Elections and Referendums Project‑class

This page 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 Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25

Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived.

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation) § Redirects to yearly election lists for visibility

Many election pages feature large "External links" sections that seem to violate Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files and Wikipedia is not a directory policies. Should this practice continue in spite of those site-wide guidelines, or should "External links" sections contain only a few relevant links (such as to the governing body of the election or voter's infomration sites, for example)? -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'd recommend withdrawing this RfC. This isn't the correct place to request a change to a site-wide guideline, and its unclear how one would define a "large" external link section.

What exactly do you have a problem with? For example, if there was a presidential election with 15 candidates, I don't think it would be unreasonable to have links to each of their campaign sites. Number 57 01:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not proposing a change to side-wide policy. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Mikeblas I would suggest that if you intend this to be a sitewide policy, you can start a discussion at the Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) page. As of now I think the rfc is quite vague. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I'm not proposing a side-wide policy. I'm trying to see if elections pages should have candidate website directories (link farms) in their EL sections. Here are some examples: 15 external links, 33 external links, 52 external links, 38 external links, 17 external links. This would be an exception to the identified site-wide policies given to Elections articles, and adopted as a best practice for articles in the project. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those are definitely examples of too many on one page. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. And in the past, I've removed them. But recently the removals have been reverted with the claim that "every WP election page does this, which means the current consensus across the whole site is to include candidate websites." I can't find where a consensus to except the site-wide policies was reached, so I've opened the RfC here. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have replaced the link farms at 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Maryland, 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Texas, and 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Ohio with single links to relevant pages at the state websites. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All Linkfarm says is that lists of external links must be removed if they "dwarf" the article. I don't see how you could argue that a list of campaign websites at the very end of an article "dwarfs" the rest of the article. Also, getting one random editor to agree with you doesn't mean you have the all-clear to remove campaign website links from every election page. That is not how discussions work! BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It WP:LINKFARM says at least a little bit more than what you chose to quote, and there's also WP:NOTDIR to consider. I opened this RfC to gather input from the project, which you said had adopted this practice in opposition to the site-wide policies that govern it. No explicit consensus has been discovered here, so the status quo is apparently just replicated behaviour counter to the site's policies. The site-wite policies do, however, have language against building directories of external links in articles. It is those site-wide policies that are the impetus for cleaning up these articles. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neither of those pages say "you're not allowed to have a list of campaign websites at the end of an article," so what you're talking about here is not a sitewide policy, but your personal interpretation of a sitewide policy. Both those pages seem to indicate that you can't have a page that *solely* acts as a directory. You have yet to explain how a list of campaign websites at the end of an article "dwarfs" the remainder of the content, nor have you cited any specific verbiage from either of the pages you linked. Build consensus first rather than trying to change the standard operating practice of the entirety of election Wikipedia based on your interpretation of the rules. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How is that not what they are doing here? The see a common practice that seems to violate the policy, and have come here to ask others if they agree. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I agree, and would also point to WP:EL, specifically "external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy" and WP:ELMAYBE which suggests adding a "well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links in articles are not acceptable." The criticism here is dwelling too much on a single word in the policy ("dwarfs") and not the spirit, which is that ELs are not to be added willy-nilly in bulk. Maryland has over 60 links! And linking to a campaign website does not serve the purpose of ELs, as it is very unlikely to contain meaningful accurate information about an election, let alone such information that is not found in reliable sources. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Survey

Discussion

A request for comment on creating a localized exception to the five percent rule has been opened at Talk:2020 United States Senate election in Maine#Request for comment: Should Lisa Savage be included in the infobox?. As this is an article under the scope of this WikiProject, all editors are invited to comment. Toa Nidhiki05 20:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I regularly see changes to short descriptions on election and referendum articles, and aside from all the nonsense ones added with the #suggestededit scheme, there seems to be a difference of opinion over their use, with some editors taking the view that WP:SDNONE applies (i.e. that election/referendum articles are self-explanatory and therefore short descriptions should be set to 'none'), and others being of the opinion that it is an opportunity to explain more context about the vote (with short descriptions along the lines of "Election for the 15th parliament of Fooland"). It would be good to reach a consensus on whether election and/or referendum articles should fall into SDNONE or not to avoid ongoing backwards and forwards (perhaps it can be done by a discussion if there is a clear consensus of views, but if not, perhaps an RfC could reach a conclusion).

Personally I would be minded to say that SDNONE is appropriate in almost all cases for elections, and in most cases for referendums (an obvious exception being when the title of the referendum article doesn't include the subject of the vote). Pinging @JaventheAlderick, GhostInTheMachine, Ffffrr, Less Unless, NoonIcarus, Sammi Brie, and Neiltonks:, whom I presume have an interest and/or take as I have seen you changing or adding SDs recently. Cheers, Number 57 20:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that SDNONE is best in most cases. Ffffrr (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I take the position that setting a short description would be a net benefit to most election articles. Number 57 and I had a brief (though cordial) discussion over at my talk page, where I said that I interpreted WP:SDNONE by its strict definition - that is, it applies only if "article titles are sufficiently detailed that an additional short description would not be helpful". Since articles are generally encouraged to have short descriptions as much as possible, if there is a reasonable opportunity to make a short description useful without merely restating the article title, that opportunity should be taken. In my view, that "opportunity" arises in the form of adding context (what is the purpose of holding election XX) into the short description - for example, Elections to the XX Parliament of Country X. JaventheAldericky (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I should also mention that since that previous discussion, I'm now open to putting in short descriptions for Election for the XX President of Country X. JaventheAldericky (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with SDNONE. My view is that short descriptions should generally be similar to what a parenthetical disambiguator would be, should the page need disambiguation -- but that wouldn't be necessary for election articles. Short descriptions that provide more info than that are unnecessarily large and should be avoided. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know these are specific, but I can cite at least two example in the referendum category where SDNONE shouldn't be the case: Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland, which has the short description "2015 amendment permitting same-sex marriage". The short description is much more helpful than the actual title of the article, but those seeking to change the name of the article would find it difficult to get consensus for that. The same applies with Thirty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland, which has the short description "2018 amendment liberalising abortion laws".

I find these are very helpful short description and I would prefer if they were not affected by any decision reached in this thread. I'm sure there are other similar instances in other countries and articles. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those Ireland referendum ones are definitely exceptions since they don't at all follow WP:NCELECT (and I get the case why, though it seems like there should be a better way). Maybe only apply SDNONE to articles named with NCELECT? Elli (talk | contribs) 20:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it would also make sense for there to be an exception to SDNONE for NCELECT-compliant referendum article titles such as 2023 Polish referendum or 2023 Venezuelan referendum, where the subjects of the referendum is not included in the title (due to there being multiple questions on differents subjects). Number 57 20:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed on both counts. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with this, though I'd say that on the specific example of 2023 Polish referendum, the referendum is too complex to briefly summarize in the shortdesc — SDNONE might still apply there for lack of an alternative. — Kawnhr (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, many thanks for the ping. I recently added some descriptions to a few election articles since I have also noticed they are usually included in biographies. In the Spanish Wikipedia, the visual editor preview usually comes from Wikidata, but from what I gather in English it needs to come from the short description. I was unaware of WP:SDNONE, though, and I'm largely indifferent to what convention is used. I'll support whatever the community decides. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Thank you for the pin! I believe that SDNONE is a good option in many cases, but if further clarification is needed in editors opinion, they can add it to short description. I think it would be hard to come to clear guidelines here as sometimes it's a matter of personal level of knowledge of the topic. Less Unless (talk) 10:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A specific election has three defining aspects: the role, the place and the year. If the article title covers all three, then None would be a suitable Short description. If the title does not cover all three, then it may be that the article should be renamed, rather than adding detail via a SD. If the article is about a series of elections, then much the same applies – the article title should be specific enough and SDNONE applies — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm definitely in favor of SDNONE where it's apt. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about pages like 2020 British Columbia general election, 2018 Bavarian state election or 2018 California gubernatorial election, where the shortdescs are used to clarify where these sub-national areas are located? Is this a useful guide for international readers, or should they be junked? — Kawnhr (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per WP:SDNONE, they'd have to be replaced with "None" as a short description (i.e no short description). As mentioned in my original response above, its really a pity if we deny our readers additional information that would have been useful to contextualise election articles. JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2018 Lord Mayor of Melbourne by-election#Requested move 4 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I notice in older articles a field on the list of candidates called "Most Recent Office" or "Most Recent Position". More recently, this column has been replaced with "Experience." Has there been any discussion around the use of this field, and what is appropriate to list there? "Most Recent Office" is very straight-forward and factual. "Most Recent Position" is subject to some degree a leeway about what to include. For example, 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries list Donald Trump]] as Chairman of The Trump Organization when he was much better known as host of The Apprentice. Carly Fiorina list CEO of Hewlett-Packard, when she had many positions in the 9 years since leaving HP. "Experience" introduces additional opportunity for bias and editorializing. Consider 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries which lists Joe Walsh as both a former Rep but also as a talk show host, and Rocky De La Fuente as a businessman but also uses the derogative "perennial candidate". 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries is even worse, with some candidates including private sector jobs and failed candidacies and others omitting (one candidate is called a "Disqualified candidate for Governor of Michigan in 2022"). I think we need some kind of standard here, or this field can be used to prop up one candidate while diminishing another. Trump, for example, is never referred to for his media roles or failed candidacies, while others are. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In county results tables for some state subpages, only major candidates (those in the infobox) are included. In other state subpages, various minor candidates (those in the overall results table) are included. Which way should be preferred? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Jerusalem mayoral election#Requested move 18 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Short description#Proposal to add automatic SDs to Template:Infobox election that will be of interest to members of this wikiproject. If you would like to help improving WP:Short descriptions on election pages, or contribute to that discussion generally, please feel free to join at that page. Thank you for helping WP:WikiProject Short Descriptions! - - mathmitch7 ^{(talk/contribs)} 17:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]