC on this.TheWikiholic (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Consensus is quite firmly for adding the above content. 3 different editors have restored it. Presidents or vice Presidents of a party leaving their party may not be notable in the political spectrum but it's fairly notable to be here. Ok123l (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC is going here regarding this ongoing content dispute, and it's better to wait until we reach a consensus there. TheWikiholic (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Election Schedule has been announced. Polling on 12 November 2022 and results would be declared on 8 December 2022. Mahesh Chhanga 78 (talk) 10:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please add it. Mahesh Chhanga 78 (talk) 10:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahesh Chhanga 78 please prepare the table in the talk page here with reference and use edit request. Venkat TL (talk) 10:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The election schedule was announced by the Election Commission of India on 14 October 2022.^[1][2]

Mahesh Chhanga 78 (talk) 10:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Admin, we have a consensus among Mahesh Chhanga 78, User:Dhruv edits and myself to include this table and the ref to Schedule section. Please add. --Venkat TL (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also support adding the table. Ok123l (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the article is that to be added? El_C 18:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter, protection downgraded to 3 months WP:ECP per request on my talk page (here). Logged AE action. El_C 18:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Now. --Venkat TL (talk) 09:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last WP:STATUSQUO version by Dhruv edits is restored for now. I have Reverted back to last consensus version that was acceptable to all, before recent controversial edits that were introduced without discussion and WP:CONSENSUS. Please follow WP:DISPUTE RESOLUTION and only make controversial edits after gaining consensus. Same applies to content removals. Regarding the full protection, this is an ongoing event and full protection is unworkable because the article gets frozen with no updates. This is a WP:controversial article and 'any user' who refuse to follow the WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION and WP:CONSENSUS policies to push their edits without consensus would need to follow the rules or should be blocked for editing warring without consensus. --Venkat TL (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]