Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Elections and Referendums and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27Auto-archiving period: 31 days

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Elections and Referendums This page is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

So there is a series of articles I wrote called consular agencies of Belgium and consular agencies of Albania and they only include honorary consular agencies. Should I add the non-honorary ones or should I change the titles to specify? Vestrix (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the series. Either is good. Adding the non-honorary ones seems better. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Anyone want to request the reboot of this project to be featured by the WikiProject Desk in The Signpost? rootsmusic (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Instituto Nacional Electoral#Requested move 4 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CNC (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, everyone. One of my present pursuits on Wikipedia is to add tables displaying county-based voting results for state and federal US elections. While I was finding sources for my next table(s), I came across rightdataUSA.com, which has very detailed analyses of election stats, as well as statistical profiles of American politicians and even Census data. For example, this is a link to their 2014 Wisconsin gubernatorial election page. While I'm not a fan of Right Data demarking Republicans as blue and Democrats as red, I'll put that aside at present and point out that there is no evidence to my eye at least that Right Data USA is user-generated content. What is particularly useful is that Right Data has county stats of US House elections (One example, CO-3 in 2022), and even has limited stats on state races such as Secretary of State, Auditor, Attorney General, etc.

While writing this post, I also came across Ballotwire.com. It appears to have generalized election coverage, and statistical data of US elections, especially since 2016. (Also, the colors are conventional with this website.) However, the county stats are only available for Senate, Governor, and President elections; and it does not touch much on non-gubernatorial statewide races. I believe Ballot Wire could be very useful on Wikipedia, permitting that it abides by source guidelines.

What are your thoughts on these two websites? Right Data has only three positive search results on Wikipedia (now four with this post), while Ballot Wire has none. And does anyone know where a list is on Wikipedia which details reliable sources specifically for USA election stats, if such a list exists here? Any input is appreciate.

Mungo Kitsch (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These have the same as Dave Leip's Atlas where, a lot of times, they don't say where they get the information, which causes problems when they misreport or have old provisional data. Election data from each state's State Board of Elections, SOS, or the Federal Election Commission should be used wherever possible. At first glance, I don't see any bias with Ballotwire, so it should be fine for just the election coverage, but information from the sources listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources should be preferable when possible. Wowzers122 (talk) 10:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the typical inclusion criteria for election polls? i.e. what is the standard for quality? When there are a variety of independent sources, why include those sponsored by a specific campaign, PAC, or other organization aligned with a specific candidate? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that we've ever discussed the general inclusion criteria for opinion polls, but I have instead seen discussions regarding this for the UK, for example, which IMO should also be followed for other countries. Every country has different polling standards: in some countries there are both high-quality and low-quality pollsters and in some there are only low-quality pollsters. Looking by your contributions, I assume that you want to know this because of the NYC Democratic primary mayoral polls that were commissioned by PACs and campaigns. IMO, for NYC, we should instead look at the quality of these polls (whether they only published the numbers, or did they also include more methodology data), and if they're high-quality, we should include them in the article. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People might want to give their input here. Cheers, Number 57 23:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is so it will be able to showcase both current seat figures and last election seat figures, due to Talk:Next Danish general election#Seat figures, and input would be very appreciated. Discussion is Thomediter (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council election is missing a lot of the normal etceteras, and had a bunch of empty templates removed. Maybe this was never really finished? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Election Infobox Color Bar that might be of interest to this community. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 08:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the consensus about when an incumbent candidate has switched parties since their election i.e. was elected as a member of Labour but then later defected to the Greens or the Liberal Democrats. Should it be a gain since it's a gain compared to the last election or a hold since the incumbent had already switched parties before the election TheHaloVeteran2 (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would say a gain as the comparison should (IMO) be with the previous election. A sort of comparator is that seat change parameter in election infoboxes is meant to show seat changes compared to the previous election, not to the situation before the election (although I am also aware this is misused for a small number of countries). Number 57 20:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The comparison is strictly with the most recent election, so what the incumbent does in the meantime is irrelevant.-- Earl Andrew - talk 20:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We've always treated defections and by-elections as "in isolation", because general elections should always be treated 'like for like'. I've sometimes found myself in editing conflicts because some editors want to treat by-elections as the comparison. That is not standard practice outside Wiki and shouldn't be inside. doktorb _words^deeds 21:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]