Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums

Should we show successors in infobox of predecessor, before they take office.

Recently @Wellington Bay: has brought forward the argument that we should show the successors in the infoboxes of their predecessors, before they take office. A few years ago, we had an RFC on this (which I'm trying to find), which concluded we not show them. So, should this method be revisited? GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

No. The election could be overturned, the winning candidate could die, or civil war could break out and the entire government could fall, before the winner can take office. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

What about non-elected positions? GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's the RFC-in-question. Perhaps @Mandruss: should be notified. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Yes, the issue has been well settled by RfC, and there are no new arguments that I can see. That should be the end of this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Except that there are. The prior discussion considered only American politics, while not taking on board any consideration of the fact that political systems work differently in different places.

For instance, while the American system has a turnover time of a couple of months between election day and the actual inauguration or installation of the new holder of a political position, the transition in a Westminster system is completed in a matter of hours or days, depending on the country and the role. And the whole thing hinged on the turning on or off of the "incumbent" flag in the outgoing officeholder's infobox — in the American system, an outgoing officeholder is always still an incumbent holder of their office until the later date. But in a Westminster system, an outgoing MP or MLA is not still an incumbent MP or MLA for any temporary period after the election, so the "incumbent" flag is not applicable to the non-returning MP or MLA for even one further minute, and thus no consideration needs to be given to avoiding its turn-off at all.

A defeated or retiring member of the House of Commons of Canada or the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, for example, is not still an "incumbent" MP or MLA for any length of time after the election — their term in fact ceases with the issuance of the writ that started the election they retired or were defeated in, so the seat is vacant for the duration of the election campaign, and the newly elected MP or MLA is legally the new incumbent as soon as they've been declared elected, even if they haven't officially completed all of the formalities of the process yet. But, for example, people who don't understand how this works frequently make incorrect changes to the dates — I'm just now noticing that an American editor with no understanding of Canadian politics systematically went through all of the MLAs who were newly elected in the 2024 New Brunswick general election a few weeks ago changing their start dates from the correct "October 21" to the incorrect "November 2" on the basis of a source that was about the swearing-in of the premier and cabinet. But the "inauguration" of the new executive council isn't the same thing as the basic installation of the membership of the legislature — Luke Randall didn't become a member of the cabinet until he was sworn in as a member of the cabinet on November 2, but he did become a member of the legislature as of October 21. But since an editor who doesn't understand how Westminster politics works went and changed the start date of his and all of his other newly elected colleagues' service in the legislature to November 2 (also including changing "predecessor=" to "succeeding=" so that they wouldn't be flagged as incumbents at all), I now have to go through over a dozen articles to correct them (not least because it's now past November 2 yet they still aren't actually displaying the incumbent flag due to the predecessor→succeeding flip), which is a far, far bigger burden of followup work than I should have to undertake.

The reasons given in the discussion also largely don't wash.

1. The person could possibly decline their election, or die, or otherwise not actually take the office for some other reason? Sure, that's possible, but it's rare, and it's much more likely to not happen than it is to happen — and in the event that it does happen, that's a change easily dealt with when we get there, not a difficult enough thing to fix that a complete ban on ever placing the presumed successor's name in their predecessor's infobox would be a logical solution to that profoundly rare problem. If one member-elect dies or disclaims their seat without taking the office, while 99 members-elect become full members without incident, then you've created excess work for the 99 non-exceptions just because of the possibility of the one exception, when the one exception could easily have been dealt with in other, much simpler ways that didn't unnecessarily complicate things for the 99 non-exceptions.
2. It's a burden to have to go through the articles removing the "(elect)" flag after the replacements have officially assumed the office? Not nearly as much of a burden as going through the same articles having to add the successors' names at a later date in the first place, and not nearly as much of a burden as having to go through a couple dozen articles flipping succeeding back to predecessor because the start date was changed incorrectly by an editor who didn't know what they were doing. That's a much, much worse burden. This is a situation where I do get to play the "my problem is bigger than your problem" card — the fustercluck I now have to fix in New Brunswick because somebody did outright wrong things is a far bigger and far worse imposition on my time than removing "(elect)" from a few infoboxes later on has ever been on anybody else's.

Different countries' political systems work different ways, so this can't be a one-size-fits-all situation. Each country needs to have its own standards, based on its own circumstances and determined by editors with the most expertise in how their own country's political system works and what their own country's resulting needs are. It's fine for the US, where there's a two-month transition period and the outgoing rep is still the incumbent in the meantime — but it doesn't work in a country where the transition period is measured in hours or days and the outgoing MP isn't still an "incumbent" in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Also worth noting the last sentence at Template:Infobox officeholder#Usage. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

See related discussion, concerning parlimentary opposition leaders, taking place. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bearcat: please bring your arguments 'here'. GoodDay (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't take orders from you, dear. Bearcat (talk) 02:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

You're better than that. GoodDay (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

So are you. Bearcat (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

You want the last word (or insult)? go ahead. GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Since I said nothing wrong in the first place that anybody would need to be "better" than, the first insult here was thrown by you, and I never have any responsibility to ever let any insult thrown at me go unresponded to. And since "you want the last word?" is always a passive-aggressive way of trying to shut the other person up so that your word stands as the "last word", and never a genuinely productive contribution to any discussion, that's also not a thing I have a responsibility to take. Bearcat (talk) 12:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

We may be having an RFC take place concerning Canadian officeholders in general & opposition leaders in particular. I'll notify all previous RFC participants of the new RFC, when/where it opens. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• My sense is generally no. My premise is that it creates confusion if the incumbent is still holding the office but the page suggests someone else is the current office holder. That said, some countries have different election systems - that once the election is called, the individual ceases to hold office. That said, in situations where the individual holds office from the certification of the election, we should be certain when the election is certified, rather than the moment the media "calls" a race. --Enos733 (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• I think WP:CBALL rules apply. If we are reasonably confident (based on WP:RS) that the successor will be the successor, we should show them as the successor, even if they have not yet taken office. (Someone/thing can be the known successor before succeeding.) If there is realistic uncertainty about who the successor is, we don't show it. That would be in keeping with standard Wikipedia approaches. We shouldn't be applying specific US election practices everywhere, nor do we need complex WP:LOCALCONSENSUSes to arise. Enos733's argument that we should wait until the election is certified, rather than the moment the media "calls" a race contradicts Wikipedia policy on WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY because Wikipedia very explicitly favours the media (secondary sources) over certification (primary source). TLDR: we have Wikipedia rules for how to handle future events that we can already use. Bondegezou (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

To clarify. This isn't a dispute over who a successor is. Merely whether or not it's necessary to show them in their predecessor's infobox, before they take office. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

If we know who they are, we should show them. They are the successor whether or not they have yet taken office. Bondegezou (talk) 11:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

To me, and to the previous RFC, the infobox ought to be correct for readers - an incumbent should be seen as the incumbent, not of having a successor (especially if there are still months of their term). - Enos733 (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The infobox should be correct for readers: it is correct that one person can be the incumbent while another person is the known successor. Bondegezou (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

But they're not the successor, yet. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• No. The incumbent is the incumbent until they leave office. Then the successor becomes the new incumbent if and when they assume office. WP:CRYSTAL. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

In the American system, sure. In lots of other systems, the incumbent has already left office, and the successor is already the new incumbent, the moment the successor's identity is known at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

If anybody wants to re-open the entire topic, for whatever reason? It's up to them. As for me? I'm merely carrying out (as best as I can) the aforementioned RFC's consensus. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of 2028 United States presidential election for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2028 United States presidential election is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2028 United States presidential election (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Left guide (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

US Presidential election pages, intros

See this discussion, concerning bolding in intros of US presidential election pages. GoodDay (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Guidance on "politicians from" categories

I was cleaning out Category:Politicians from Manila, to make sure that only people who became politicians while being residents of Manila are only inside this category. This is a part of cleaning of Category:People from Manila as a lot of people are said to be born in Manila, but it could be elsewhere in Metro Manila or even in Luzon. I chanced upon Dennis Apuan, who was said to be "born in Manila", emigrated to the US, lived in Los Angeles, and was a member of the Colorado House of Representatives. Now, he was said to be a politician from Manila, Los Angeles and Colorado Springs. Are all of these correct? Howard the Duck (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the 'People from X' categories are generally quite problematic due to the lack of a definition of what makes someone 'from' somewhere. On a personal level, the only place I would consider myself 'from' is the place I grew up, not where I was born (the nearest town that had a maternity hospital) or live now. This is a meta topic that should probably have a Wikipedia-wide discussion. Number 57 11:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

There was a good faith effort for someone else to trim down the aforementioned Category:People from Manila, and it then classified anyone who has worked in government as politicians; in presidential systems, this is not always the case. Also, again for some reason, a lot of notable Filipinos were said to have been "born in Manila" which caused this category to be very large. This would let some people who had been notable elsewhere to be as someone "from Manila".

FWIW, I could consider the place where I lived (and have lived at) as the places where I am from, but I'd also agree this needs wider discussion. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I add categories if (A) the person was born there or (B) the person lived there for a non trivial amount of time or (C) currently resides there. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm ok with this logic for "People from" categories. How about "Politicians from" ones? Some countries limit the candidates to actual residents of the area, for example. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

To me, it makes no difference. "Politicians from" would be a subcategory of "People from", so theoretically the same rules should apply.-- Earl Andrew - talk 15:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

This makes sense. Looking at Dick Cheney, and see as he is categorized to be a politician from Casper, Wyoming, and Lincoln, Nebraska... then is also categorized as a Texas Republican. Of course American politicians can be categorized down to the city and not have fear of being sent to CFD (LOL). FWIW, in Cheney's case, he is categorized as well as "Republican Party vmembers of the United States House of Representatives from Wyoming"; usually I remove the "politicians from Foo" if he is already categorized as "officeholder from/of Foo"... I suppose that's wrong LOL. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Categorization of elections and selection processes by politician eponymous categories

Does it make sense to add eponymous categories of those running in elections or in the selection process for a VP nom to such related categories? Examples:

• 1988 United States House of Representatives elections has categories for Category:John Conyers, Category:Larry Craig, Category:John Dingell, Category:Dick Durbin, Category:Barney Frank, Category:Dennis Hastert, Category:John Lewis, Category:Ed Markey, Category:Chuck Schumer, Category:Jamie Whitten.
• 2000 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection contains these eponymous categories: Category:Al Gore, Category:Dick Durbin, Category:Dianne Feinstein, Category:Joe Lieberman, Category:John Kerry, Category:John Edwards, Category:Evan Bayh

Not only are these elections and selections not defined by all these individuals, it doesn't really seem the purpose of eponymous categories, leading to overcategorization. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I would say that elections should generally not be put into the main category of the participating candidates, except perhaps for major events like a presidential election. Vice presidential candidate selection should only be in the category of the vice presidential candidate. For the presidential candidate, it should be part of the campaign category. E.g. Category:Al Gore 2000 presidential campaign. Gust Justice (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm in line with your thinking. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Term limited wording on member lists

Hi, I've been working on California State Assembly district articles redoing the member lists, an in those districts (as well as in the State Senate), they have term limited legislators. I recently went through my contributions and reworded "Termed out" to "Retired due to term limits," but it might be a little too long for something that could be shorter. I've been wondering if there was anyone who would make it a preference to do one of these specific phrasings for people termed out of office (with an example of them running for another office afterwards as a combination):

1. Termed out. / Termed out and ran for another office.
2. Term limited. / Term limited and ran for another office.
3. Term limited and retired. / Term limited and ran for another office. (replacing "retired" with another action)
4. Retired due to term limits. / Retired due to term limits and ran for another office. (current usage)

I also see that some pages (such as 2024 California State Assembly election) use "term-limited" instead of "term limited," so if 2 is used, should it have the hyphen? reppop^talk 19:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I've always seen "term limited" (as is) here in Wikipedia but have not seen it in real life. It's always "this person cannot run due to term limits" or something like that. Choice #4 is what is used IRL, but I kinda like #2 as it's shorter. "Retired" sounds something else, but can get the idea across in seven letter vs. "ran for another office". I'd probably be okay with "Retired" if you are short on space (such as tables). Howard the Duck (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

RfC ongoing at Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies#RFC: What Went Wrong in Ohio

There is a RfC ongoing at Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies#RFC: What Went Wrong in Ohio, an article within the scope of this WikiProject. All editors are invited to participate. Toa Nidhiki05 18:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2026 Maine gubernatorial election

Please comment at Talk:2026 Maine gubernatorial election regarding speculation that he might run as an independent.--User:Namiba 23:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

National election articles categorisation

I'd like to propose that we have a formal convention (similar to the WP:5% rule) regarding categorisation of national election articles, specifically that national elections (president or parliament) are included in the continental level election category for the year, as well as a national one (where they exist). This would mean making continental categories non-diffusing, in line with WP:ALLINCLUDED.

For example, 2025 German federal election would be in both Category:2025 elections in Europe and Category:2025 elections in Germany.

I think this would have two main benefits: Firstly it would create consistency of the continental category contents, as only some countries (I would estimate less than a fifth) have their own 'election by year' category series (for example, South Africa does, but Germany does not). Secondly, it is very useful for searching for national elections that took place in a particular year, as if articles for some countries are only located in the national category, it involves searching into potentially dozens of subcategories for each continent.

Thoughts on this welcome. Cheers, Number 57 19:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd support this but would need some guidance.

Some countries who have national elections on a specific day (mostly presidential systems) have separate general, presidential, and legislative elections, sometimes even local elections. In cases such as this the "primary" general election article only get to be included in the continental category. Is that right?

How about parliamentary republics where the president is not the head of government and is mostly a figurehead? Are their presidential elections classified into the continental ones, as well (assuming parliamentary elections already are)? How about semi-presidential countries like France? Howard the Duck (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

UK Template: help needed

Please can someone assist at Talk:Ceredigion and Pembroke North (UK Parliament constituency)#1992 result? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The new {{Election results}} template should be able to handle these "multipartisan" candidates better than the old ones. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Nonpartisan blanket primary#Requested move 2 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nonpartisan blanket primary#Requested move 2 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 02:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)