This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
RFC: Should elections include equal-ranked ballots in calculating vote shares?
Should elections include equal-ranked and truncated ballots when calculating vote shares? For example, should ballots marked A = B > C be included in calculating the vote share for A against B?
Support. The convention in the
social choice literature on this topic is very clear: equal-ranked ballots need to be included, because they can affect the outcome of the election. This is particularly important for
paired counting methods, because equal-ranking indicates indifference (which dilutes the margin of victory). Even for systems where equal-ranking two candidates does not affect the results, users should know what share of ballots were exhausted or ranked several candidates as tied. It is easy to calculate what the results of the election would have been if equal ranks were excluded, but not vice-versa.
Closed Limelike Curves (
talk)
04:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose for now on the basis that you've not explained adequately what you are seeking to do. I've read your comments at
WT:E&R several times and I am still none the wiser to what the issue is here.
Number5719:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm trying to find consensus on a consistent standard for reporting
ranked-choice voting results.
As an example, let's take the article on the
2011 Irish presidential election. The infobox says the "final round result" was 56.8% of the vote for Michael Higgins, against 35.5% of the vote for Sean Gallagher. These don't add up to 100%, because some voters have ballots that look like this:
Mitchell
McGuiness
All other candidates (equal)
"Any other candidate" votes make up the last 8%. The question is whether an infobox reporting "final round results" should include "all other candidates," or whether these votes should be excluded.
Currently, there is no standard, and infoboxes are inconsistent across articles. For example,
2009 Burlington mayoral election uses the opposite convention. "All other candidates" are 6.7% of votes, but these are discarded to report the margin as 51.5% to 48.5%, instead of as 48% to 45.2%.
This allows unscrupulous editors to manipulate the apparent margin of victory: a Purple party supporter might report an election they lost as having a margin of 30% to 20%, with 50% of voters being apathetic between the two (an unconvincing victory). Elsewhere, they could report the same election results, but with Purple as the winner, by saying Purple had 60% of the final-round vote.
Closed Limelike Curves (
talk)
21:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm saying that in every round or matchup, the vote share should be equal to the number of votes for a candidate, divided by the total number of ballots (including those that, in the final round, show no further preferences). This is because those ballots can still affect the outcome under many voting systems.
Closed Limelike Curves (
talk)
07:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
There's not really a standard practice from reliable sources for this, because both numbers are correct; they just measure different things. The only time this causes a problem is when vote totals are inconsistent across infoboxes on Wikipedia, because excluding truncated ballots from some totals but not others leaves the door open for biases and confusion.
Closed Limelike Curves (
talk)
17:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I think consistency in a series of articles about elections in the same place makes sense. I don’t think there’s a particular need for how we report Maltese elections to match how we report Australian elections if RS about the former do one thing and RS about the latter do another. I think instead of this very generic RfC, that most editors appear to be struggling to follow given the lack of activity in it, it would be more useful to examine specific cases.
Bondegezou (
talk)
12:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It's more that the reliable sources differ between media sources and academic sources. Journalists reporting election results tend to drop these kinds of ballots. Academic sources (scientific journals) consistently include them.
By the way, I should note that this is actually an extremely that's created no fewer than 6 edit wars and I'm utterly sick and tired of it. I'm describing this policy as vaguely and generically as possible, without mentioning any specifics or specific articles, because if I don't it'll probably start a flame war and the entire debate will fall back on partisan lines.
Closed Limelike Curves (
talk)
18:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Strange output
I modified the last edit because articles like
this one were picking up the unnamed parameters and using them for the flag. removing these unnamed parameters fix the strange Template:Country data independent at the top, but then left a blank row at the top. this is because if |country= is in the template but blank, then the #ifexist check still picks up
Template:Country data which is a valid template. I put the "check for blank" back around this line and now it looks fine in both cases.
Frietjes (
talk)
15:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The code seem to malfunction and data that should not be visible in GUI output seems to be visible and the information does not seem to be contained in designated area, I don't know what has happened perhaps some kind of new regulations imposed on templates can not put up with the actuality in programming scale.
Cactus Ronin (
talk)
18:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Re the test case, do we know why using candidate and nominee do different things to the width of the colour bar? And also what is happening with the previous/next election links (why are they spilling off the edge of the infobox?). Cheers,
Number5722:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Also, can people remember to use the sandbox to test stuff, rather than risk breaking tens of thousands of articles...
Number5722:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This has messed up thousands of articles. Please test this kind of stuff in the sandbox first
FWIW I tested this on a local MediaWiki instance so please don't assume I didn't test this, but could you expand on what exactly broke? It looked fine to me on the testcases after I made the change - and it is a minor change that is only adding CSS.
The template is currently problematic as it is exhibiting bias, so I'm keen to understand what problem you are seeing with the two rules of CSS I added so I'm keen to fix it ASAP.
The initial edit you made to the infobox caused the images to be compressed horizontally. For example, the images at
2024 United States presidential election stayed the same height, but were compressed to about a third of their original width.
I'm not sure what you've done this time, but it causes the images to be really small (I think 80x80px) but also stretches the infobox to twice as wide as it should be.
Annoyingly I can't show this side-by-side, as if you put the two versions on the same page, the style from the sandbox interferes with the main version. However, compare
User:Number 57/sandbox 3 (normal infobox with default size of 150x150px) with
User:Number 57/sandbox 4 (sandbox) and you'll see what I mean.
Yes this was the intention of the change. It should aplly to Minerva but not Vector. Why do you consider that broken? Without this all the infoboxes are clipped by default on mobile and every candidate other than the first requires scrolling to view.
i was editing from a desktop device and testing both mobile and desktop experiences
Just to clarify, did you mean to fix the image to 80x80px? It's far too small on a computer screen. I am using Monobook btw. Cheers,
Number5710:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay I didn't realize we optimized templates for Monobook and Timeless. When reporting "breakage" it's helpful to know straight away if you are using non-default skin and specifically what you mean by breakage (my understanding of breakage is the page doesn't render at all).
I've updated the styles to not apply to Monobook and Timeless, I always forget they are responsive.
The behaviour for Minerva is expected - 80x80 is selected as typically a mobile browser will be upwards of 320px and assuming at least 3 candidates (plus the heading row) 80*4 = 320. On Minerva infoboxes are capped to 300px so they should probably be smaller but that didn't. I think we could go up to 100px if we wanted since typically the majority of devices these days are 400px. Feel free to increase to 100px in the styles in
Template:Infobox_election/styles.css if you feel like that makes a better compromise.
I think ideally, we'd switch to a row based layout on lower resolution devices, and stack these vertically rather than horizontally but that seems like a larger change that might require change to the HTML or more drastic changes to the CSS? 🐸Jdlrobson (
talk)
15:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree that a switch to a fully vertically stacked layout (akin to the es and fr.wiki infoboxes) would make sense and make the infobox more flexible.
Number5718:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello. For the
2024 Cork City Council election page, ten parties/independent parties can be shown as gaining/losing seats from the previous
2019 Cork City Council election - for either losing all their seats, or gaining seats as a new party. As the box only can show nine parties, this unfortunately means that not every party/non-party elected/unelected can be shown in the box. It would be a great benefit if all ten figures could be in the box, which is why I would propose to increase it to ten.
Lucky102 (
talk)
02:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This template gets ridiculously large with that many parties. What about just switching to Template:Infobox legislative election?
Bondegezou (
talk)
06:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I always feel like the legislative election infobox is too sparse for 6-9 candidates, but the current infobox can't handle more than 3 candidates well. Have we ever tried borrowing the infobox from non-English Wikipedias?
Example in Spanish.Closed Limelike Curves (
talk)
02:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
New format?
Hi there. Just want to ask if there's a new format of the infobox in the making. Went to a few election pages and there was a new format, but with the images displaced and with things not within the lines of the box, making it look disorganized and disproportionate.
Tuesp1985 (
talk)
21:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, the format looks different, with the images floating, in some cases with their sizes tampered, and a lot of spacing between the lines, which makes the infobox disproportionate. When I posted the topic, the template still had the former format, but it has now changed, with the US election example being weird.
Tuesp1985 (
talk)
22:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
A browser issue I don't think it is, as on Mozilla and Chrome I'm seeing the same issue. Maybe it's WP:THURSDAY issue, like you said. But, are you seeing now the changes?
Tuesp1985 (
talk)
22:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
All looks fine and normal to me; I'm using the legacy Vector, which got some major overhauls a week or so ago (they're rolling out the updates to the various skins).
Primefac (
talk)
22:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This is apparently an unintended effect of a code change deployed today. It is being discussed at
VPT in a multi-header thread. Bug reports have been filed. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
00:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Right, I've read the VPT threads and yeah reports have been filed. Let's see if the matter is resolved. Thanks for the info Jonesey95.
Tuesp1985 (
talk)
01:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply