Knowledge talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 12

3382:

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.) --

2850:. 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 2180:

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.

1067:, 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 2794: 3588:. 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. 890:

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. --

2806: 805:

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

2923:

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. --

3364:– 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. 595:- 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'. 1123:- 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 3658:

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. --

3264:, 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? 31: 130:

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.

2901:

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!

1232:), 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, 3039:. 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? 2510:

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.

1824:

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.

1092:

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.

1959:

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.

3844:, 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 2869:

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

2420:

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.

1036:, 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 410:– 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. — 3865:

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.

2873:. 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 2131:, 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. 3647:

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.

1345:, 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? 3829:

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

3749:

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

3740:

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

3700:

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

3657:

adds that Moon has conceded, and then says, in Knowledge'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

3646:

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

3432:

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

2486:

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

1819:

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

1311:

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

1191:

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

734:

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

168:

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:

129:

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

3864:

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

3816:

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

3381:

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"

2111:

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

1257:

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

1149:

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

3805:

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,

2835:

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

2423:

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

2186:

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

2085:

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

1958:

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

1823:

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

1715:

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

804:

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

755:

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

3764:

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

3716:

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

2179:

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.

1548:

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

1087:

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

889:

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

3774:

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

2922:

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

2900:

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

2182:

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

1523:

For a while I've been intending to update French legislative election results on Knowledge 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

3484:

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 Knowledge is that we can change things if some sort of

2978:

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

2868:

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

2509:

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

993:

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

926:

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

3591:

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

3399:

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

1394:

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 Knowledge, but I was surprised that every single table and graphic seems to be manually produced. Is this the case? And am I right in

2880:

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

2782:

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

3400:"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. 1696:, 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 1091:

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

712:

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

2419:

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

1010:, 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. 2525:

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.

1095:

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

2487:

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 Knowledge should the completeness and quality be sufficient. --

3454:

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.

452:

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.

2561:-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 3564:

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 Knowledge's voice says as facts. If a

2786:

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.

1292:

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

1532:

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?

1360: 3060:

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.

3526:. 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. 3286:

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?

549:

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.

1044:

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

1929:

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?

3569:

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

2919: 2911: 756:

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. --

3820:

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

3623:

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

633:, 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. 3152:

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.

1279:, 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. 2637:

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

2569:

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...)

752: 181: 3848:

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?

2068:

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;

809:

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

843: 671: 185: 1839:

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.

1564: 2284:

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

874:

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.

3632:) – 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? ☆ 3559:

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

2713:

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.

94: 89: 84: 72: 67: 1258:

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.

59: 3347:

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.

3712:

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

2350:

need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Knowledge, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

438:

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.

1254: 2723: 884: 2183:

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.

559: 3817:

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.

2858:

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.

3765:

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).

1183:

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?

1974:"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!! -- 422:: 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". — 3717:

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

3497:- 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. 1334: 850:. 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. 1653:

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,

3433:

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

927:

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.

1342: 1207:

That's an interesting project, but it's pretty far out of the scope of Knowledge. More of a Wikidata thing probably; I don't work with it much but that seems to be the purpose. --

268:

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.

2915: 818:(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. 174: 47: 17: 3088:-- 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. 1338: 2689:). 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 1271:

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,

3840:

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.

2874: 3464: 2793: 1297:

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.)

1780:. 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. 3277:"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" 2209: 1777: 912:

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?

899: 3148:

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

1660: 2613:

in their standard configurations. IOW, they should default to forward-chronological order like pretty much every other chronological table on the project. --

1897:

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.

2006: 1860:

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.

1525: 1486: 1457: 1188: 847: 2591:

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.

3629: 3593: 3314:

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

1445: 905: 667: 212: 3467:. 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. 1490: 2397: 2278: 1589:

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

1524:

essentially provide a "results breakdown" by constituency for every department. This is already standard practice on the French Knowledge, e.g.

1229: 1124: 2157:

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. --

2128: 2122: 2116: 1192:

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?

3741:

it hasn't been "certified". The sentence you have in the lede sums up your situation nicely, although probably in unnecessary detail; I think

2187:"standard" and makes it harder to improve. SVG, sadly and ironically, becomes a hindrance to making the encyclopedia incrementally better. -- 1753:

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.

2805: 994:

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

3459:). It has been common practice to list preliminary/unofficial results and declare winners as-is, since the results rarely change. However, 3149: 3036: 3004: 2354: 2002: 1068: 495:

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.

1276: 1153:

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

3813: 3157: 1731: 806: 2300: 3428:

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

2393: 547:

B, but only for U.S. presidential election articles where the candidate won over 5% of the popular vote or electoral votes nationally.

3537: 2957: 2870: 2146: 1076: 1037: 654: 645:

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

2342:. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a 1528:. The alternative would be to create a "mega-article" for the results from all 577 constituencies – I've got a (rather incomplete) 3874: 3858: 3784: 3769: 3759: 3730: 3667: 3641: 3613: 3547: 3506: 3489: 3476: 3446: 3416: 3391: 3373: 3356: 3335: 3296: 3227: 3166: 3127: 3097: 3077: 3048: 3023: 2967: 2932: 2905: 2890: 2840: 2824: 2759: 2750: 2730: 2708: 2661: 2642: 2628: 2600: 2585: 2542: 2519: 2496: 2470: 2437: 2409: 2221: 2196: 2172: 2150: 2101: 2053: 2039: 2025: 1989: 1968: 1939: 1924: 1906: 1892: 1864: 1855: 1833: 1808: 1789: 1762: 1735: 1631: 1613: 1576: 1558: 1542: 1510: 1476: 1449: 1423: 1407: 1379: 1354: 1328: 1306: 1248: 1216: 1201: 1164: 1136: 1107: 1080: 1058: 1019: 979: 942: 921: 865: 834: 765: 744: 722: 704: 687: 658: 637: 625: 604: 583: 536: 504: 487: 462: 447: 426: 414: 398: 377: 355: 333: 311: 289: 258: 151: 140:

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

2990: 2678: 2322: 1663:

with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums.

621: 3215:

exception shall be the cases where the result is subject to an active court challenge or some sort of recount.This closure does

170: 3411: 3122: 3072: 3018: 2537: 2465: 2343: 2286: 2249: 2237: 2227: 2020: 1887: 1608: 1471: 1374: 1323: 1243: 829: 578: 1398:

Or is there a solution here involving tools that people can choose to use to auto-generate content based on data in Wikidata?

3809: 3694:

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.

3180: 2035: 1920: 3260:

that a candidate is the winner, and is now an incoming officeholder (with a future start date), calling them <office: -->

1494: 3830:

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.

3750:

the person's infobox. I don't think they should be added to "list of mayors of Seattle" until they actually take office. --

1482: 567:

My original comment here was moved below (see there for rationale), so restating here. A closed vote like this isn't wise.

163:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3894:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3254: 1650: 1506: 1441: 1350: 1302: 1197: 1178:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

532: 1040:, 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 3220: 2851: 2741: 2699: 2619: 2576: 2163: 1980: 1846: 1419: 1072: 650: 2001:

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.

960:

Why is this applicable to only US election infoboxes? Shouldn't whatever RfC outcome we have be applied to all uses of

2306: 1427: 617: 500: 2379:

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

2454:. It may be worth you sharing an example here rather than creating dozens of articles that will be quickly deleted. 1395:

thinking that the Knowledge consensus-driven community-production model just doesn't work for a data-driven website?

1272: 3705:

want the infobox on the right to say "Taking office November 28, 2017 Succeeding Tim Burgess". Or to add a name to

2836:

because it has better contrast between the colors whereas it's hard to tell some of the senate map's colors apart.

1529: 38: 1697: 1359:

No, they aren't merited either. Other editors might like to be aware that there is now an AfD for these articles:

616:, I think we should follow federal election guidelines, which place funding levels for candidate viability at 5%. 3854: 3726: 3706: 3663: 3609: 3331: 3292: 3244: 2928: 2886: 2294: 2217: 2192: 2031: 1916: 1773: 1498: 1228:

I'm more concerned by the fact that you're creating a separate article on the result for each constituency (e.g.

1212: 1160: 1103: 1007: 975: 964: 895: 785: 761: 458: 394: 3145: 2998: 2855: 1502: 1437: 1346: 1298: 1223: 1193: 324:, although I think that said candidate should not be a write-in who only gets, for example, .01% of the vote. 2311: 3035:-- On a related note, I PRODded a series of articles on New Brunswick elections from a century ago (example 1727: 1403: 227:

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

3870: 3780: 3369: 2984: 2756: 2727: 2658: 2639: 2515: 2425: 2094: 1572: 1538: 780:

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

516:. Option C in Question 1 is unfair because it plays favorites with the Democratic and Republican Parties. 496: 2994: 2735:

I'm on the busy side now, too busy to start an RfC (never started one myself yet). Maybe next month... --

2070: 3534: 3502: 2954: 2820: 2722:

There should links back to it from lots of talk pages of active elections (i.e. current/recent) such as

2364: 2142: 1804: 1785: 1594: 1132: 1015: 700: 600: 373: 2328: 3498: 3156:

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at

1128: 1029: 1011: 880: 596: 555: 3850: 3722: 3659: 3605: 3327: 3288: 3158:

http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums

2980: 2924: 2882: 2677:. I imagine that such an RfC should be hosted here, with RfC notices for this at the obvious places: 2405: 2333: 2213: 2188: 2134: 2112:

using different shades to denote the margin they won by. Here are 2 articles to explain what I mean.

2049: 1935: 1902: 1829: 1719: 1593:

article. As it's a bit of a stalemate between three editors at present, extra input would be welcome

1563:

I think I'll go with departmental divisions; the closest U.S. analog to this might be something like

1433: 1253:

I'm just now seeing this, since I forgot to click the bell. I wouldn't necessarily mind seeing, say,

1208: 1156: 1120: 1099: 1054: 1033: 971: 891: 781: 757: 740: 483: 454: 390: 329: 307: 242: 2864:, whose only advantage is that county data is very easy to come by. We are often stuck with it, but 235:

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

218:

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

3597: 3566: 3406: 3319: 3237: 3117: 3067: 3013: 2532: 2460: 2015: 1882: 1603: 1466: 1369: 1318: 1238: 824: 751:

I would have preferred to stick with a no-exceptions 5% rule, as in the past, but since the RFC at

573: 2553:

Why is it that pretty much every single polling table on elections articles on Knowledge violates

2086:

help locating complete results (by nuance, with seat numbers, etc.) would be greatly appreciated.

3755: 3387: 2657:

Is there a way to propose a formal discussion to seek consensus and a Manual-of-Style-like rule?—

2610: 2562: 2554: 2492: 2433: 2078: 1750: 1723: 1567:(results breakdown from a subnational division of a specific national election by constituency). 1399: 718: 2690: 735:

an average of 5% or more across more than a single poll, or being the nominee of a major party.

232:

A) If only one candidate meets the threshold, then the second-place contender should be included

3808:

It turns out that in this case we have a copious amount of detail on how long a count takes --

2074: 1996: 1960: 3866: 3776: 3743:

Durkan had over 60% of the vote in the preliminary count on the last day of the election, and

3601: 3365: 3352: 3323: 3315: 2912:

c:Category:Pie chart maps of the United States presidential election, 2016 (results by county)

2668: 2511: 2087: 1568: 1554: 1534: 1003: 811: 683: 670:). For subarticles that cover parts of a larger overall election in a specific location (e.g. 526: 119:

If only one candidate meets the threshold, then the second-place contender should be included.

3653:

says plainly that the election was called. We aren't keeping that information from readers.

3529: 3472: 3456: 3429: 3268: 3093: 3044: 2949: 2816: 2745: 2703: 2623: 2580: 2451: 2167: 2138: 2082: 1984: 1850: 1800: 1781: 1758: 1627: 1590: 930: 909: 853: 696: 369: 3775:

Delegates, and other tight races, but Dennis is calling for an unreasonable standard here.

3579: 3575: 3523: 2910:

I mostly use Tableau, but I think there are other tools with similar features. They're at

2596: 2401: 2368: 2045: 1931: 1898: 1871: 1825: 1294: 1116: 1064: 1050: 1025: 917: 876: 736: 551: 479: 443: 351: 325: 303: 285: 254: 147: 3701:

is a verifiable fact that the Times called the election. The question here is whether we

1716:

total turnout figure and leave it at that or create and extra row for rejected ballots?

1680:

The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

1361:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Virginia's 2nd House of Delegates district election, 2017

3681: 3401: 3112: 3083: 3062: 3030: 3008: 2861: 2686: 2527: 2481: 2455: 2010: 1964: 1877: 1598: 1461: 1364: 1313: 1233: 819: 568: 3604:

says we take the long view, and feel no pressure to track the latest developments. --

2382: 1704: 1646: 3835: 3766: 3751: 3689: 3637: 3571: 3486: 3442: 3383: 2902: 2837: 2682: 2674: 2488: 2445: 2429: 1861: 1743: 815: 714: 634: 1456:

The middle one seems to be in line with how other states' districts are named (e.g.

3519: 3348: 1550: 679: 518: 203:

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

189: 3437:

in King County anymore at which to conduct exit polls; it is 100% vote by mail. ☆

2276:

1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work

2210:

Talk:United States presidential election, 2016#More allegations of vote tampering

1049:-participation is part of the story that should be so summarised in the infobox. 3515: 3468: 3104: 3089: 3055: 3040: 2914:. On some of the maps I combined all the minor candidates into "other", such as 2736: 2694: 2634: 2614: 2571: 2158: 1975: 1841: 1754: 1623: 935: 858: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2946:

for such images. Dennis Bratland explains why in more than sufficient detail.

2592: 913: 439: 347: 281: 250: 143: 3163: 2233: 1655: 3172:

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

2292:

3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (

666:

However, this criteria should apply at the main level of an election (e.g.

3211:

the result is certified, according to what the reliable sources state.The

3162:

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.—

753:

Talk:United States_presidential election in the District of Columbia, 2016

3633: 3438: 2338: 433: 423: 411: 3343:. Certification is a long process, and is not needed when multiple RSes 1666:

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

1661:

Knowledge:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 12/Popular pages

1418:

What naming convention do we want to use for Virginia Senate districts?

695:

I don't see a strong reason to lower the threshold for a "major" party.

113:

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

2783:

different color scheme is being used, as well as a lack of color keys.

1549:

constituency results left for the constituencies' individual articles.

999: 2778:

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

2336:. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow 3463:

if there is an active court challenge or recount, like the case with

3311: 3261: 1622:"inferior" in the above. Thanks to Number 57 for posting the notice. 844:

United States presidential election in the District of Columbia, 2016

672:

United States presidential election in the District of Columbia, 2016

186:

United States presidential election in the District of Columbia, 2016

1565:

United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2016

1006:

and this particular infobox talk should be asked at talking at the

674:), we should include all candidates who received 5% of the vote in 3806:

normal ballots with no signature challenges or anything like that.

3584:

Predictions based on likely vote outcomes are not facts, they are

3240:

that an election outcome is decided, and say in infoboxes such as

3234:

Are elections described as decided before the result is certified?

2979:

others should probably be aware of. The IPs I've seen so far are

3485:

challenge were to come up, which can be addressed case-by-case.

2255: 1677:

for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.

846:, as it was not a stand-alone election but rather a part of the 173:

from 2010 regarding inclusion based on poll results, and two at

2127:

The current maps for elections with no specific county data is

1692: 1686: 970:

and other lead infoboxes that serve the same basic function? --

192:

in the infobox. Trump received 4% of the vote in the District.

1820:

significant campaign events such as debates, gets eliminated.

25: 2073:

has 473 out of 490 constituencies, with the source being the

1028:, I think Trump should be included in the DC infobox. As per 2881:

replacing existing ones with the goal of standardization. --

2724:

Talk:United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017

2030:

We could also say that it's an infinity percent increase.

1519:

Election results articles for French legislative elections

1255:

Virginia's 35th House of Delegates district election, 2017

478:

for Question 2 would seem the most logical at this point.

3144:

Knowledge has many thousands of wikilinks which point to

3109:

The hierarchy of preferences is: Referenced article : -->

2944:

Agreed on cleanup and standardization, but opposed to SVG

3140:

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

2860:

The other major problem here is the use of county-level

1876:

Is there a specific article that has made you say this?

1674: 1670:

The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.

649:- it's a good case where breaking the rule makes sense. 3697: 3654: 3650: 2609:, there is no compelling policy-based reason to ignore 2383:

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

1912: 1312:

particular constituency – this is clearly unnecessary.

1295:

http://www.vpap.org/elections/house/candidates/general/

2565:

for no particularly good reason, esp. in articles for

2208:

Discussion of New Hampshire fraud allegations over at

1501:(as opposed to state) that uses the middle one above. 1335:

New Jersey's 7th congressional district election, 2008

678:

the national election or in that particular locality.

3310:

for the result to be certified before calling anyone

2916:

File:Michigan 2016 presidential results by county.png

2428:

as a place to start the organization of the project.

2077:. These numbers also correspond to the totals on the 360:

This seems to be unpopular, but I'm going to go with

3424:

if it is a two-person race and one has conceded but

3179:

The following discussion is an archived record of a

2044:

I like putting "new" (or "N/A" as a second choice).

1343:

Virginia's 7th congressional district election, 2008

175:

Talk:United States Senate election in Illinois, 2010

18:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums

3189:

No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2398:

Talk:New_Zealand_general_election,_2017#Sixth_Party

2064:

Results of French legislative elections before 2002

1954:

Treatment of percentage change on previous election

1277:

Category:Virginia House of Delegates election, 2017

2673:The obvious way forward on that would be a formal 1339:Texas's 22nd congressional district election, 2008 346:are the best for Questions 1 and 2, respectively. 2875:File:Utah 2016 presidential results by county.png 1071:, I'd still want to include them in the infobox. 842:I feel that 5% rule was completely misapplied at 3465:United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008 2605:Considering nearly every one of those tables is 2392:There's a discussion around the infobox for the 2355:leave a message on the campaign's main talk page 1414:Naming convention for Virginia Senate districts 904:Dennis makes a good point. For example, in the 3709:after only half the ballots have been counted. 3267:Alternatively, do we only say, in prose using 2693:, an RfC is probably the only way to do it. -- 2107:Idea for SVG maps with no exact county results 1911:"About the candidates" sections routinely get 1778:United Nations Security Council election, 2017 1526:fr:Élections législatives de 2012 dans le Nord 338:I agree with my fellow editors above. Options 3192:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 1815:How much prose should election articles have? 8: 3696:Nobody has objected to the text in the lead 2400:. Input from more people would be valuable. 2332:, an officially recognized affiliate of the 1150:he would come in first or second nationally. 247:as he provided the options for question 1. 2132: 1717: 1487:Category:California State Senate districts 1458:Category:New York State Assembly districts 1431: 1189:Virginia House of Delegates election, 2017 848:United States presidential elections, 2016 647:Trump should be in the DC election infobox 211:B) Candidate must receive 4% of the vote ( 3630:United States presidential election, 2016 2854:, but until then the resistance to basic 906:United States presidential election, 1980 668:United States presidential election, 2016 3600:says we do not state opinions as facts. 2253:, a campaign to document and photograph 1491:Category:New York State Senate districts 208:A) Candidate must receive 5% of the vote 116:A candidate must receive 5% of the vote. 2974:IP vandalism – made-up election results 2789: 2424:the municipalities. I'm looking at the 2320:Or, view or update the current list of 3810:Seattle mayoral election, 2017#Results 3742: 2129:Minnesota gubernatorial election, 1986 2123:Minnesota gubernatorial election, 1990 2117:Minnesota gubernatorial election, 2002 1673:The report will include a link to the 1495:Category:Pennsylvania Senate Districts 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2846:Everyone is welcome to edit, but I'm 2415:Project on local election information 2007:São Toméan legislative election, 2014 1483:Virginia's 40th State Senate district 1333:What's your opinion on articles like 998:since stating it as an RFC about the 7: 3626:president-elect of the United States 3037:New Brunswick general election, 1890 2326:. This campaign is supported by the 2079:france-politique archive (hobbyists) 2003:South African general election, 2014 1069:Next United Kingdom general election 159:The following discussion is closed. 3219:encompass upon sporting events etc. 2505:Splitting general election articles 807:Puerto Rican general election, 2016 3649:Referring to the current example, 3281:"Candidate Y has/has not conceded" 2396:and what parties to include here: 2353:If you have any questions, please 2235:You are invited to participate in 24: 3341:No need to wait for certification 2871:File:Minard-carte-viande-1858.png 2685:(and possibly elsewhere, such at 1649:– are happy to announce that the 1127:at 4%, and so now what. Cheers 1038:Batley and Spen by-election, 2016 3890:The discussion above is closed. 2804: 2792: 2679:Knowledge talk:Stand-alone lists 2121:Idea for no exact result maps - 1428:40th Senate of Virginia district 1174:The discussion above is closed. 29: 3596:policy is explicit about this. 3594:Knowledge is not a crystal ball 2549:More issues with Polling tables 1424:Virginia's 40th Senate district 2471:07:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC) 2438:05:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC) 2410:14:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC) 1698:m:User talk:Community Tech bot 1363:(someone else beat me to it). 1273:Template:Navbox VAHseDist 2017 1187:I was filling in some data on 1: 3875:16:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC) 3721:hasn't even been finished. -- 3548:04:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 3527: 3507:00:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC) 3228:04:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC) 3128:13:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC) 3098:16:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 3078:16:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 3049:12:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 2968:04:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 2947: 2755:No worries. I'll tackle it.— 2222:22:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC) 2197:20:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC) 1493:. On the other hand, there's 1485:, if we wanted to do it like 1165:05:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC) 1137:05:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC) 1002:means it should be following 723:22:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC) 705:07:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC) 688:06:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC) 180:This issue was brought up by 3859:23:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC) 3785:23:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC) 3770:21:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC) 3760:21:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC) 3731:17:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC) 3668:07:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC) 3642:06:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC) 3614:05:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC) 3490:21:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC) 3477:19:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC) 3447:18:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC) 3417:14:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC) 3392:14:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC) 3374:12:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC) 3357:07:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC) 3336:05:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC) 3297:04:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC) 3167:15:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC) 2933:19:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC) 2906:07:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC) 2891:04:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC) 2841:02:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC) 2825:02:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC) 2760:01:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC) 2751:22:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC) 2731:21:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC) 2709:19:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC) 2662:18:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC) 2643:18:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC) 2543:20:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC) 2520:19:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC) 2497:01:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC) 1621:(Note: edited "unfair"-: --> 1420:Virginia Senate, District 40 1108:22:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC) 1081:13:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC) 1059:10:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC) 1020:20:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC) 980:21:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC) 943:07:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC) 922:03:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC) 900:03:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC) 885:00:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC) 866:11:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC) 835:11:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC) 766:02:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC) 745:02:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC) 659:13:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC) 638:23:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC) 626:22:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC) 605:19:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC) 584:23:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC) 560:22:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC) 537:16:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC) 505:16:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC) 488:14:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC) 463:17:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC) 448:07:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC) 427:07:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC) 415:07:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC) 399:04:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC) 378:03:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC) 356:02:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC) 334:02:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC) 312:02:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC) 290:01:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC) 259:01:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC) 177:relating to the same topic. 2394:recent New Zealand election 2361:Thanks, and happy editing! 2339:Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook 2173:05:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC) 2151:04:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC) 1408:14:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC) 996:wrong place because of that 188:regarding the inclusion of 3909: 3747:called the race for Durkan 3150:WikiProject Disambiguation 3110:unreferenced article : --> 2329:Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group 2115:When we have exact data - 2083:also has published results 1632:22:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC) 1614:22:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC) 152:23:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC) 3707:List of Mayors of Seattle 3201:to describe elections as 2204:NH voter fraud discussion 2102:15:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC) 2054:14:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC) 2040:14:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC) 2026:16:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC) 1990:16:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC) 1969:15:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC) 1940:14:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC) 1925:14:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC) 1907:12:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC) 1893:12:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC) 1865:06:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC) 1856:03:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC) 1834:00:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC) 1774:Template:Infobox Election 1772:I'm having problems with 1707:17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC) 1577:13:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC) 1559:10:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC) 1543:23:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC) 1511:21:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC) 1477:21:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC) 1450:20:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC) 1380:07:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC) 1355:23:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC) 1329:18:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC) 1307:16:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC) 1249:11:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC) 1217:04:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC) 1202:02:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC) 1008:Template:Infobox election 3892:Please do not modify it. 3825:treating the outcome as 3186:Please do not modify it. 3024:20:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC) 2629:23:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC) 2601:22:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC) 2586:22:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC) 2260:, including pride events 2081:. The National Assembly 1809:01:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC) 1790:22:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC) 1763:15:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 1736:12:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 1585:Electoral system article 1176:Please do not modify it. 987:Mis-topic and Mis-placed 161:Please do not modify it. 2287:examples from last year 1749:I've started an RfC on 1705:the Community Tech Team 1073:Super Nintendo Chalmers 651:Super Nintendo Chalmers 3271:, in the article body 2633:I strongly agree with 2557:by being organized in 2426:U.S. Counties template 2375:Belgian electoral data 1430:, or something else? 618:Buzzards-Watch Me Work 272:Personally, I support 195:Here are the options: 3435:are no polling places 2450:I would bear in mind 2365:User:Another Believer 2344:neutral point of view 593:2 - none of the above 589:1 - None of the above 42:of past discussions. 3554:Threaded discussion. 3255:Infobox officeholder 2334:Wikimedia Foundation 2032:Mister Ernest Thayer 1917:Mister Ernest Thayer 1641:Popular pages report 1275:, and the category, 364:for Question 1, and 184:at the talk page of 3269:in-text attribution 3181:request for comment 2258:culture and history 1503:N I H I L I S T I C 1438:N I H I L I S T I C 1347:N I H I L I S T I C 1299:N I H I L I S T I C 1224:N I H I L I S T I C 1194:N I H I L I S T I C 474:for Question 1 and 276:for Question 1 and 103:RfC on 5% threshold 1751:Talk:voting method 1684:We're grateful to 1656:Community Tech bot 545:. For question 2: 368:for Question 2. -- 162: 3745:The Seattle Times 3651:this article lead 3238:Knowledge's voice 3236:Should we say in 2852:argument to avoid 2811:Presidential Maps 2749: 2707: 2627: 2584: 2301:Wikimedia Commons 2272:How can you help? 2171: 2153: 2137:comment added by 1988: 1854: 1799:to show results. 1738: 1722:comment added by 1690:for his original 1651:Popular pages bot 1452: 1436:comment added by 989:- Seems kind of 535: 497:Emir of Knowledge 160: 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3900: 3839: 3693: 3685: 3567:secondary source 3546: 3414: 3409: 3404: 3259: 3253: 3249: 3245:Infobox election 3243: 3225: 3206: 3199:strong consensus 3188: 3125: 3120: 3115: 3108: 3086: 3075: 3070: 3065: 3059: 3033: 3021: 3016: 3011: 2966: 2808: 2796: 2739: 2697: 2672: 2617: 2574: 2540: 2535: 2530: 2485: 2468: 2463: 2458: 2449: 2250:Wiki Loves Pride 2238:Wiki Loves Pride 2228:Wiki Loves Pride 2161: 2099: 2092: 2023: 2018: 2013: 2000: 1978: 1890: 1885: 1880: 1875: 1844: 1798: 1695: 1689: 1658: 1611: 1606: 1601: 1591:electoral system 1474: 1469: 1464: 1377: 1372: 1367: 1326: 1321: 1316: 1246: 1241: 1236: 1227: 969: 965:Infobox election 963: 938: 933: 861: 856: 832: 827: 822: 788:)PalmerTheGolfer 581: 576: 571: 541:For question 1: 522: 437: 280:for Question 2. 246: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3908: 3907: 3903: 3902: 3901: 3899: 3898: 3897: 3896: 3895: 3851:Dennis Bratland 3833: 3723:Dennis Bratland 3687: 3679: 3660:Dennis Bratland 3606:Dennis Bratland 3556: 3544: 3412: 3407: 3402: 3379:No need to wait 3328:Dennis Bratland 3304: 3289:Dennis Bratland 3257: 3251: 3247: 3241: 3230: 3221: 3202: 3184: 3174: 3142: 3123: 3118: 3113: 3102: 3084: 3073: 3068: 3063: 3053: 3031: 3019: 3014: 3009: 2976: 2964: 2925:Dennis Bratland 2883:Dennis Bratland 2862:choropleth maps 2833: 2812: 2809: 2800: 2797: 2780: 2681:, and probably 2666: 2551: 2538: 2533: 2528: 2507: 2479: 2466: 2461: 2456: 2443: 2417: 2390: 2377: 2372: 2369:User:OR drohowa 2232: 2214:Dennis Bratland 2206: 2189:Dennis Bratland 2109: 2095: 2088: 2066: 2021: 2016: 2011: 1994: 1956: 1915:from articles. 1888: 1883: 1878: 1869: 1817: 1796: 1770: 1768:Infobox problem 1747: 1713: 1711:Turnout figures 1691: 1685: 1654: 1643: 1609: 1604: 1599: 1587: 1521: 1472: 1467: 1462: 1416: 1375: 1370: 1365: 1324: 1319: 1314: 1244: 1239: 1234: 1221: 1209:Dennis Bratland 1185: 1180: 1179: 1034:Dennis Bratland 972:Dennis Bratland 967: 961: 936: 931: 892:Dennis Bratland 859: 854: 830: 825: 820: 782:PalmerTheGolfer 758:Dennis Bratland 731: 579: 574: 569: 455:Dennis Bratland 431: 391:Dennis Bratland 266: 243:Dennis Bratland 240: 165: 156: 155: 154: 105: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3906: 3904: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3884: 3883: 3882: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3877: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3790: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3735: 3734: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3618: 3617: 3555: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3542: 3509: 3492: 3479: 3449: 3419: 3394: 3376: 3359: 3338: 3303: 3300: 3275:in infoboxes: 3231: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3175: 3173: 3170: 3146:disambiguation 3141: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 2995:79.185.205.254 2975: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2962: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2920:Washington map 2895: 2894: 2856:editing policy 2832: 2829: 2817:Peter M. Grund 2814: 2813: 2810: 2803: 2801: 2798: 2791: 2779: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2550: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2506: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2474: 2473: 2416: 2413: 2389: 2386: 2376: 2373: 2360: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2290: 2282: 2269: 2261: 2231: 2225: 2205: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2176: 2175: 2108: 2105: 2065: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2028: 1955: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1858: 1816: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1797:| ongoing = no 1769: 1766: 1746: 1740: 1712: 1709: 1703:Warm regards, 1682: 1681: 1678: 1675:pageviews tool 1671: 1647:Community Tech 1642: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1586: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1520: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1415: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1396: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1184: 1181: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1154: 1151: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1111: 1110: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1084: 1083: 1061: 1022: 983: 982: 954: 953: 952: 951: 950: 949: 948: 947: 946: 945: 869: 868: 837: 812:Ricky Rosselló 798: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 792: 791: 790: 789: 769: 768: 748: 747: 730: 727: 726: 725: 707: 690: 661: 640: 628: 607: 586: 562: 539: 507: 490: 469: 468: 467: 466: 465: 417: 401: 380: 358: 336: 320:. Question 2, 314: 292: 265: 262: 237: 236: 233: 225: 220: 219: 216: 209: 201: 166: 157: 142: 141: 132: 131: 121: 120: 117: 109: 108: 107: 106: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3905: 3893: 3876: 3872: 3868: 3863: 3862: 3861: 3860: 3856: 3852: 3847: 3843: 3837: 3831: 3828: 3824: 3818: 3815: 3811: 3804: 3803: 3802: 3801: 3800: 3799: 3798: 3797: 3796: 3795: 3786: 3782: 3778: 3773: 3772: 3771: 3768: 3763: 3762: 3761: 3757: 3753: 3748: 3746: 3739: 3738: 3737: 3736: 3733: 3732: 3728: 3724: 3720: 3715: 3710: 3708: 3704: 3699: 3691: 3683: 3678: 3677: 3670: 3669: 3665: 3661: 3656: 3652: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3639: 3635: 3631: 3627: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3619: 3616: 3615: 3611: 3607: 3603: 3599: 3595: 3589: 3587: 3581: 3577: 3573: 3568: 3563: 3558: 3557: 3553: 3549: 3539: 3536: 3533: 3532: 3525: 3521: 3517: 3513: 3510: 3508: 3504: 3500: 3496: 3493: 3491: 3488: 3483: 3480: 3478: 3474: 3470: 3466: 3462: 3458: 3453: 3450: 3448: 3444: 3440: 3436: 3431: 3427: 3423: 3420: 3418: 3415: 3410: 3405: 3398: 3395: 3393: 3389: 3385: 3380: 3377: 3375: 3371: 3367: 3363: 3360: 3358: 3354: 3350: 3346: 3342: 3339: 3337: 3333: 3329: 3325: 3321: 3317: 3313: 3309: 3306: 3305: 3301: 3299: 3298: 3294: 3290: 3284: 3282: 3278: 3274: 3270: 3265: 3263: 3256: 3246: 3239: 3235: 3229: 3226: 3224: 3223:Winged Blades 3218: 3214: 3210: 3205: 3200: 3193: 3190: 3187: 3182: 3177: 3176: 3171: 3169: 3168: 3165: 3160: 3159: 3154: 3151: 3147: 3139: 3129: 3126: 3121: 3116: 3106: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3095: 3091: 3087: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3076: 3071: 3066: 3057: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3046: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3022: 3017: 3012: 3006: 3003: 3000: 2996: 2992: 2989: 2986: 2982: 2973: 2969: 2959: 2956: 2953: 2952: 2945: 2942: 2941: 2934: 2930: 2926: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2904: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2893: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2878: 2876: 2872: 2867: 2866:standardizing 2863: 2857: 2853: 2849: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2839: 2830: 2828: 2826: 2822: 2818: 2807: 2802: 2795: 2790: 2788: 2784: 2777: 2761: 2758: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2747: 2743: 2738: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2729: 2725: 2721: 2720:make the RfC? 2719: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2705: 2701: 2696: 2692: 2688: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2670: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2660: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2644: 2641: 2636: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2625: 2621: 2616: 2612: 2608: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2582: 2578: 2573: 2568: 2564: 2560: 2556: 2548: 2544: 2541: 2536: 2531: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2517: 2513: 2504: 2498: 2494: 2490: 2483: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2472: 2469: 2464: 2459: 2453: 2447: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2435: 2431: 2427: 2421: 2414: 2412: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2388:Infobox again 2387: 2385: 2384: 2380: 2374: 2371: 2370: 2366: 2362: 2358: 2356: 2351: 2349: 2345: 2341: 2340: 2335: 2331: 2330: 2325: 2324: 2313: 2309: 2308: 2303: 2302: 2297: 2296: 2291: 2288: 2283: 2281: 2280: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2270: 2268: 2265: 2262: 2259: 2257: 2252: 2251: 2247: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2240: 2239: 2229: 2226: 2224: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2203: 2199: 2198: 2194: 2190: 2184: 2178: 2177: 2174: 2169: 2165: 2160: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2152: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2136: 2130: 2125: 2124: 2119: 2118: 2113: 2106: 2104: 2103: 2100: 2098: 2093: 2091: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2063: 2055: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2027: 2024: 2019: 2014: 2008: 2004: 1998: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1986: 1982: 1977: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1953: 1941: 1937: 1933: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1922: 1918: 1914: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1904: 1900: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1891: 1886: 1881: 1873: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1863: 1859: 1857: 1852: 1848: 1843: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1821: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1775: 1767: 1765: 1764: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1745: 1744:voting method 1741: 1739: 1737: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1724:Ballotboxworm 1721: 1710: 1708: 1706: 1701: 1699: 1694: 1688: 1679: 1676: 1672: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1664: 1662: 1659:will post at 1657: 1652: 1648: 1640: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1612: 1607: 1602: 1596: 1592: 1584: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1556: 1552: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1531: 1527: 1518: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1475: 1470: 1465: 1459: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1381: 1378: 1373: 1368: 1362: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1327: 1322: 1317: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1256: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1247: 1242: 1237: 1231: 1225: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1190: 1182: 1177: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1155: 1152: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1138: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1085: 1082: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1001: 997: 992: 988: 985: 984: 981: 977: 973: 966: 959: 956: 955: 944: 941: 940: 939: 934: 925: 924: 923: 919: 915: 911: 910:John Anderson 907: 903: 902: 901: 897: 893: 888: 887: 886: 882: 878: 873: 872: 871: 870: 867: 864: 863: 862: 857: 849: 845: 841: 838: 836: 833: 828: 823: 817: 816:David Bernier 813: 808: 803: 800: 799: 787: 783: 779: 778: 777: 776: 775: 774: 773: 772: 771: 770: 767: 763: 759: 754: 750: 749: 746: 742: 738: 733: 732: 728: 724: 720: 716: 711: 708: 706: 702: 698: 694: 691: 689: 685: 681: 677: 673: 669: 665: 662: 660: 656: 652: 648: 644: 641: 639: 636: 632: 629: 627: 623: 619: 615: 611: 608: 606: 602: 598: 594: 590: 587: 585: 582: 577: 572: 566: 563: 561: 557: 553: 548: 544: 540: 538: 534: 533:Contributions 531: 528: 525: 521: 520: 515: 511: 508: 506: 502: 498: 494: 491: 489: 485: 481: 477: 473: 470: 464: 460: 456: 451: 450: 449: 445: 441: 435: 430: 429: 428: 425: 421: 418: 416: 413: 409: 405: 402: 400: 396: 392: 388: 384: 381: 379: 375: 371: 367: 363: 359: 357: 353: 349: 345: 341: 337: 335: 331: 327: 323: 319: 315: 313: 309: 305: 301: 297: 293: 291: 287: 283: 279: 275: 271: 270: 269: 263: 261: 260: 256: 252: 248: 244: 234: 231: 230: 229: 228: 224: 217: 214: 210: 207: 206: 205: 204: 200: 196: 193: 191: 187: 183: 178: 176: 172: 164: 153: 149: 145: 139: 138: 137: 136: 128: 127: 126: 125: 118: 115: 114: 112: 102: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3891: 3867:MelanieN alt 3845: 3841: 3832: 3826: 3822: 3819: 3807: 3744: 3718: 3713: 3711: 3702: 3695: 3655:This version 3648: 3628:" (found at 3625: 3590: 3585: 3583: 3578:. See also: 3561: 3530: 3511: 3494: 3481: 3460: 3451: 3434: 3425: 3421: 3396: 3378: 3361: 3345:clearly call 3344: 3340: 3320:WP:WikiVoice 3307: 3285: 3280: 3276: 3272: 3266: 3233: 3232: 3222: 3216: 3212: 3208: 3203: 3198: 3191: 3185: 3178: 3161: 3155: 3143: 3111:no article. 3001: 2987: 2977: 2950: 2943: 2879: 2865: 2859: 2847: 2834: 2827:PeterMGrund 2815: 2785: 2781: 2757:GoldRingChip 2728:GoldRingChip 2717: 2715: 2691:WP:WPE&R 2669:GoldRingChip 2659:GoldRingChip 2640:GoldRingChip 2606: 2566: 2558: 2552: 2508: 2422: 2418: 2391: 2381: 2378: 2363: 2359: 2352: 2347: 2337: 2327: 2321: 2319: 2305: 2299: 2293: 2277: 2271: 2266: 2263: 2254: 2248: 2245: 2236: 2234: 2207: 2185: 2181: 2133:— Preceding 2126: 2120: 2114: 2110: 2096: 2089: 2071:data.gouv.fr 2067: 1957: 1822: 1818: 1771: 1748: 1718:— Preceding 1714: 1702: 1683: 1665: 1644: 1588: 1522: 1499:Commonwealth 1432:— Preceding 1417: 1400:Ian McDonald 1186: 1175: 1125:in RFC there 1088:party state. 1046: 1041: 995: 990: 986: 957: 929: 928: 852: 851: 839: 801: 709: 692: 675: 663: 646: 642: 630: 613: 609: 592: 588: 564: 546: 542: 529: 523: 517: 513: 509: 492: 475: 471: 419: 407: 403: 386: 382: 365: 361: 343: 339: 321: 317: 316:Question 1, 299: 295: 277: 273: 267: 249: 238: 226: 222: 221: 202: 198: 197: 194: 190:Donald Trump 182:a recent RfC 179: 167: 158: 134: 133: 123: 122: 110: 78: 43: 37: 3719:first count 3598:NPOV policy 3531:SMcCandlish 3499:Markbassett 3007:). Cheers, 2951:SMcCandlish 2799:Senate Maps 2635:User:IJBall 2611:WP:SALORDER 2563:WP:SALORDER 2555:WP:SALORDER 2346:. One does 2139:PeterMGrund 1801:PrimeHunter 1782:Sir Sputnik 1129:Markbassett 1030:Markbassett 1012:Markbassett 713:treatment. 597:Markbassett 370:Mr.Election 135:Question 2: 124:Question 1: 36:This is an 3602:WP:NOTNEWS 3512:Don't wait 3482:Don't wait 3452:Don't wait 3422:Don't wait 3397:Don't wait 3362:Don't wait 3324:WP:NOTNEWS 3316:WP:CRYSTAL 2981:83.6.73.87 2716:Would you 2402:Bondegezou 2307:Wikivoyage 2046:Bondegezou 1932:Bondegezou 1899:Bondegezou 1872:Compy book 1826:Compy book 1597:. Cheers, 1497:, another 1117:Bondegezou 1065:Bondegezou 1051:Bondegezou 1004:WP:INFOBOX 814:(42%) and 737:ALPolitico 729:Discussion 565:Oppose all 480:HelgaStick 326:ALPolitico 304:Calibrador 223:Question 2 199:Question 1 95:Archive 15 90:Archive 14 85:Archive 13 79:Archive 12 73:Archive 11 68:Archive 10 3777:Mélencron 3682:Number 57 3430:WP:FRINGE 3366:Mélencron 3197:There is 2512:Mélencron 2482:Number 57 2452:WP:NOTDIR 2267:June 2015 1569:Mélencron 1535:Mélencron 1096:coverage. 1026:1990'sguy 877:1990'sguy 715:Chris vLS 710:1C and 2A 697:Vanamonde 693:1A and 2A 664:1C and 2A 643:1A and 2A 631:1A and 2B 552:1990'sguy 60:Archive 5 3836:Reywas92 3767:Reywas92 3752:MelanieN 3690:MelanieN 3586:opinions 3580:WP:TRUTH 3576:WP:SYNTH 3524:WP:TRUTH 3522:and per 3487:Reywas92 3384:MelanieN 3005:contribs 2991:contribs 2903:Reywas92 2838:Reywas92 2742:contribs 2700:contribs 2620:contribs 2607:sortable 2577:contribs 2489:Tgillet1 2446:Tgillet1 2430:Tgillet1 2295:Wikidata 2164:contribs 2147:contribs 2135:unsigned 1981:contribs 1913:scrubbed 1862:Reywas92 1847:contribs 1732:contribs 1720:unsigned 1693:Mr.Z-bot 1687:Mr.Z-man 1446:contribs 1434:unsigned 991:offtopic 958:Question 840:Comment: 635:Reywas92 519:Jay Coop 294:Agreed, 239:pinging 213:see here 171:this one 3823:infobox 3814:a graph 3349:Icewhiz 3302:Survey. 3204:decided 2848:opposed 2687:WP:CENT 2638:order.— 2559:reverse 1742:RfC on 1551:Impru20 1530:sandbox 1024:As per 1000:Infobox 802:Comment 680:Orser67 420:Comment 111:Result: 39:archive 3572:WP:NOR 3545:ⱷ< 3514:, per 3469:Ueutyi 3403:Number 3322:, and 3312:-elect 3262:-elect 3209:before 3114:Number 3105:Rhadow 3090:Rhadow 3085:Number 3082:Hello 3064:Number 3056:Rhadow 3041:Rhadow 3032:Number 3029:Hello 3010:Number 2993:) and 2965:ⱷ< 2831:Survey 2737:IJBall 2718:please 2695:IJBall 2683:WP:VPP 2675:WP:RfC 2615:IJBall 2572:IJBall 2529:Number 2457:Number 2159:IJBall 2012:Number 1976:IJBall 1879:Number 1842:IJBall 1755:Homunq 1624:Homunq 1600:Number 1463:Number 1366:Number 1315:Number 1235:Number 821:Number 676:either 570:Number 264:Survey 3846:Times 3540:: --> 3520:WP:RS 2960:: --> 2918:. On 2593:MB298 2323:Tasks 2264:When? 2246:What? 2090:Mélen 1645:We – 1426:, or 1422:, or 1063:Like 914:MB298 440:MB298 385:and 348:Edge3 282:MB298 251:MB298 144:Alsee 16:< 3871:talk 3855:talk 3827:fact 3812:has 3781:talk 3756:talk 3727:talk 3703:also 3698:here 3664:talk 3638:talk 3610:talk 3574:and 3562:fact 3516:WP:V 3503:talk 3495:Wait 3473:talk 3461:wait 3443:talk 3426:wait 3388:talk 3370:talk 3353:talk 3332:talk 3326:. -- 3308:Wait 3293:talk 3279:and 3213:only 3094:talk 3045:talk 2999:talk 2985:talk 2929:talk 2887:talk 2821:talk 2746:talk 2704:talk 2624:talk 2597:talk 2581:talk 2567:past 2516:talk 2493:talk 2434:talk 2406:talk 2367:and 2279:here 2256:LGBT 2218:talk 2212:. -- 2193:talk 2168:talk 2143:talk 2097:cron 2075:CDSP 2050:talk 2036:talk 1997:Ntmr 1985:talk 1965:talk 1961:Ntmr 1936:talk 1921:talk 1903:talk 1851:talk 1830:talk 1805:talk 1795:Set 1786:talk 1728:talk 1595:here 1573:talk 1555:talk 1539:talk 1507:talk 1442:talk 1404:talk 1351:talk 1303:talk 1230:this 1213:talk 1198:talk 1161:talk 1133:talk 1119:and 1104:talk 1077:talk 1055:talk 1042:some 1032:and 1016:talk 976:talk 932:Rami 918:talk 896:talk 881:talk 855:Rami 786:talk 762:talk 741:talk 719:talk 701:talk 684:talk 655:talk 622:talk 612:and 601:talk 591:and 556:talk 527:Talk 512:and 501:talk 493:Vote 484:talk 459:talk 444:talk 395:talk 389:. -- 374:talk 352:talk 342:and 330:talk 308:talk 298:and 286:talk 255:talk 148:talk 3842:Yes 3714:not 3634:Bri 3439:Bri 3283:? 3273:not 3217:not 3164:Rod 2348:not 2312:etc 2241:! 2005:or 1776:at 1489:or 1481:Or 1460:). 1157:TFD 1121:TFD 1100:TFD 1047:non 434:JFG 424:JFG 412:JFG 3873:) 3857:) 3849:-- 3783:) 3758:) 3729:) 3686:, 3666:) 3640:) 3612:) 3541:ⱷ҅ 3528:— 3518:/ 3505:) 3475:) 3457:AP 3445:) 3390:) 3372:) 3355:) 3334:) 3318:, 3295:) 3287:-- 3258:}} 3252:{{ 3250:, 3248:}} 3242:{{ 3207:, 3183:. 3096:) 3047:) 2961:ⱷ҅ 2948:— 2931:) 2889:) 2823:) 2744:• 2726:.— 2702:• 2622:• 2599:) 2579:• 2570:-- 2518:) 2495:) 2436:) 2408:) 2357:. 2314:.) 2310:, 2304:, 2298:, 2220:) 2195:) 2166:• 2149:) 2145:• 2052:) 2038:) 2009:. 1983:• 1967:) 1938:) 1923:) 1905:) 1849:• 1840:-- 1832:) 1807:) 1788:) 1761:) 1734:) 1730:• 1700:. 1630:) 1575:) 1557:) 1541:) 1509:) 1448:) 1444:• 1406:) 1353:) 1341:, 1337:, 1305:) 1215:) 1200:) 1163:) 1135:) 1106:) 1079:) 1057:) 1018:) 978:) 968:}} 962:{{ 920:) 908:, 898:) 883:) 875:-- 764:) 743:) 721:) 703:) 686:) 657:) 624:) 603:) 558:) 550:-- 514:2A 510:1A 503:) 486:) 461:) 453:-- 446:) 408:2A 406:+ 404:1A 397:) 387:2A 383:1A 376:) 354:) 332:) 310:) 302:. 288:) 257:) 150:) 64:← 3869:( 3853:( 3838:: 3834:@ 3779:( 3754:( 3725:( 3692:: 3688:@ 3684:: 3680:@ 3662:( 3636:( 3608:( 3582:. 3543:ᴥ 3538:¢ 3535:☏ 3501:( 3471:( 3441:( 3413:7 3408:5 3386:( 3368:( 3351:( 3330:( 3291:( 3124:7 3119:5 3107:: 3103:@ 3092:( 3074:7 3069:5 3058:: 3054:@ 3043:( 3020:7 3015:5 3002:· 2997:( 2988:· 2983:( 2963:ᴥ 2958:¢ 2955:☏ 2927:( 2885:( 2877:. 2819:( 2748:) 2740:( 2706:) 2698:( 2671:: 2667:@ 2626:) 2618:( 2595:( 2583:) 2575:( 2539:7 2534:5 2514:( 2491:( 2484:: 2480:@ 2467:7 2462:5 2448:: 2444:@ 2432:( 2404:( 2289:) 2230:! 2216:( 2191:( 2170:) 2162:( 2141:( 2048:( 2034:( 2022:7 2017:5 1999:: 1995:@ 1987:) 1979:( 1963:( 1934:( 1919:( 1901:( 1889:7 1884:5 1874:: 1870:@ 1853:) 1845:( 1828:( 1803:( 1784:( 1759:࿓ 1757:( 1726:( 1634:) 1628:࿓ 1626:( 1610:7 1605:5 1571:( 1553:( 1537:( 1505:( 1473:7 1468:5 1440:( 1402:( 1376:7 1371:5 1349:( 1325:7 1320:5 1301:( 1245:7 1240:5 1226:: 1222:@ 1211:( 1196:( 1159:( 1131:( 1102:( 1075:( 1053:( 1014:( 974:( 937:R 916:( 894:( 879:( 860:R 831:7 826:5 784:( 760:( 739:( 717:( 699:( 682:( 653:( 620:( 614:B 610:A 599:( 580:7 575:5 554:( 543:A 530:· 524:· 499:( 482:( 476:A 472:C 457:( 442:( 436:: 432:@ 393:( 372:( 366:B 362:B 350:( 344:A 340:C 328:( 322:A 318:C 306:( 300:A 296:C 284:( 278:A 274:C 253:( 245:: 241:@ 215:) 146:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 12 - Knowledge

Index