This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

RfC on 5% threshold

Result: The standard for inclusion in the infobox of U.S. election articles is:

A candidate must receive 5% of the vote.
If only one candidate meets the threshold, then the second-place contender should be included.

Question 1:

There was minimal support for option B, a 4% threshold, rendering it non-viable. The debate essentially reduces to a question of whether or not to add "or be the nominee of a major party" clause to the current common practice 5% threshold. There was more support for A, a simple 5% rule. For practical purposes the non-viable B votes appear to translate into A votes. However there was still solid support for C, adding a major party clause. Given the fuzzy nature of treating B votes as A votes, and the fact that this still leaves the result fairly close, I find it most appropriate to call this "No consensus to add a major party clause". This has the practical effect of defaulting back to A, a basic 5% threshold.

Question 2:

There was strong consensus for A, "If only one candidate meets the threshold, then the second-place contender should be included".

Alsee (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For several years, the commonly-accepted but unofficial threshold for inclusion in the infobox of U.S. election articles has been receiving 5% of the vote. I am not aware of the exact discussion that established this policy (a link would be appreciated), but I will cite some similar past discussions: this one from 2010 regarding inclusion based on poll results, and two at Talk:United States Senate election in Illinois, 2010 relating to the same topic.

This issue was brought up by a recent RfC at the talk page of United States presidential election in the District of Columbia, 2016 regarding the inclusion of Donald Trump in the infobox. Trump received 4% of the vote in the District.

Here are the options:

Question 1
What should be the standard for inclusion in the infobox of U.S. election articles?

A) Candidate must receive 5% of the vote
B) Candidate must receive 4% of the vote (see here)
C) Candidate must receive 5% of the vote or be the nominee of a major party (Democratic, Republican)

Question 2
If only one candidate meets the yet-to-be-defined-threshold, should the second-place contender be included?

A) If only one candidate meets the threshold, then the second-place contender should be included
B) If only one candidate meets the threshold, then the second-place contender should not be included

pinging @Dennis Bratland: as he provided the options for question 1.

MB298 (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Place your opinions below. You may vote once for question 1 and once for question 2. For general discussion about this RfC, place your comments in the "Discussion" section below.

Personally, I support C for Question 1 and A for Question 2. MB298 (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, C and A. Calibrador (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Question 1, C. Question 2, A, although I think that said candidate should not be a write-in who only gets, for example, .01% of the vote. ALPolitico (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with my fellow editors above. Options C and A are the best for Questions 1 and 2, respectively. Edge3 (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
This seems to be unpopular, but I'm going to go with B for Question 1, and B for Question 2. --Mr.Election (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
1A and 2A. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
1A + 2A – Extremely simple to adjudicate, and fair. Does not unduly promote "major party" candidates when they fail to reach the threshhold. There is enough inherent bias in the US electoral system for the traditional parties. I'm not aware of such "automatic inclusion of party X candidate regardless of their score" proposals for other countries. — JFG ^talk 07:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment: If you pick C for the first question, then question 2 is moot, because there will always be two contenders representing R and D parties, therefore "A+A" makes more sense as "C+A". — JFG ^talk 07:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- @JFG: the 2nd question primarily refers to when one of the major parties fails to nominate a candidate, which isn't common but does happen, especially in effective one-party jurisdictions such as DC. MB298 (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  - In many elections in Washington one party is eliminated in the top two primary, and both names on the General Election ballot are in the same party. And five states have proposed requiring presidential candidates to release their tax returns in order to appear on the ballot. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
C for Question 1 and A for Question 2 would seem the most logical at this point. HelgaStick (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Vote I vote 1B and 2A. This is because it will give the reader the maximum amount of information about the election in the most concise manner. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
1A and 2A. Option C in Question 1 is unfair because it plays favorites with the Democratic and Republican Parties. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 16:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
For question 1: A. For question 2: B, but only for U.S. presidential election articles where the candidate won over 5% of the popular vote or electoral votes nationally. Trump obviously won much more overall in the U.S. than he did in D.C., so he should be included in the D.C. sub-page. This should be the exception to the rule due to the fact that presidential elections are a bit different than the other U.S. elections. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose all My original comment here was moved below (see there for rationale), so restating here. A closed vote like this isn't wise. Number 5 7 23:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
1 - None of the above and 2 - none of the above - the RFC seems to have presumed both the metric and a narrow range without having any basis.... and I'm thinking that unless one or opening -- and a "4 or 5 of the metric " answer here that I don't that the answer is either 4 or 5 or a single metric. Also think that the choices are not about the question -- this is not a question of interest is not a principle but the single case of DC post-election so it should be simpler and more appropriate to have asked directly 'should Trump be in the infobox for DC'. Markbassett (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
A and B, I think we should follow federal election guidelines, which place funding levels for candidate viability at 5%. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
1A and 2B, nor should candidates be in the infobox prior to the election unless they are also receiving 5% in polls. It's ridiculous that three minor candidates who got much less than 1% of the final vote were in the infobox prior to the election. Reywas92^Talk 23:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
1A and 2A but with the caveat that this is a rule of thumb that we can break if the story of the election requires. For example, I agree that Trump should be in the DC election infobox - it's a good case where breaking the rule makes sense. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
1C and 2A However, this criteria should apply at the main level of an election (e.g. United States presidential election, 2016). For subarticles that cover parts of a larger overall election in a specific location (e.g. United States presidential election in the District of Columbia, 2016), we should include all candidates who received 5% of the vote in either the national election or in that particular locality. Orser67 (talk) 06:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
1A and 2A I don't see a strong reason to lower the threshold for a "major" party. Vanamonde (talk) 07:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
1C and 2A In the U.S., it is nearly always notable when one of the two major parties comes in third, hence 1A will almost always be an appropriate treatment. If the election is contested, then excluding the second-place candidate makes it look uncontested, hence 2A will almost always be an appropriate treatment. Chris vLS (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

I also think that some discussion about inclusion in the infoboxes for ongoing elections should occur, as I've encountered a large number of edits of this nature (many of which were likely vanity edits or attempts to raise the profiles of second-tier candidates). Traditionally, the threshold has been an average of 5% or more across more than a single poll, or being the nominee of a major party. ALPolitico (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I would have preferred to stick with a no-exceptions 5% rule, as in the past, but since the RFC at Talk:United States_presidential election in the District of Columbia, 2016 has gone with IAR and inclusiveness, we should try to consistently follow it. In a blowout in which a minor party candidate comes in second second, but under 5%, I don't think we need to add a third image for the other major party candidate who did even worse. Normally when we see three faces, it's because they all did better than 5%. In principle, I think readers ought to expect to be able to compare infoboxoses across related articles and see information chosen by the same criteria in each one. The fewer special cases, the better. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe C is a prudent course of action for Q1, and that B for Q2 would correlate with the first answer.PalmerTheGolfer (talk)PalmerTheGolfer

Comment I don't support any of the three options proposed. We need a more nuanced approach to get what are realistically the main candidates are in the infobox – for example, if we have an election where candidates receive respectively 46%, 44%, 6% and 4%, that election was effectively a two-horse race and we should include only the main two candidates. However, it's quite difficult to put a mathematical formula on it – perhaps something along the lines of "Single post election infoboxes should include the winner of the election, the runner-up and any any other candidate that came within 20% of the winning candidate" (even in cases where someone is miles ahead, I think the runner-up should always be included, as having a single person in the infobox makes it look at first glance as if there was only one candidate). As an example, take the infobox on Puerto Rican general election, 2016 for the gubernatorial election (I know this isn't a US presidential election, but editors have extended the 5% rule to other countries' elections so this will affect elsewhere) – this was effectively a contest between Ricky Rosselló (42%) and David Bernier (39%), yet under the 5% rule we would include two other candidates who received over 5% of the vote, despite the fact that realistically they were not contenders for the post. Number 5 7 11:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I feel that 5% rule was completely misapplied at United States presidential election in the District of Columbia, 2016, as it was not a stand-alone election but rather a part of the United States presidential elections, 2016. As such, I believe that any candidate that was eligible to appear in the infobox of the main article, should also automatically be eligible to appear in every sub-national article. Rami R 11:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree with this. The D.C. article is a sub-article of the main article. If a candidate is eligible to appear in the main article, they should automatically be eligible to appear in the sub-article. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

This line of thinking ignores the fact that the US President is chosen by 51 completely independent contests, each with slightly different rules, administrated by independent agencies. Ballot access in one state is totally independent of any other state. You will end up featuring candidates in the infobox who aren't even on the ballot in that state. The real US Presidential election is when the electoral college meets. The prior 51 contests that select the electors are a whole separate set of elections. The only shred of counter-evidence is Bush v Gore, except the Court was explicit in saying that it was not a precedent, and subsequent cases reaffirmed that there is no Federal jurisdiction over state elections. If we really have been thinking these state contests are sub-articles of one main one, we need to repudiate that, and structure the articles in accordance with reality. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Dennis makes a good point. For example, in the United States presidential election, 1980, John Anderson received 6.6% of the national vote and as such is included in the infobox, but only received 1.2% in Alabama. Should he then be included in the Alabama infobox? MB298 (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

IMO, yes. Stating that technically the US elections are 51 independent election is, well, sticking to technicalities. It does not really matter who won a specific state (the winnning candidate doesn't became that specific state's president), but rather who won overall. Also, if we're going to be really strict about it, the state-level elections aren't for the president, they're for electors - I think even Dennis would agree we're not going to list electors in the infobox. Rami R 07:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Question Why is this applicable to only US election infoboxes? Shouldn't whatever RfC outcome we have be applied to all uses of ((Infobox election)) and other lead infoboxes that serve the same basic function? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Mis-topic and Mis-placed - Seems kind of offtopic of the question that is actually one of whether to include Trump for DC or not, this talk of 4 vs 5 based on presumption of some rule that is not known is a proxy roundabout way to put it, or not really stating the topic well. I think it is more directly and openly stated as 'should we redo the guideline to be 4% instead of 5%, or that the 5% reflects national vote and not the regional result, or what?' It also seems kind of the wrong place because of that since stating it as an RFC about the Infobox means it should be following WP:INFOBOX and this particular infobox talk should be asked at talking at the Template:Infobox election, as the place that intent of the infobox and any guidance for it would go there, not here, so it can be more widely useful. I have put a notice at that Talk but ... again I don't think it's a question of general principle it's really just a question of whether Trump goes into the DC box. Markbassett (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
As per 1990'sguy, I think Trump should be included in the DC infobox. As per Markbassett and Dennis Bratland, there is a more general issue beyond US elections. In UK elections, we mostly stick to a 5% rule (or party getting 5% last time for upcoming elections). In the UK, 5% is usually the threshold for keeping a deposit paid to stand, so it seems a logical number to use. This issue of what to do if only one candidate gets over 5% has come up: see Batley and Spen by-election, 2016, where the second place candidate got 4.6%. We've opted to only include the winner in the infobox. But I'm happy to see some flexibility on this to reflect circumstances: there's an election article somewhere (can't find it right now), where a major party is included in the infobox despite not getting any votes because they boycotted the election, but it's clear that theire non-participation is part of the story that should be so summarised in the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 10:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Like Bondegezou, I'd argue that the info-box is the story of the election, not the result. What about an incumbent party or candidate who receives less than 5% of the vote? I'd argue that their inclusion is going to be beneficial for the reader and to summarize the election. Even if not an incumbent, I'd probably argue that a competitive or 'major' party, however defined, from the most recent election ought to be included even if their vote collapsed - for example, if the Democrats implode and receive 3% at the 2020 US Presidential, I'd still include them (but not if they were to limp on as a minor party and receive below the threshold in 2024). In the UK, if the Scottish Nationalist Party's support proved to be a blip and they drop back to 6 MPs at the Next United Kingdom general election, I'd still want to include them in the infobox. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Question 2 addresses a situation so unlikely that should it happen we would have to reconsider our approach, i.e., if only one candidate received more than 4 or 5 % of the vote. Under that scenario, it is likely the government will tell us how to write the article, since it will probably be a one party state.

I think the criteria should be coverage in reliable sources. That is generally based on potential rather than actual results. They would have either the potential to win, signficantly affect the race or seriously challenge the 2 party system. The other examples since 1900 would be 1912 (4 candidates), 1920 (3 candidates), 1948 (4 candidates), 1968, 1980. 1992 and 1996 (3 candidates) and 2016 (5 candidates). I wouldn't include Debs in 1920 or Nader or Buchanan in 2000, since their campaigns are seen as more footnotes. Debs ran from prison and got 1 million votes and Nader and Buchanan may have helped swing Florida to Gore. Otherwise they were ignored in the campaigns.

BTW, in all these cases, the third party candidates had a realistic potential of hitting 6 % of the vote and in most cases did. In the cases since 1968, their polls did not hold up. However during elections we do not know what the results will be, merely expectation, and that determines coverage.

TFD (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Bondegezou and TFD - You're speaking of 5% the total vote -- the poorly phrased question is intended towards an unstated informal of 5% in the region that unstated seems to be 'for every region, show anyone who got more than 5% of that region', or is it 'show the major parties and anyone else who got more than 5% in that region', or per Rami 'show anyone who got 5% nationally' ? It's not entirely clear what the informal guide is or how these are meant to be. Anyway, Trump was decided to be included in the DC infobox in RFC there at 4%, and so now what. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking of the presidential elections overall. But I would think that what applies to the national election should apply to each state and DC provided that the candidates were on the ballot or write-ins were counted. It's not as if Trump received little coverage in DC or that no one thought he would come in first or second nationally.

In senate, congressional races etc. I would just put in the two candidates unless there were a compelling reason to add other candidates.

TFD (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What is the plan (if any) for using Wikidata for our election and candidate articles? Also, when should we have a standalone article for a particular election in a particular constituency?

I was filling in some data on Virginia House of Delegates election, 2017 from the Virginia Department of Elections database. It seems to me, though, that rather than looking everything up by hand, wouldn't it be quicker (and improve accuracy) to put in a FOIA request and get the whole database, and import that data into Wikidata? There are 69 election years' worth of data just for the House of Delegates elections, so it seems like it would be worthwhile to automate the process, if possible. Is this in the cards? N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting project, but it's pretty far out of the scope of Wikipedia. More of a Wikidata thing probably; I don't work with it much but that seems to be the purpose. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@N I H I L I S T I C: I'm more concerned by the fact that you're creating a separate article on the result for each constituency (e.g. this), which is really not needed. What we usually have for this sort of election is one article for the election, one article with the detailed results (where you could list each constituency's individual result) and one article per constituency detailing every election that's happened in it. I would suggest not wasting your time with the individual ones as they'll almost certainly be deleted at AfD. Cheers, Number 5 7 11:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm just now seeing this, since I forgot to click the bell. I wouldn't necessarily mind seeing, say, Virginia's 35th House of Delegates district election, 2017 deleted, if it turns out that there isn't going to be a challenger. (I'm not sure yet whether VPAP just hasn't updated their site, or if the Libertarian running in that race hasn't yet gotten certified for the ballot; the deadline is in June.) But most contested House of Delegates elections will end up having significant enough media coverage that I think it would be impractical to try to put all that information, for every election the district has ever had, in the main article for the district.

We could temporarily put the information in the main article and then spin it out later when that article gets too big. But then we lose the advantage of having the navbox, Template:Navbox VAHseDist 2017, and the category, Category:Virginia House of Delegates election, 2017, that make it so convenient to navigate from one election article to the next. What I suggest is, before doing a mass AfD, maybe nominate a few test cases, unless you know of a precedent for deleting state legislative election articles.

I'm not planning on creating a slew of new election articles beyond what I've already created, since I was focused mainly on the small handful of competitive seats Democrats are targeting for pickups in 2017. (I also think it's usually worth taking a lot at the races at http://www.vpap.org/elections/house/candidates/general/ where there's a crowded field, because that usually indicates a spike in interest in the race; but for now, I'll just put that content in the main district articles.) N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

We shouldn't have them full stop. Create articles on the electoral districts and then they can be linked by the template and categorised in the same manner, so no "advantage" is lost. And just to clarify, these aren't articles on state legislative elections, they're articles on those elections in one particular constituency – this is clearly unnecessary. Number 5 7 18:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

What's your opinion on articles like New Jersey's 7th congressional district election, 2008, Texas's 22nd congressional district election, 2008, Virginia's 7th congressional district election, 2008, etc.? Do those cases merit having standalone articles? If so, what makes them different? Is it that there's enough content there to justify having a standalone article; or is it that there are fewer U.S. House of Representatives elections than state legislative elections, and therefore it's more manageable? N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

No, they aren't merited either. Other editors might like to be aware that there is now an AfD for these articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia's 2nd House of Delegates district election, 2017 (someone else beat me to it). Number 5 7 07:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Most result websites around the world are data-driven. I came here because I'd developed a visualisation animation tool, and wondered if it should be applied to Wikipedia, but I was surprised that every single table and graphic seems to be manually produced. Is this the case? And am I right in thinking that the Wikipedia consensus-driven community-production model just doesn't work for a data-driven website?

Or is there a solution here involving tools that people can choose to use to auto-generate content based on data in Wikidata? Ian McDonald (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Naming convention for Virginia Senate districts

What naming convention do we want to use for Virginia Senate districts? Virginia Senate, District 40, or Virginia's 40th Senate district, or 40th Senate of Virginia district, or something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by N I H I L I S T I C (talk • contribs) 20:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The middle one seems to be in line with how other states' districts are named (e.g. Category:New York State Assembly districts). Number 5 7 21:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Or Virginia's 40th State Senate district, if we wanted to do it like Category:California State Senate districts or Category:New York State Senate districts. On the other hand, there's Category:Pennsylvania Senate Districts, another Commonwealth (as opposed to state) that uses the middle one above. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Election results articles for French legislative elections

For a while I've been intending to update French legislative election results on Wikipedia by providing results tables for all elections dating back to 1958 on constituency articles. I'd also like to create results articles on a departmental basis for each legislative election as well, though, to essentially provide a "results breakdown" by constituency for every department. This is already standard practice on the French Wikipedia, e.g. fr:Élections législatives de 2012 dans le Nord. The alternative would be to create a "mega-article" for the results from all 577 constituencies – I've got a (rather incomplete) sandbox lying around which essentially acts as one for the 2012 legislative elections, but it alone is 1.5 MB, so I personally think it would be more permissible or ideal to provide such breakdowns on a departmental basis only. Any particularly strong feelings about this? Mélencron (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I only partly agree with this proposal. I think that a "mega-article" for 577 constituencies would be a nightmare to navigate. Instead, I propose that "results breakdown" articles be created for regions/groups of constituencies/larger territorial divisions (whatever best fits), and then individual constituency results left for the constituencies' individual articles. Impru20 (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I think I'll go with departmental divisions; the closest U.S. analog to this might be something like United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2016 (results breakdown from a subnational division of a specific national election by constituency). Mélencron (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Electoral system article

There is a discussion on whether plurality voting should be singled out for being an unfair voting system in a proposed new introduction of the electoral system article. As it's a bit of a stalemate between three editors at present, extra input would be welcome here. Cheers, Number 5 7 22:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

(Note: edited "unfair"->"inferior" in the above. Thanks to Number 57 for posting the notice. Homunq (࿓) 22:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC))

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 12/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Turnout figures

Hi, I'm doing a bit of work on some local elections (in the United Kingdom), and have been pointed over here by the teahouse regarding this query, and was wondering what the best way to show rejected/spoilt ballots in the turnout figures was inside the election boxes - should I just add them to the total turnout figure and leave it at that or create and extra row for rejected ballots? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballotboxworm (talk • contribs) 12:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC on voting method

I've started an RfC on Talk:voting method about the naming of that article. I apologize for reopening this issue, but I feel that the clarity of the evidence warrants it in this case. Homunq (࿓) 15:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox problem

I'm having problems with Template:Infobox Election at United Nations Security Council election, 2017. I can't get it to display the newly elected members of the council properly, and I don't know what I'm doing wrong. Could someone here please have a look. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Set | ongoing = no to show results. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

How much prose should election articles have?

It seems like in some cases, people want to remove almost all the prose from election articles and just have a bunch of data about endorsements, polling, fundraising, and results. Biographical information about the candidates, and information about the political controversies in the races, along with significant campaign events such as debates, gets eliminated.

Also, in articles about constituencies (e.g. districts), people sometimes want to eliminate almost all the prose and just have data about election results. Let's say there's a constituency that has had elections for the past 200 years. If you include information about the issues, controversies, and events of the most recent election, that gets removed as recentism. But of course, if people would keep adding this kind of information with each successive election, then 100 years from now, we would have 100 years worth of information about the constituency's political history. If that information gets removed every time, then 100 years from now, we still have nothing but results data. Compy book (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

All I can tell you is that I'm going through the WP Elections and Referendums "popular pages" report right now, and it looks to me like too many election articles have too many tables, and not enough prose. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I haven't seen so much removal of prose, but many articles absolutely need more of it. So many need to actually cover the campaign and not just results. Reywas92^Talk 06:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Compy book: Is there a specific article that has made you say this? Number 5 7 12:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I too support the call for more prose. It seems to me more often a case that prose never gets written in the first place rather than that it gets removed. Bondegezou (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

"About the candidates" sections routinely get scrubbed from articles. Mister Ernest Thayer (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Thank you for the example. That seems to represent practice on US election articles: I've not seen the same on UK or many European election articles. Possibly it's something, therefore, better taken up on a more specific US project page? Bondegezou (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Treatment of percentage change on previous election

I have been looking at Parliamentary election results in the UK, following the recent General Election (and occasionally filling in some details). There seems to be no consensus on how the '±' column should be completed if the relevant party (or individual independent) did not stand in the previous election. I would say, as a matter of common sense, that, if, say, Party A stood in 2017 and got 2.5% but did not stand in 2015, that marks a +2.5 on the previous figure, but many editors seem to put 'N/A' in the column instead. This seems less logical, but is there some general psephological convention being followed here? There really seems to be no consistency of approach.Ntmr (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"N/A" or "–" would seem to be correct to me in this case, as you can't really say there was a "2.5% swing" to that party from the previous election – the party didn't exist before!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ntmr: The most common way of dealing with it across all election articles is to put "New" in the cell in the table. See e.g. South African general election, 2014 or São Toméan legislative election, 2014. Number 5 7 16:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

We could also say that it's an infinity percent increase. Mister Ernest Thayer (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I like putting "new" (or "N/A" as a second choice). Bondegezou (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Results of French legislative elections before 2002

I'm beginning a project to clean up and correct old French election articles and have been having some trouble locating results of old elections. Right now I'm attempting to locate results of the 1973 legislative election; data.gouv.fr has 473 out of 490 constituencies, with the source being the CDSP. These numbers also correspond to the totals on the france-politique archive (hobbyists). The National Assembly also has published results for the 1973 legislatives which differ from the above, but I can't find the original source it cites. What is more, neither the French nor English articles on the topic seem to cite sources for the numbers they use (inserted into their articles in 2006) – which differ from both of the previous. Any help locating complete results (by nuance, with seat numbers, etc.) would be greatly appreciated. Mélencron 15:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Idea for SVG maps with no exact county results

I've been recently turning .png files into .svg ones for election box maps in Minnesota - gubernational, senate, presidential, etc. Have about 50 done so far. However, as I'm getting into very old results without exact county data, I have been using 2 colors to denote who won the country, instead of using different shades to denote the margin they won by. Here are 2 articles to explain what I mean.

When we have exact data - Minnesota gubernatorial election, 2002

Idea for no exact result maps - Minnesota gubernatorial election, 1990

The current maps for elections with no specific county data is Minnesota gubernatorial election, 1986, and I am trying to clean these maps up to our current standard. I bring this up because as I expand into other types of maps, I'd like to create a standard color scheme and format for all US maps without exact county data. What are your thoughts on this? I'd like to hear others opinions before I venture too far down this road. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterMGrund (talk • contribs) 04:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think a simple two-color "winner" scheme for maps like this is fine – it's certainly better than no county-level image at all. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

This kind of map is inherently misleading, and next to useless. It places enormous weight on the physical size of the county, which is irrelevant, while failing to even hint at how many votes were cast, which is paramount. Winning a county with 3 million votes by three points is probably decisive. Winning a county with 50 votes by an 80% margin is rarely of any consequence at all, even if that county is thousands of square miles in size. This type of map gets that exactly backwards. In two-party elections with a third party spoiler, like 1996, the effect of the third candidate is obscured in almost every case. And then we have the fact that there is no such thing as "winning" a county. It's a fiction used for convenience, but when you codify it this way, it creates the misleading impression that these elections are a contest to win the most counties, and by the largest margin. Both are irrelevant. The candidate with the most votes statewide wins. Breaking it down by county is no more essential than breaking the votes down by gender or age or religion. It's just one kind of analysis, not the premier one.
One of the prime arguments I've heard in favor of keeping these inadequate, misleading maps is that they are "standard". They're everywhere. But one has do ask, how did they become standard? It's because of decisions like this right here. I would strongly discourage putting time into making this type of map, and if another editor wants to put a better map on an article, it's harmful to tell them they can't because 100 other articles use these easily made but useless filled area maps.
I really like the features of SVG, but I've also noticed that the existence of an SVG graphic biases editors towards using that graphic over a raster graphic image, even if the jpg or png is more accurate or more relevant. Converting an inferior map into SVG has a indicate to set it in stone as the "standard" and makes it harder to improve. SVG, sadly and ironically, becomes a hindrance to making the encyclopedia incrementally better. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

NH voter fraud discussion

Discussion of New Hampshire fraud allegations over at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016#More allegations of vote tampering. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride!

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
When? June 2015
How can you help?
1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here

2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)

3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

Belgian electoral data

The 1971 election for 212 parliamentary seats is missing 11 seats in the table: 7 from PSB(BRUX) and 4 from PVV/PLP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_general_election,_1971

Infobox again

There's a discussion around the infobox for the recent New Zealand election and what parties to include here: Talk:New_Zealand_general_election,_2017#Sixth_Party. Input from more people would be valuable. Bondegezou (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Project on local election information

I have spoken with others interested in promoting the visibility of local and state elections. Citizens would be well served by an easily linked and browsable project that provides information on elected offices along with their filing deadlines and requirements. Some current pages on these municipalities exist, but they are not entirely consistent, general election information is lacking, and specific information on how to run for an office is nowhere to be found (in my admittedly limited search thus far). I am currently researching formats and templates and would greatly appreciate feedback from this community on how to approach this.

My initial thought is to create an entirely new set of pages specifically dedicated to providing this sort of information, organized by state and then county, city, township, or other local government forms. After creating this content, relevant links and summaries can be added to existing pages on the municipalities. I'm looking at the U.S. Counties template as a place to start the organization of the project. Tgillet1 (talk) 05:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tgillet1: I would bear in mind WP:NOTDIR. It may be worth you sharing an example here rather than creating dozens of articles that will be quickly deleted. Number 5 7 07:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: I appreciate your feedback. I've been going back and forth on the question of the format and whether it would conform to the standards or not (and between my own schedule and the others I've been trying to work with we've made little progress). Given the likelihood that many of the entries will be of mixed quality or at least of limited length at first (we're interested in rapid dissemination over completeness and high-quality content in the short term), I will start the project on another platform and then migrate to Wikipedia should the completeness and quality be sufficient. --Tgillet1 (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Splitting general election articles

Is there a particular reason that for elections in some countries, the "general election" article lists both the presidential and legislative election results on the same article if they are held at the same time? I can understand the argument for it, but it would seem much more consistent – and clearer – with other presidential/legislative election articles if each had its own article, since each is its own unique topic, after all; e.g., this is the case in Turkey, Argentina, Ecuador, and quite a few other countries. Notably, when it comes to the U.S., the legislative (House of Representatives) and presidential election articles are separate, though they coincide on a 4-year beat. Mélencron (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

They should only be split if the article has exceeded the recommended size (which I guess is why the US articles are split). Otherwise having separate articles is not really worth it IMO – in many cases you'll have two threadbare articles instead of one with a reasonable amount of content. Number 5 7 20:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

More issues with Polling tables

Why is it that pretty much every single polling table on elections articles on Wikipedia violates WP:SALORDER by being organized in reverse-chronological order?! As far as I can tell, there is no compelling, policy-based reason for this, and it seems to be a case "they've been done this way since the beginning, so why change them?..." kind of thing. Does anyone else see a problem with polling tables violating WP:SALORDER for no particularly good reason, esp. in articles for past elections where these polling lists are now stable? (I'm wondering if this might be a job for a bot, if consensus can be established that these lists should follow SALORDER like every other chronological list on the project...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I think showing the polls in reverse order is beneficial to the article; it shows the most recent poll first and therefore is not confusing to readers. MB298 (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Considering nearly every one of those tables is sortable, there is no compelling policy-based reason to ignore WP:SALORDER in their standard configurations. IOW, they should default to forward-chronological order like pretty much every other chronological table on the project. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I strongly agree with User:IJBall that polls should be in forward-chronological order. They are only "useful" if they were perhaps intended as news articles. However, as WP is an encyclopedia and therefore historical in scope, they should be forward-chronological order.—GoldRingChip 18:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way to propose a formal discussion to seek consensus and a Manual-of-Style-like rule?—GoldRingChip 18:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@GoldRingChip: The obvious way forward on that would be a formal WP:RfC. I imagine that such an RfC should be hosted here, with RfC notices for this at the obvious places: Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists, and probably WP:VPP (and possibly elsewhere, such at WP:CENT). My one concern on this is that such an RfC might not garner enough "feedback" to be useful... But if we want to "officially" change the way polling tables are handled at WP:WPE&R, an RfC is probably the only way to do it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. If you and I are wrong (which is fine, frankly), it should be decided that way. Still, there are so many articles that have these polls in reversed order, that a consensus should be developed. Would you please make the RfC? There should links back to it from lots of talk pages of active elections (i.e. current/recent) such as Talk:United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017.—GoldRingChip 21:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm on the busy side now, too busy to start an RfC (never started one myself yet). Maybe next month... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

No worries. I'll tackle it.—GoldRingChip 01:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment (RFC): Consistency in United States Electoral Maps

As I've been slowly converting the thousands of United States electoral maps currently in .jpeg/.png format to .svg, I've been coming across many inconsistencies, even with maps made in 2016. For example, when comparing 2016 presidential election maps to 2016 senate election maps, an entirely different color scheme is being used, as well as a lack of color keys.

Should we streamline our electoral map making template for the United States to include all relevant elections (President, Senate, and any other state-wide election)? If a different map is better suited, then of course use that, this is just to streamline the process.

Senate Maps
Presidential Maps

Peter M. Grund (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)PeterMGrund

Survey

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, but I want to thank you for your efforts on this, and if you are continuing with the conversion project I'd want you to use whatever makes it easiest for you and results in the most consistency across articles. Of the two above I prefer the presidential map because it has better contrast between the colors whereas it's hard to tell some of the senate map's colors apart. Reywas92^Talk 02:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Everyone is welcome to edit, but I'm opposed. SVG format seems like the best thing since the three letter acronym, but in practice it becomes an obstacle to change. Once anything gets converted to SVG, then it becomes mired in inertia when another editor wants to change it in any way, unless the new file is also SVG. So graphs with flaws, errors, or simply with less information, are preferred on the grounds that they are in SVG. Almost anybody has access to any number of spreadsheet, word processor, graphic editing, or data visualization software tools that will produce files in png, gif or jpg format. Often raster file tools are already installed on a Windows or Mac PC. SVG tools are fewer and far between, and represent an additional cost or installation obstacle. This problem would evaporate if there were wide consensus that a fancy format like SVG is an argument to avoid, but until then the resistance to basic editing policy exists. Keep in mind that we have virtually any raster map or charts you can find here is in such high resolution that the scaling advantage is moot on any normal display our readers have.
The other major problem here is the use of county-level choropleth maps, whose only advantage is that county data is very easy to come by. We are often stuck with it, but standardizing on any map of this type is extremely harmful because US county filled maps are very misleading. The visual weight is determined by the size of the county, which is meaningless. We want to know how many votes were cast for each candidate, and blowing that up in relation to how many square miles a given county happens to have is false and misleading. These are graphics we are talking about, and visual impact is everything. If you expect readers to mentally correct for the way county size misleads them, why not just use a crosstab? We should not standardize on a poor graphic out of mere convenience when it is so harmful. We have a good alternative: pie File:Minard-carte-viande-1858.png. It allows us to scale the visual impact to match the number of votes cast, and to give an accurate magnitude of a candidate's votes. These single color or color tone filled maps eliminate everything except the county's winning candidate, while pies show us two leading candidates, and easily accommodate three-way races, such as in File:Utah 2016 presidential results by county.png.
Any editor who wishes to make maps, be they in SVG format or any other, and in filled county or other types of graphic, is welcome to edit. But I strongly oppose standardization on such a sub-optimal type of map. I would encourage making maps for articles that have nothing at all, rather than replacing existing ones with the goal of standardization. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not as familiar with the format debate but that is true that this is not the type of image that needs to be blown up (or would cause detail problems being in the wrong type). I love your Utah map! Is there a program you use that makes this type of map easy to make, or is every chart pasted on manually? Skimming the discussion in the Utah 2016 article I generally agree with you against the silly argument that chloropleths are commonly used and therefore should be the standard, though they both could be used. I don't care for the inclusion of the less-than-minor candidates though, not even being visible in the pies. County names are too small for legibility on the WA map but at least they're there! Reywas92^Talk 07:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I mostly use Tableau, but I think there are other tools with similar features. They're at c:Category:Pie chart maps of the United States presidential election, 2016 (results by county). On some of the maps I combined all the minor candidates into "other", such as File:Michigan 2016 presidential results by county.png. On Washington map I had some reason (I don't remember) for smaller county name fonts, but you can read the county names when you click on it. The details about minor candidates or font size don't need to be standardized anyway. Future editors can make incremental improvements with any raster editing tools, even if they don't have Tableau or whatever special program. Working with county-level data is creates the false impression that it even matters who "wins" a county, when in fact the race is over who wins the state. Breaking it apart by county or precinct or census block is arbitrary, and county is one of the most misleading ways, since the population of counties varies by a factor of 1,000 or more, and land area is often inversely proportional to number of voters. But in most elections that's all we have so we have to make the best of it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed on cleanup and standardization, but opposed to SVG for such images. Dennis Bratland explains why in more than sufficient detail. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 04:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

IP vandalism – made-up election results

Just a heads up, I've seen a couple of IPs adding apparently made-up result figures to several articles on 19th and early-20th century election articles in the last couple of days. I think I have most national election articles on my watchlist (exceptions being the UK and US), but just something others should probably be aware of. The IPs I've seen so far are 83.6.73.87 (talk · contribs) and 79.185.205.254 (talk · contribs). Cheers, Number 5 7 20:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Number -- On a related note, I PRODded a series of articles on New Brunswick elections from a century ago (example New Brunswick general election, 1890. I have no reason to suspect that the text is false, but with no references, I have no confidence that the text is correct either. Since 2006, IP editors have added specific assertions, including persons and results with no references. What is a reasonable standard for edits here? For sure, the topic is notable and there are sources (somewhere), but without sources provided, should the text exist? Rhadow (talk) 12:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Rhadow: It's not a complete no-no for articles to be unsourced and not really a deletion rationale. However it is vastly perferable to have them. If you can't find sources then tagging is probably the best way to go, along with deleting any text that seems contestable. Number 57 16:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  - Hello Number -- Just so I understand: "However it is vastly preferable to have them." An unreferenced article over no article at all? Or references over no references? That I understand. Rhadow (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
    - @Rhadow: The hierarchy of preferences is: Referenced article > unreferenced article > no article. Number 5 7 13:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 15:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC Should articles say elections are decided based on preliminary returns?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is strong consensus to describe elections as decided, before the result is certified, according to what the reliable sources state.The only exception shall be the cases where the result is subject to an active court challenge or some sort of recount.This closure does not encompass upon sporting events etc.Winged Blades^Godric 04:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Are elections described as decided before the result is certified? Should we say in Wikipedia's voice that an election outcome is decided, and say in infoboxes such as ((Infobox election)), ((Infobox officeholder)) that a candidate is the winner, and is now an incoming officeholder (with a future start date), calling them <office>-elect, based on major media calling the race using projections from preliminary returns, before the final vote tally and certification of the result? Do we base this only on major media annoucing a winner, or is this article content influenced by whether the presumed losing candidate has conceded or not? And is this article content influenced by our own calculations such as the mathematical probability of overcoming a deficit in the uncounted ballots?

Alternatively, do we only say, in prose using in-text attribution, in the article body not in infoboxes: "CNN, the NYT, and WGBH have called the race for candidate X, and they predict that the uncounted ballots are insufficient to overcome their lead over candidate Y" and "Candidate Y has/has not conceded"?

Does this reasoning also apply to sports contests or other outcomes where it is widely agreed by reliable sources that it has been decided, but there is some time delay before an official result is verified and announced, or does this apply only to elections? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Survey.

Wait for the result to be certified before calling anyone -elect or putting any outcome in an infobox. Describe opinions and predictions calling the race with in-text attribution only, in the article text only. Per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:WikiVoice, and WP:NOTNEWS. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
No need to wait for certification. Certification is a long process, and is not needed when multiple RSes clearly call the race. We do not need to wait 3 weeks in a 60-40 race if it has been called, without qualification, by multiple RSes. The same goes for other events with a potentially long certification process.Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Don't wait – doesn't really make sense, anyway; the winner is basically called with the exit poll/estimates based on counted ballots in France (which has never gotten an election wrong) for example, while counting takes much longer. Certification of results in many European countries can take more than a week after the election, and I expect it's probably the same in the United States, so there's really no need to wait if the winner is clear after the election and a call has already been made by major media or candidates have conceded defeat. Mélencron (talk) 12:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
No need to wait I don't know how things work in Seattle, the case at issue here. In most U.S. jurisdictions, the responsible official (registrar, secretary of state, etc.) reports the raw vote count immediately after the election, as fast as it can be counted. That vote count is technically considered "preliminary" and will be "certified" at some time in the future - usually set by law, sometimes depending on how long it takes them. Our practice here has been to report the election results ("so-and-so won") based on that raw vote count without waiting for the formality of certification. The rare exception would be when it is actually in doubt - too close to call, or pending a recount, or pending a challenge, or sometime like that, in which case we report the situation. Others here have noted other ways of recognizing the result - Reliable Source reporting, concession by one candidate, etc. - which are also based on a raw / incomplete / uncertified vote count. Bottom line, we usually are able to report who won and who lost on election night or the next day. Of course, the person will not actually take office until some later date set by law. So we need to guard against the overly enthusiastic editors who try to say that the subject already IS the mayor, governor, or whatever, or to inappropriately change the term of office in the infobox. But as far as putting the election results into the article, we virtually always do that based on the immediate raw vote count. (Obviously, this applies to elections and has nothing to do with sporting events or other contests, where the result is not reported until the contest is over.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Don't wait In several countries results are only certified several weeks after the vote and we shouldn't be waiting if the preliminary results (often released by the electoral authority) are clear and widely reported (there is usually little change); however, the results section should probably be titled "Preliminary/Provisional result" until that point (one issue I have noticed in a few places is the preliminary results being left in articles as the definitive figures despite the certifying bodies making a few amendments). Also, some countries do not have a centralised certifiction process. Number 5 7 14:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Don't wait if it is a two-person race and one has conceded but wait if there is a serious challenge (especially if there is a court case). In other cases I think we have to apply good judgment, not use WP:FRINGE sources etc. Sorry for voting both ways but I don't think this is something that can be done with one formula that works every time. Concrete examples, in Seattle the mayoral candidate has conceded so that's a done deal. But in the King County Sheriff's race, one candidate is ahead in the preliminary counts, there has been no concession, and it still could go either way; we should still report it that way. It is an especially complex situation in Seattle at times because there are no polling places in King County anymore at which to conduct exit polls; it is 100% vote by mail. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Don't wait In most countries, including the United States, the preliminary return of election results likely highly correlate with final, certified results while the preliminary returns are posted on the electoral administrations' official websites or trustworthy third-party sources (e.g. AP). It has been common practice to list preliminary/unofficial results and declare winners as-is, since the results rarely change. However, wait if there is an active court challenge or recount, like the case with United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008. In the case of Seattle, the preliminary return is clear showing a Durkan victory, and Moon has also conceded, so I don't see the point of waiting. Ueutyi (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Don't wait For goodness's sake, yes we can say in the infobox that Durkan won the election and that she is mayor-elect in relevant articles. The media has called it and her opponent conceded; certification is a formality that takes weeks. The beauty of Wikipedia is that we can change things if some sort of challenge were to come up, which can be addressed case-by-case. Reywas92^Talk 21:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Wait - NOTNEWS and factually untrue as not yet officially 'won'. Besides, according to early mentions in the U.S., Gore and Clinton had it in the bag -- and that turned out to be untrue. Markbassett (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Don't wait, per WP:V / WP:RS and per WP:TRUTH. Do wait (or undo) if the result is being actively challenged. Do not wait for concession. Do provide attribution when the result has not been officially confirmed. Do not declare way-early, before the polls have closed and their results have been submitted. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 04:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion.

My reasoning is that it is enough for us to describe in text that an important source or sources has called the race. We can describe what their rationale is for presuming it is decided, but not treat it as fact or change any infoboxes until certification. Unless election law officially recognizes a concession as relevant to the final outcome (is this the case in any jurisdiction?), concessions shouldn't influence what our infoboxes or what Wikipedia's voice says as facts. If a secondary source has said a result mathematically certain due to the number of uncounted ballots being less than the margin, we can describe what they said. We should not say this based only on our calculations using the raw, primary source data. That would violate WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. See also: WP:TRUTH.
Predictions based on likely vote outcomes are not facts, they are opinions. Articles should always clearly distinguish facts and opinions. I like having opinions in articles, but they must be framed honestly, as opinions. I am surprised this issue doesn't already have clear guidelines in WikiProject Elections, and I'm surprised that many editors think we should jump the gun this way. I have always favored a long timetable, and conservatively biding our time until the dust has settled before creating new articles or describing news events. We should treat sports events or anything the same way: it's not over until the officials have announced it, and we have all the time in the world.
It is the role of a newspaper to give the public up-to-the-minute advice and guidance, and give them hints about election outcomes rather than leave them guessing. It is not the role of an encyclopedia to be in a rush to declare contest decided as long as alternative outcomes are possible. The Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy is explicit about this. NPOV policy says we do not state opinions as facts. WP:NOTNEWS says we take the long view, and feel no pressure to track the latest developments. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

If we follow this procedure then this statement would not be allowed: "On November 9, 2016, at 3:00 AM Eastern Time, Trump secured over 270 electoral votes, the majority of the 538 electors in the Electoral College, enough to make him the president-elect of the United States" (found at United States presidential election, 2016) – in fact no one could be described as president elect until mid December after the Electoral College meets. This seems less than ideal and badly out of sync with the real world. Or am I missing a nuance? ☆ Bri (talk) 06:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The electoral college meeting is a special case, and it's generally understood as a formality, since faithless electors changing an outcome is a phantom. News media calling a state prematurely is no phantom; it happens all the time. What I'm talking about is those final vote tallies: it's fine to say CNN has called a state, but if that state only counted 30% of the ballots they have on hand, it's not a fact. It's an opinion based on the assumption that the reaming 70% of the ballots will not be much different than the first 30%. Premature calls by the media are not a problem if we frame them and attribute them as opinions.

Referring to the current example, this article lead says plainly that the election was called. We aren't keeping that information from readers. This version adds that Moon has conceded, and then says, in Wikipedia's voice, "Durkan will take office on November 28, after the results are certified." That is not a fact. That is an opinion based on assumptions about the remaining votes. This kind of statement is what you'd see in a newspaper, intended to keep citizens abreast of developments and upcoming events. Saying "it's going to rain tomorrow" is useful newspaper-type information, even if it is unscientific and not precise. An encyclopedia exists to provide insight, to educate. So an encyclopedia article should be precise in explaining that the predicted outcome is an opinion based on reasonable assumptions. The reader might still end up confident that Durkan will be sworn in on November 28, but aware that is an educated guess. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57:, @MelanieN: Can you clarify again what you mean by "in the article"? I'm sorry to badger you it's just that this is kind of a fine point.
Nobody has objected to the text in the lead here saying "Durkan had over 60% of the vote in the preliminary count on the last day of the election, and The Seattle Times called the race for Durkan, predicting that Moon was unlikely to overcome Durkan's lead when the uncounted ballots were added leading up to the final count on November 28, 2017." It is a verifiable fact that the Times called the election. The question here is whether we also want the infobox on the right to say "Taking office November 28, 2017 Succeeding Tim Burgess". Or to add a name to List of Mayors of Seattle after only half the ballots have been counted.
Your comments don't make it completely clear if you are talking about a result after all the ballots have been counted, or only a portion of them. The case here is one in which all the votes have not been counted. This isn't a matter of re-counting votes before certification. We're talking about a total of about 200,000 ballots cast, and only about 100,000 of them were counted on the first day. Because the result was about 60% to 40%, the news media declared a winner, even though the remaining ballots had not been seen by anyone. I am saying this is the same as declaring a winner before we know the final score. It's not a matter of overturning a result after a recount. The first count hasn't even been finished. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I am surprised the count is going that slowly. Is that usual for your area? I was talking about the more usual situation where by midnight on election day, or early the next morning, 95% of the votes have been tallied and somebody is leading 55% to 45% - in other words, an obvious result even though it hasn't been "certified". The sentence you have in the lede sums up your situation nicely, although probably in unnecessary detail; I think Durkan had over 60% of the vote in the preliminary count on the last day of the election, and The Seattle Times called the race for Durkan would be sufficient. But I would change it to simply "won" as soon as the raw vote tally makes it clear that we know who won; I wouldn't wait weeks for the "certified" result which is a bureaucratic formality. Also, when the raw vote tally shows a winner I think mayor-elect or similar can be added to the person's infobox. I don't think they should be added to "list of mayors of Seattle" until they actually take office. --MelanieN (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, because all elections in WA are mail-in, it takes a while for ballots sent on election day to be processed and counted. But because they are evenly distributed the margin changes very little after the first couple days and calls can be made. There is no reason to ignore RSs' calls of the race for us to put the winner in the infobox. I agree that the original statement was needlessly long as it would have to be changed later anyway (and can still be changed in any other event). Reywas92^Talk 21:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with above – winners can be reasonably called in most cases before all ballots are counted, even if some provisional ones are missing. There are some exceptions, as with the first run of the second round of the 2016 Austrian presidential election, several districts in the Virginia House of Delegates, and other tight races, but Dennis is calling for an unreasonable standard here. Mélencron (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

In King County, WA, it takes 7-10 days to count 100% of the ballots, and official certification is typically scheduled for 3 weeks after the election day. We are not talking about some trivial number of "provisional" ballots, or spoiled ballots. We're talking about 40% to 50% of the total: regular, normal ballots with no signature challenges or anything like that.

It turns out that in this case we have a copious amount of detail on how long a count takes -- Seattle mayoral election, 2017#Results has a graph that even shows the exact rate of counting. Possibly more detail than we need but at the time it seemed relevant. On the first day, about 90,000 out of 180,000 ballots was counted. It took 9 days, until 8/9, to finish counting them all. This matches the milestone we usually have about 24 hours after of a US Presidential polls close, when the first count is done and the result of a given state is rarely in doubt. Here it wasn't until 8/15 that the primary result was officially certified.

If you like the text of the lede, but not declaring a winner in the infobox, then we agree. I wouldn't really mind waiting until 100% of the vote has been counted, without waiting until it is "certified". What I definitely object to is the infobox treating the outcome as fact when only 50% or 60% of the votes have been counted. This is analogous to ten minutes after the polls have closed on election night in a US Presidential race and there's as many uncounted ballots as counted. Even if a candidate concedes, those boxes of uncounted ballots are still Schrodinger's Cat. A concession doesn't change what is in those boxes. To me that is declaring a winner in game at the end of the third quarter.

@Reywas92: nobody suggested "ignoring" when the major media calls the race. It appears I'm having a difficult time avoiding being misinterpreted and dealing with straw man arguments. Yes, articles should say that the race has been called. Agreed! The question is, how and where do we present that? When you say that the ballots are evenly distributed and not especially skewed, you make a good argument, but it so happens that our sources don't state that argument. Many sources have the opinion that later-counted ballots skew left in Washington State. The Times didn't say it is mathematically impossible for the uncounted ballots to overcome the margin. The Seattle Times and KING5 called it without explaining why. When our sources don't show their work, should we treat it as fact? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

We are not agreed, because I did NOT like the text of the lede. I think it is too long by half, with a bunch of unnecessary hedging. And I am ok with adding "elect" to the info box as soon as the result appears clear. I would also like to suggest that your proposal here - "wait for the results to be certified" - may apply only to the state of Washington. Most jurisdictions come out with a raw count of most of the ballots within 24 hours. If you look at the discussion here, most people are saying we can go with that raw count, supported by media calls and/or concessions; there is no need to wait for that raw count to be certified. MelanieN alt (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.