Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move discussion for "Condorcet paradox"

[edit]

Your participation could help Wikipedia decide on the best title for the page:

Jruderman (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing meta colors of two parties in the Philippines

[edit]

Please visit Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#Switching party meta colors of Partido Federal ng Pilipinas and Hugpong ng Pagbabago. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TSE - Brazil

[edit]

Hello everyone! I just want to tell that in the Commons Category:TSE electoral portraits by year thousands of freely licensed Brazilian politicians portraits have been uploaded (but there's still a lot to go - and it seems that we can't easily automate the upload). Those might be of use either in the biographies or in the candidate's lists. Erick Soares3 (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Socialist Party USA

[edit]

Socialist Party USA has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Vacant0 (talkcontribs) 10:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone be intresed in a possible GT collaboraion

[edit]

Hello I was hoping to tackle one of the "X United States presidential elections in X" series. Most likely Alaska or Hawaii due to the smaller article numbers. However it is still 16 GAs and it would go by much faster with a co-nom. I would also consider other states for the list. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed territory in election maps

[edit]

I was wondering whether a consensus could be reached on the inclusion of claimed territory in election maps.

For example, many of Venezuela's maps include their claim to half of Guyana (see e.g. the first map in the infobox of 2018 Venezuelan presidential election), despite the fact that Venezuela does not control (nor ever really has AFAIK) the terrirory, nor does Venezuelan hold elections there. I have seen similar maps of Guatemala that include Belize and Argentina that includes the Falklands despite the lack of control and holding of elections.

On the other hand, there are countries that occupy territory outside their widely recognised borders and holds voting there (e.g. Morocco / Western Sahara, Russia / Crimea, Israel / Golan Heights) and some countries whose territory (according to a clear international consensus) is occupied by others, which prevents it holding elections there (e.g. Ukraine / Crimea, Syria / Golan).

I would suggest a rule of thumb should be something like the below. There are probably some more complex ones that may have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Cheers, Number 57 00:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Territory that a country has never (or only for a short time period at some point in the past) controlled and there is no clear international consensus that it belongs to that country should not be included in election maps. For example, Belize in maps of Guatemala, the Falkland Islands in maps of Argentina, parts of Guyana in maps of Venezuela, Mayotte in maps of the Comoros etc.
  • Territory that a country occupies without international consensus that it belongs to them but holds elections in that territory should be shown but hashed to differentiate it. For example, Crimea and Donbass (Russia), the Golan Heights (Israel), Western Sahara (Morocco) etc.
  • Territory that a country claims (without a clear international consensus in its favour) and does not control, but does hold elections there should be included but hashed to differentiate it. For example, Kosovo in maps of Serbia.
  • Territory that there is clear international consensus belongs to a country but is occupied by another (or is ruled by an unrecognised breakaway state) and in which elections cannot be held should be shown but greyed out. For example Abkhazia in maps of Georgia, Crimea and Donbass in maps of Ukraine, the Golan Heights in maps of Syria, Somaliland in maps of Somalia, etc.
I don't know if a general rule is possible, but I do agree tha basis should be what the internationally recognised borders are, if there is any consensus. Claims that have no recognition and have no relevance to the election itself (e.g. Venezuela) should not be entertained. Or at the very least, the lack of recognition should be made clear. One situation you didn't mention is the case of the Kashmir conflict. Here the international community does not seem to have any clear stance on whether it should be considered part of India or Pakistan. The approach used for Indian election maps seem to be to depict the Indian claimed border, but also show that not all of claimed territory is controlled by India. Gust Justice (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Kashmir is one of the more complex situations that probably needs its own specific consensus... On the other point, the Venezuelan claim is marked on the maps in hatched colours, but I don't think it should be there at all given the fact that no election was held in the claimed territory (and I would be wary of limiting exclusion from maps to claims that have "no recognition", as there are a few cases where a few countries recognise another's claim to territory, but the international community as a whole does not). Cheers, Number 57 16:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the 'whether an election is held there' principle should be key given the topic. I recall reading recently about Suriname setting up voting booths near territory it claimed from Guyana for the explicit use of residents of the disputed territory. I don't recall whether it mentioned whether the booths were actually used for that purpose however, or whether it was more symbolic than practical. The area was not at any rate a separate geographical constituency, which would be an interesting case. CMD (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that would work for the first bullet point mentioned above. I assume there isn't an objection to including territory in maps in cases such as those outlined in the fourth bullet point? Number 57 19:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox for next UK general election

[edit]

What parties to include in an infobox for a next election and what style of infobox to use has often been contentious. There is a proposal at Talk:Next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Use_of_TILE_rather_than_TIE on changing the type of infobox and what parties to show. Editors might like to input. Bondegezou (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Waipareira#Requested move 23 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 15:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Per the suggestions in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 25#RFC: should external links in elections be a directory? that this was the incorrect place for such a discussion, I started a discussion at Village pump about external links, though thought that I should also mention it here. —Ost (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

[edit]

Hello,
Please note that Polling station, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team[reply]