Template talk:Infobox election

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

First round/final round parameter

[edit]

Should we add a parameter for "first round" so that editors do not need to use the 1data and blank data templates? The options would be either adding just a first round parameter and leaving "Popular vote" to act as a final round, or we add both a first round and a final round parameter – whichever would make more sense. Pinging @Yoblyblob as you've raised this before DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 08:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Showing the difference in votes between the first and final rounds is important imo. It should be a standard for the infobox. Wowzers122 (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 20:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poll parameter

[edit]

Should the poll parameters be depracated? Specifically, should the pollX_date, pollX_nomineeX, pollX_candidateX, pollX_source, and pollX_partyX fields be removed or depracated – reason being that I have never seen these be used in an actual article and that a search for use [1] shows that it is only used in one (1) article, and doesn't even display correctly in that article. I also think displaying polling data in the infobox may not be MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, but that's just my opinion. DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 17:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this. Number 57 22:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 6 June 2025

[edit]

Description of suggested change: Removal of fields related to polling, as discussed above. Performed in sanbox with intended effect on Template:Infobox election/testcases#9 which is the only testcase to use the poll fields

Diff: As performed in sandbox diff DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 23:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Primefac (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 7 June 2025

[edit]

Remove polling fields at Template:Infobox election/row, performed per diff at Special:Diff/1225025658/1294383945. No errors seen in testcases DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 12:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Primefac (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By-election swing

[edit]

I think the by-election type should show the {{{swingX}}} variables, as in the UK at least by-elections do have swing, such as the 2021 North Shropshire by-election and to bypass this not showing on the by-election type people set the type to parliamentary – which feels a bit hacky. Even the doc example for a by-election at Template:Infobox election#By-election) uses the parliamentary type instead of the by-election type! And, come to think of it this could apply to the presidential type too, as Islington North in the 2024 United Kingdom general election and Clacton in the 2024 United Kingdom general election both show a swing when they "should" be the presidential type. Thoughts? DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 20:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Counties

[edit]

(Last modification for now I promise!) Should the "Counties won" and "Counties with 25% vote" fields (template parameters being counties_wonX and counties_thresholdX) be removed? My reasoning is that including the number of counties won is too niche of a thing to include in the infobox, or just generally because it's unnecessary – counties won aren't like "states carried" because that's just not what counties do.

It's probably for this reason it is only used on one article, 2013 Kenyan general election and in no preceding or subsequent articles. The counterpoint to this is obviously that information that cannot be put anywhere else in an article, like the leader's seat parameter DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 23:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably make more sense to combine the parameter for counties and states won into a single parameter where you can define the name of the subdivision in question. Number 57 23:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57 That's an interesting idea – I would think that would entail removing the counties_thresholdX parameter and renaming the counties_wonX parameter to something like subdivisions_wonX, as well as adding a subdivisions_name parameter. That would definitely allow more flexibility but I'm not sure how that would be squared with the existing states_carried functionality which would need to be retained DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 00:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is to replace them both with a subdivisions_won parameter and add a new parameter to define the subdivision. A bot could be programmed to replace all instances of states_carried with 'subdivisions_won' and 'subdivision=state' or something similar. Number 57 00:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst porting things over to a new functionality would probably be ideal, it might be better practise to retain the states_carried and just add it seperately DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 19:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 10 June 2025

[edit]

Add first and final round parameters as performed in sandbox diff. Testcase "Two round primary (found here) shows it works as intended DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 22:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DimensionalFusion:  Done. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 13:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 10 June 2025 (2)

[edit]

Update row template as performed in sandbox diff to add first and final round templates. Works in testcases as at Template:Infobox election/testcases DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 22:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DimensionalFusion:  Done. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 13:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Implementing Template:Infobox election/row in Lua

[edit]

There are many pages where multiple uses of this template causes the page to exceed the post-expand include size that I've had to fix in the past few years (as I write this, 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in California is the current culprit, but I recently had an issue with 2021 New York City Council election that resulted in having to revert a lot of otherwise good content). One way to reduce the include size is to reduce nested templates. To this end, I have created Module:Infobox election, which means you can use {{#invoke:Infobox election|row}} as a drop-in replacement for {{Infobox election/row}}. I've implemented this in Template:infobox election/sandbox, all the testcases seem to produce identical results, and on average it seems to reduce the include size of the template by approximately 1/3. If there is no objection, I will go ahead and implement this in the main template.

On a related issue, I'm working on rewriting the entire template entirely in Lua, which has the potential to reduce the include size by up to a further 75% (since instead of having {{Infobox election/row}} nested inside {{#invoke:Infobox|infoboxTemplate}} nested inside {{Infobox election}}, there could be just a single-level {{#invoke:Infobox election|infobox}} call), but that's going to be significantly more work. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to the implementation of the new row function in the main row template. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 20:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Election Infobox Color Bar

[edit]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Election Infobox Color Bar that might be of interest to the watchers of this template. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 8 July 2025

[edit]

Change Module:Infobox election to use allow for custom labels, such as the 'Runoff' label in place of 'Final round'

−
threeCells('final_round')
+
threeCells('final_round', ifblank(rargs.final_round_label, 'Final round'))

DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * it has begun... 23:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DimensionalFusion, Pppery: I modified the code a bit so that any parameter can use custom labels by appending _label to the parameter name. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 12 July 2025

[edit]

Add final_round_label param. Change works in sandbox and on test case Template:Infobox election/testcases#Two-round primary Change performed DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 10:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * it has begun... 15:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Next next election parameter

[edit]

In March a new parameter was added to the infobox (without discussion) to display an additional previous/next election link for elections held on a partial basis. It looks like this.

I think this is going to be pretty confusing to most readers given there is no explanation as to why there are two next/previous links – they will need to work out for themselves that one is for the next election to the same body and one for the next election with the same seats being elected (it took me some time to work it out).

So, questions: (a) was adding this parameter a good idea, and (b) if people want to keep it, how can it be concisely explained what the two different next/previous links mean? Cheers, Number 57 00:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57 I think adding the parameter was a good idea, as it allows people to quickly navigate to the next/previous "sets" of elections whilst retaining the ability to go to the next chronological election, even if not to the same seat.
I do think it a way of concisely explaining could be helpful. However, it's important to note that a second row of arrows is also used outside of the scenario of seat cycles, being used in articles such as 2020 Colorado Democratic presidential primary to link to the preceding and next primaries (CA/ME) to take place, as well as to link to the preceding and next instances of the same election (2016/2024) DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 15:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my view:
  • (a) No, it was not a good idea. As Number 57 says, it is incredibly confusing, while I also cannot discern the usefulness of having a link to the election "next after the next" and the "previous before the previous". For navigating across the whole set of elections you typically have a template at the bottom of the article (which shows the full set of elections of a given country), whereas for individual "next/previous" elections just go to the article on the next/previous election to access the link to the election next/previous to that one.
  • (b) I cannot see how it can, really.
Cheers. Impru20talk 15:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of last opportunity to weigh-in on related discussion about Trump infobox photo for 2024 election article

[edit]

At Talk:2024 United States presidential election, there is a discussion that was started in early June on the question of whether to use a January portrait of Trump in the infobox, or switch to a newer portrait from June. There was division between editors as to what photo should be used, and the what would be an appropriate rationale to justify either a change or retention of the status quo. However, this discussion seems to have died down.

I am posting notice here and other task forces and projects related to that article so editors un-familiar that it was taking place but interested in weighing-in can comment. After opportunity for any additional editors to comment has been given, I go to the admin notice board and will ask for any uninvolved admin to consider a closure. SecretName101 (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Last election – what to list first? Votes or seats

[edit]

Regarding the last election parameter, when articles include both the vote percentage and the seats won, it is being done different ways in different article sets; some put % of vote first (e.g. 38.1%, 16 seats), some put seats first (e.g. 16 seats, 38.1%). It would be good to have a definitive approach to this.

It's always struck me as best to have the % first, both because that's how the results table shows it, but arguably more importantly because it's clearer that the % is the vote share and not the percentage of seats, which could be assumed when writing "16 seats, 38.1%". Cheers, Number 57 18:36, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "XX.X%, YY seats" because seats are ultimately derived from votes, not the other way around. I would be wary of establishing an absolute rule, but this seems to be the most common approach. Gust Justice (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that, as of currently, parties are ordered in the infobox by number of seats, not by vote %. Changing the order in which this is shown would also mean that this would be counter-intuitive, and probably have implications re current consensus on infoboxes (i.e. people using the change to justify that the order of parties should be done by vote share instead, which will be a headache particularly for FPTP systems).
Further, I don't recall any major (or even minor) incident arising because of people mistaking the % share with the percentage of seats, particularly when just below the % and swing shown clearly relate to vote share. I, for myself, think that changing this across so many articles (which have used this format for decades) would be a nuisance to very little (if any) gain. Not having a strong feeling either way, but I am wary of the possible fallout of such change. Impru20talk 10:38, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Parties are ordered by seats won in the current election, not seats won in the previous election, so I'm not sure why this is relevant? On the second point I quite regularly see people filling in the percentage field with the percentage of seats (e.g. here), and there are several articles that still have this error (e.g. April 1872 Spanish general election or August 1872 Spanish general election). Number 57 14:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If for the current election you are going to put seats first, then it makes sense that the same order is preserved for the previous election. But if you change the order of the fields, then that's where you are going to have some serious issues.
Hmm but the examples you cite are a different situation, aren't they? Aside of being few (cannot see how that is "quite regularly"), these do not involve the "Last election" field at all (these pages do not even use it!) but the "Percentage" one, and indeed, relate to situations where a vote share is not available at all. That is not what you have brought up in this discussion, right? Impru20talk 14:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was just attempting to demonstrate that there is confusion amongst some people as to what 'percentage' in the infobox refers to, hence why I think it would be better to have the % stated before seats to reduce the potential for people thinking it's the % of seats. Number 57 18:19, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see people adding the seat % to the "Percentage" field when there is no vote share % to begin with is a "confusion", but rather a fully intentional move: in those cases it is either the seat % or no % at all. We can discuss the merits of whether that field should be used or not in such cases, but that is a vastly different situation to the one that was brought to discussion here, which pertains the "Last election" field (which is left unused in the examples you cited) and involves both seats and vote share % (not the seat %). Impru20talk 18:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]