Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums

Discussion on maps on infoboxes

There was side discussion on maps at #Looking for infobox reviews! and we don't what that to be sidetracked.

Currently, there's been issues with maps that are placed on infoboxes where aside from geographic info, it also include things such as graphs, charts and parliamentary diagrams.

Ideally, there map at the infobox should be simple and should only be a map excepting on specific circumstances. A seat diagram can be added on another parameter.

Here are my suggestions:

• Executive positions (presidents, governors, mayors) or single-winner elections or referendums:
  • Single color for winner in a specific place
  • Can use gradients if there are 3 or less candidates, and if the colors are distinguishable.
  • If maps are to be created for a series of elections, it's recommended to be consistent for all, either use gradients or single color for all.
• Legislative elections:
  • District magnitude of 1:
    • Same rules apply for executive elections
  • District magnitude of 2 or more
    • Single color for winner in a specific place
    • Can use gradients if there are 3 or less candidates, and if the colors are distinguishable.
    • Can use circles or similar shapes to denote actual seats won
• If maps are to be created for a series of elections, it's recommended to be consistent for all, either use gradients or single color for all.
• Use the same color (for single colors) based on Module:Political party.

As for legends, I suppose a simple legend of what color stands for who/what on the map itself can be used. If there are to be gradients I suppose it can be also added on the map per se or on the description page. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

There are too many map creators and too many types of election for a standard to be completely established in my view. There can be guides to work towards, but it cannot be shifted to standardisation with code like infoboxes.

Regarding a guide around gradients, less than 4 candidates rules out practically all elections. I understand not necessarily having a gradient if there are many parties (e.g., 5+), but 4 would mean even many US races could not have a gradient.

Quinby (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, for clarification the 5+ meant 5+ parties with relative success, i.e., winning seats or getting over 5%. It could also be framed in terms of how many parties win districts, as often this is many fewer than the number of competitive parties. Quinby (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I was referring to a party winning a specific location (e.g. county). This means most US maps will only have 2 parties winning a county, so they can have a gradient. I don't think there third parties in the US are that strong in which more than one of them wins a county each. I can understand changing the maximum number of winning parties to more than 3. I also understand this can be different on primary elections. It also depends if the two major parties had the similar colors (see 2016 Philippine presidential election for an example). Howard the Duck (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

It is probably not achievable to have some universal rules on this. Even within countries that on the surface have a similar electoral system (e.g. same district magnitude) might substantially be quite different from each other. I do agree I do agree that if there are multiple acceptable maps, preference should generally be given to one which is consistent for the series of elections. I think party colors in general should be the same as the one used on Wikipedia, but this can't be an absolute rule, just because there will be instances where multiple parties have extremely similar "official" colors, and so using those will make the map hard to read. Gust Justice (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we need to get this into the weeds, since graphics need to be edited manually and we're already knee-deep in thousands of maps — it would be a herculean effort to bring everything in-line. I think what we really need to do is establish a consensus of what sort of thing belongs in the infobox map, and what doesn't. My view is that they should be kept as simple as possible: a map colour-coded for the results, and that's it. A summary of the vote/seats is acceptable if it can be tucked into otherwise-empty space, but things like a list of constituencies or a circle graph that compares vote count to seat count to turnout, or a badge declaring the outcome (???) really shouldn't be there. Also, the seating plan of the legislature after the election can be used as an alternative to a map, but not in addition to — we don't need two visuals for the election outcome, especially since the latter is going to be used on the relevant Xth Foo Parliament page.

I also think we need to keep infoboxes clear of maps that are not results but just the location of the place the vote took place. That might sound obvious, but this is is, bizarrely, standard practice for UK by-elections, eg. I actually went through and deleted all of them a while ago, but they've returned for the new by-election articles that have popped up since my sweep. I really don't understand what's going on here. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

For colors, there can be exceptions. For example, US maps do not use the exact hexcodes for Democrats and Republicans. This should be fine if there is a two-party system for at least a century, where no other party claims a similar color.

For parties with similar colors, this where gradients aren't useful, at least on an infobox. Maybe it can be created in a results section, but not for the infobox.

Yeah, those examples on Australia and Canada are indeed egregious. It should only be a map, with insets. As for by-elections, in a case in the Philippines special elections, a background section where the district (constituency) is, and the infobox shows the result per party. See 2023 Cavite's 7th congressional district special election, for an example. I'd probably concede that prior to election day, the location map can be added on the infobox, but after that, it should be a results one. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the general take on this. We should prefer the map in the infobox (but not neccesarily those lower down in the article) to not have too many features that aren't immediately relevant to understanding the election. While some features can be justified in some instances, there does seem to be a scope creep among some maps, where a lot of superflous features are included, just because they can be. Generally I would say it should be limited to showing a color key, a map of constituencies/administrative divisions potentially shaded by vote share of largest party, and circles indicating seats won. But again, to repeat myself, no country is exactly the same, and there may be exceptions. Gust Justice (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I should clarify that I'm not opposed to more detailed maps elsewhere in the article. In theory, we could replace the current infobox maps (or edit them to remove the extraneous features), but move the originals down to the results section. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

We should follow MOS:INFOBOX and have compact infoboxes that provide a brief summary, and push back against the trend to try to include everything in the infobox. Results maps are great, but much of the time, they should be in the article text instead.

Along similar lines to Gust Justice & Kawnhr, I don’t think we need detailed guidance. Instead, I think we need to push basic principles. As per Kawnhr, that means a small number of images only (generally 0 or 1 image); and no empty maps before results are in; but, most importantly, images have to be sufficiently readable when viewed in an infobox.

I suggest the latter is the biggest problem. This is far from the worst example, but consider 2023 Argentine general election. On a reasonable sized desktop screen, I can’t read most of the words. I can’t tell what the side blobs are. I don’t know why there are two Argentina-shaped bits. But I can see that Massa’s strength is in north central Argentina. On a smartphone screen, it’s even worse. That is simply unacceptable. I think that graphic should be moved from the infobox to the article, where it can be displayed at a larger size. Or try 2008 Pakistani general election. I can’t read any of the words. I can’t make out the legend. I have very little idea of what is going on here. Or 2024 Slovak presidential election. I can’t read most of the words. The colours don’t match those used higher up. The bar chart on the right of the graphic is unnecessary. 2024 Lithuanian presidential election, 2024 French legislative election, the same.

Instead of writing long guidance, I think we need editors enforcing good practice. Can we commit to going around and removing inappropriate maps, moving them to the Result section where suitable? Bondegezou (talk) 08:00, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree that there are problems with the maps you mention, but I don't know if it is always achievable that the map can be easily viewed without opening it in full screen. Especially if it's e.g. 2024 United Kingdom general election where there's just no way to view all 650 constituencies if the image is only 300px wide. Gust Justice (talk) 08:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Not being able to "read words" seems like overstreched criticism to me: just click on the image to get a close up of it. Otherwise, this argument would mean that we should discard maps altogether, even in the article text (and not just for election articles!), because maps will typically not be shown at screen size due to these being unmanageable.

My two main criticisms of maps come with 1) consistency among maps of different elections, at least within the same country; and 2) consistency of colours with those used in the rest of the article.

Beyond that, if we agree that infoboxes are indeed intended as summaries, maps do actually fulfill that purpose quite well, so a commitment to remove them from there seems quite an exaggeration. But it will also be nigh to impossible to agree to any set of rules for maps (aside of encouraging good practice), because:

• Each type of election is different and has its own peculiarities (i.e. "vote blobs" may have less sense for parliamentary elections, but they indeed do for presidential elections where the electoral system is directly based on the popular vote each candidate gets).
• Each country is different and has its own electoral/political dynamics.
• Electoral dynamics are not static, but quite fluid. What may seem to work today may not work tomorrow.
• You cannot agree on a set of rules to be applied on all elections for all countries all the time. This will be prone to (senseless) edit warring, and will require a continuous surveillance effort which, frankly, I don't think anyone of us will be willing or able to maintain.

I also don't think that limiting creativity is actually positive: sure, sometimes it leads to messy situations, but I have frequently found useful information from particular designs in maps that I hadn't thought of myself. Creativity is a plus and should not be diminished, but encouraged. I think, however (and I agree with Quinnnnnby here) that we can (and probably should) establish some kind of guide, similar to naming conventions and the such, to harmonize the design of election maps as much as possible without excessively limiting creativity. On here, I also agree with Kawnhr and Gust Justice's comments in favour of simplicity, consistency and practicality when it comes to maps' design and what to (and what not) to have in infoboxes. Impru20^talk 08:27, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Re: articles like 2024 Lithuanian presidential election, 2024 French legislative election: I would also say that I don't see the point of including results for both rounds if the infobox is only displaying the results of the second round. The switcher thankfully keeps the infobox from ballooning to two images, but this still strikes me as shoving more information into the infobox than it actually requires. — Kawnhr (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Would you agree that switchers are a bad practice as well? There were also switchers in some articles I had edited on which did not work and the people who insisted on doing that had no alternatives (LOL). Howard the Duck (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I think there's a time and place for them. They work well in location infoboxes, for example: Toronto has a switcher showing its location in Ontario, and then in Canada as a whole; the first is more specific but the latter probably more helpful for international readers, so both serve a purpose. But too often I feel like they're being used to add something where it doesn't really belong. — Kawnhr (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

The purpose of an infobox is to give a quick overview. If I have to click on an image to be able to make out what is going on, then that image is not suitable for an infobox. It has clearly failed the purpose of an infobox. An image in the main article can be bigger and, there, if someone needs to click on it to see it even larger, that’s fine.

I am absolutely going to push back on the idea that not being able to “read words” is some minor consideration. It is a fundamental necessity that readers can see what is in the image. Bondegezou (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

The words issue is quite fundamental IMO, not just because of readability (and violating WP:ACCESSIBILITY, which states that no text in an article should be less than 85% of the default font size) but also because maps should be designed to be used on all language versions of Wikipedia, and having text on the maps in a particular language is limiting.

Going back to the original point, I do think we need some rules around maps, but I would not include shading, but rather things like:

1. Text should not be used as maps should be able to be used on all language wikis
2. Keys should not be included; they should instead be included in the image's description so they can be added to the map_caption
3. Parliamentary diagrams (which are almost always included in the article itself) should not be included
4. No other form of graphs, pie charts etc should be included; it should simply be a map
5. Territory claimed by the country but not recognised as being part of it by almost all other countries and in which the election should not be held should not be included (e.g. this map would not be allowed as it shows the Venezuelan claim on Guyana)

The map on 2021 Ugandan general election is aa great example of how to do it IMO, while the map on 2022 Latvian parliamentary election is an example of half the space in the map image being given over to keys and charts that are illegible or unnecessary.

I don't have a problem with switchers; they are great for situations like showing the first and second round results in presidential elections, showing results at different levels of jurisdictions, showing different sets of results in mixed systems, or showing presidential and parliamentary results. Number 57 20:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

1. My personal view would be that the amount of text should be minimized, but not having any text at all might not be realistic for all maps. For instance I do think there is a benefit of showing constituency names for proporitonal elections. This usually isn't a language issue since most place names don't need to be translated.
2. I agree that having an overly large key like in 2022 Latvian parliamentary election should be avoided. However a key may be neccesary if e.g. it's an election where a lot of different parties win a plurality of the vote somewhere. Moving the key to the infobox itself could easily be unwieldy. For elections with a two-round system, the key should be in the infobox, as it can fit there.
3. I agree on this. They basically never add anything useful to the map.
4. I would say preference should be against including these as additional elements, but I wouldn't have a hard rule against it.
5. In principle I agree, but this could give cause to problems for how to implement it. What if the country itself records votes being cast in the disputed area? Or it's a separate constituency? There could be weird edge cases that would need to be handled.

Gust Justice (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Re constituency names, I see your point, but maps could be used in a Wiki that doesn't use the Latin script. I think it's best to be truly universal. Re the last point, if the country controls the area and votes are cast in it (e.g. Crimea/Russia) then it can be shown but highlighted differently; I'm more thinking about situations like Venezuela/Essequibo, Guatemala/Belize (I edited a load of the Guatamalan maps to remove Belize), Argentina/Falklands where the countries in question have zero control over the claimed area and no votes are cast. Number 57 14:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

1. Text: This can be useful on insets, more so if there are multiple.
2. Keys: I can understand on having non-Latin scripts, but this means we'd have to put the legend on the infobox per se. Having the reader go to another page to see the legend is a disservice. If the hex values are identical to the infobox, then we'd have the argument that all parties that are on the map should be on the infobox.
3. Parliamentary diagrams are another parameter on the infobox that nobody uses.
4. Graphs and charts: I'd agree on this.
5. Claimed territories: This can be messy lol.

Howard the Duck (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Why would the reader have to go to another page to see the legend? 2021 Ugandan general election is an example of what I'm proposing should be be the standard. Number 57 15:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Would a legend like that would make the infobox longer? Imagine these gradients on an election with 4 or more major candidates.

I suppose this works on a 2-horse race, but on a multiple candidate race, these gradients won't work. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I've seen it with multiple candidates on other articles (can't remember where) and it didn't take up that much space. Number 57 15:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I present the ugliness that is the old version of the 2022 Philippine presidential election. Broken switcher, has gradient legend, the "results by margin" map has the legend that cannot be read on thumbnail.

This election has 2 major candidates winning multiple provinces, and two other candidates winning their home provinces. If we apply this to 1992 Philippine presidential election with 6 candidates winning 2 or more provinces, the gradient legend would be long, and the map would be unreadable (see no gradient vs. 3-step gradient). Howard the Duck (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I would actually rather the legend be included in that map; the legend being done in text means that the infobox is now six lines longer. That's not massive bloat (particularly for this Ugandan box, which covers multiple elections; those six lines are not what's making it long), but most maps will have the space to tuck a legend in there. United States elections, like 2024 United States presidential election, always fit them in nicely. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

"The purpose of an infobox is to give a quick overview. If I have to click on an image to be able to make out what is going on, then that image is not suitable for an infobox" Then you are basically ruling all UK election maps as unsuitable for infoboxes, because the country's own geography and electoral system makes it nigh to impossible to obtain a "quick overview" from most districts without either clicking and expanding the images or setting a very large size for the maps (2024 United Kingdom general election, 2019 United Kingdom general election, 1918 United Kingdom general election, 1885 United Kingdom general election...). Common sense is warranted. Also, I don't think that MOS:SMALLTEXT applies to images as such but to plain text (which you cannot expand), unless the text is too small within the image itself. Impru20^talk 11:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sympathetic to the view that text should be readable without having to click on the map, but the realities of geography means that simply isn't always possible. Basically unless we're looking at a country that's very square or perhaps a horizontal rectangle; anything very vertical, or diagonal (Japan) is going to necessarily struggle with legibility at a small size. I agree that map makers should pay mind to how it will appear at a small size… but sometimes there's only so much that can be done. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@Kawnhr:, do you actually mean to say that every district has to be visible in 300px? I don't think anybody meant that. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Not at all. All I'm saying is that it would be nice for a map to be perfectly readable when reduced to 300px, and so that's something we should strive for, but because geography rarely conforms to UI design, that means it's not always possible and we will have to accept some maps will require zooming in to fully read. One reason would be, indeed, that some constituencies are very small. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd say that's the reason we have insets. Indeed small districts will be impossible to be seen without insets. Impru20's objection seems to be unfounded. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

File:2024 United Kingdom general election - Result.svg is still impossible to fully visualize at 400px, even with insets, without zooming, so I wouldn't say my objection is unfounded Howard the Duck. Impru20^talk 11:50, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, I can't even read the labels for insets, so even for that, it fails already. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

So I suppose Impru20's condition is every district (in this case, all 650) has to be discernable in 300px. Is that right? Howard the Duck (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

No, no, I did not set out any condition. I just countered the claim that "The purpose of an infobox is to give a quick overview. If I have to click on an image to be able to make out what is going on, then that image is not suitable for an infobox". If we require every aspect of every infobox image to be visible without clicking it, then we will be structurally excluding some countries from having any infobox images at all. Impru20^talk 12:00, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion here, it was Bondegezou who said that. I don't think what was meant was that all districts (or subdivisions) be visible at any size, although if the purpose of the map is for it to be in the infobox, the text has to be readable at the intended size. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Check out the map at 2025 Samoan general election made by TheLoyalOrder; at any size this crams too much info and at 300px is terrible.Onc this is filled up with gradients this will have too many colors; for FPTP legislative elections we should stick with one color per party, and no gradients. Compare the map at 2024 United Kingdom general election. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm partial to gradients myself, especially if we can move the key to outside the map like at 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with gradients on referendums and on executive elections. For legislative elections, these are not useful. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. I find them very useful. It's good to know which areas a party is supported more than others.-- Earl Andrew - talk 01:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

For FPTP elections, it doesn't matter at all as it is winner takes all. Maybe for a separate map at the results section yes, but for the map at the infobox? No. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to the result, but it does provide additional information, which I personally find interesting and useful.-- Earl Andrew - talk 13:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and the graphic about the Samoan election that we are originally discussing about here has a lot more information than being simply just a map but people here don't want that, at least on the infobox. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

The caveat on executive elections is that if there are more than 3 major candidates it becomes unusable. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

would y'all prefer this basic version?

TheLoyalOrder (talk) 06:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes as that is solely a map and the map should only just be a map. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Here's another problematic map: 2025 Singaporean general election's map has the opposite colour scheme as all previous Singaporean election results maps, and even the infobox it's supposedly an illustration for. Disclaimer: I removed it from the article and it was promptly restored, but I am not trying to canvas to find someone else to remove it for me. I bring this up only because I think this showcases a problem we have with some map designs. The re-insertion was justified because (paraphasing) "that's what the legend is for", but at the size the map displays in the infobox, that legend is unreadable, because it's small-white-text-on-colour-block. While it's good practice, I think, for maps to have their legend in the image, those legends should be something like the US example of a block of colour beside the name, because that's much more easily read at smaller sizes. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

• MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE states that infoboxes should "readers to identify key facts at a glance". What a glance entails is perhaps flexible, but having to open up things in the infobox to understand them feels clearly in not-a-glance territory, so the image should be understandable at default display size. Per MOS:TEXTASIMAGES, we should be relying on captions to host legends etc. rather than the images themselves, so any image in the infobox too complicated to be understood by the infobox's caption field is probably inappropriate (and harder to use on other language wikis). Within those constraints, some more subjective thoughts after reading above: Real-world constituency maps have their purpose but they can greatly skew perceptions of election results due to different population densities, imply homogeneity within constituencies that doesn't exist (not including of course the constituencies shaded by vote share), and don't work for non-constituency elections anyway, so they seem a dubious default inclusion in infoboxes. Political parties having consistent colours is probably a decent idea, but the idea of consistent colours is very modern, and a reader should be able to understand the article without looking at others, so the specific colour choice is a small issue compared to other considerations. CMD (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Results of the 2023 New South Wales state election (Legislative Council)#Requested move 7 September 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Results of the 2023 New South Wales state election (Legislative Council)#Requested move 7 September 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 08:02, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2025 Micronesian parliamentary election#Requested move 30 August 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2025 Micronesian parliamentary election#Requested move 30 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Officially non-partisan races

I think that we should record the partisan affiliation of candidates, even in races which are officially non-partisan. My reason for this is that if the candidates clearly have partisan bias, and people are voting for them based on that partisanship, why should it not be easily visible? For example, the two candidates in 2025 Mobile mayoral election were both clearly Republican and Democratic, yet because the race was non-partisan it's impossible to tell at a glance of the infobox who is who, and you have to dig into the details of the article to figure out which party won.

A helpful comparison is for historical elections: structured parties haven't existed for lots of elections, eg the 1832 United Kingdom general election was fought between the loose factions of "Tories" versus "Whigs", yet we are perfectly content with recording their political party in the infobox because that's useful information! Another comparison with the UK is that ballot papers did not include party labels until 1974, and until then voters had to just remember the name of the candidate of their party, which I suppose makes the race officially non-partisan, yet we can still display the political party of the candidate because that's relevant information

Relevant policy: Even if the race is non-partisan, if major newspapers, election guides, and academic sources regularly describe candidates in such nonpartisan elections by their partisan affiliation, Wikipedia should reflect that per WP:RS and WP:DUE.

Thoughts? Should we include partisanship even in officially non-partisan elections? DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 19:05, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

"impossible to tell at a glance of the infobox" is doing a lot of work; the article as a whole is perfectly clear which candidate was affiliated with which party; their parties are listed in the third sentence. I don't think it's asking much to expect that readers actually read. Nevermore27 (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

That's just a for-instance. Looking at the 2022 Los Angeles mayoral election, nowhere on the page is any candidate's political affiliation mentioned. This intentional on the part of the page, as the race is officially non-partisan, despite at least 3 of the 4 candidates having a registered political party DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 19:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I for one would be happy to note partisan affiliation when information is publicly available, but I don't like the proposal of dispensing with nonpartisan labels entirely. Nevermore27 (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

What about an "Affiliation" row to be used for candidates non-partisan races when they are affiliated/registered with a political party? DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 19:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

In general, I think officially non-partisan races should be displayed that way. Even if a candidate's partisan affiliation is known, the lack of a party line means there may be multiple members of the same party running against each other (and typically without any party endorsement), making the labels confusing at best and biographical information at worst (you wouldn't put an independent candidate's ideological lean in the infobox, for example). I also think this is a a bit of an Ameri-centric concern, so I don't like the idea of adopting a rule without a number of caveats, because a strict application of the rule could lead to all sorts of weirdness on other countries' elections. Some exceptions can and should be made in instances where the non-partisanship is skin-deep, eg Nebraska — elections are officially non-partisan, but state parties have a slate of candidates they endorse — but those can be worked out on a case-by-case basis. Otherwise, I think the way we do it now (tables and infobox non-partisan, but partisan affiliation, if known, mentioned in body) is ideal. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

This is where I land as well. Nevermore27 (talk) 03:14, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

If reliable sources are indicating partisan affiliation, then I think we should as well. As long as we note that the race is officially non-partisan.-- Earl Andrew - talk 02:37, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Republican Party efforts to disrupt voting after the 2024 United States presidential election#Requested move 24 September 2025

Hello, there is a move discussion at the above link which may interest members of this project. Thank you! ASUKITE 15:09, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Plural or singular lead sentence for general election

Should the first sentence in general election articles be singular or plural? Eg, for 2024 Jordanian general election:

• Option 1: General elections were held in Jordan on 10 September 2024 (currently used)
• Option 2: A general election was held in Jordan on 10 September 2024

For me, the singular (option 2) choice makes the most sense, as a "general" implies plurality. This would mean the plural general elections implies that multiple general elections are taking place when a single one is taking place. Thoughts? DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 15:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

For additional context, there was a previous post here in 2018 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 13#Use of phrase "General elections" which had some discussion but didn't really settle on one or the other DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 16:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 is correct, I've updated it. Some changes you can just make. Nevermore27 (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 for me; the plural is commonly used for single elections (for the Jordanian case, see for example [1][2][3][4]), and I think is probably more common than the singular. Number 57 20:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  Well, the sources you provide say things like "elections to the House of Representatives", "parliamentary elections" or "the elections" which are correct as plural. However, the only time "general elections" as a plural themselves are mentioned are in the context of a series of elections, e.g. "Jordan permits international oversight of its general elections" which refers to the broader running of its elections over multiple cycles. All the other times "general election" itself is singular and used to refer to the whole event DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 23:13, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I've asked this at WP:REFDESK at least twice: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2016 January 22#House of Representatives election vs. House of representatives elections and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2018 March 28#Use of phrase "General elections". Howard the Duck (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

RfC on limiting Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles § RfC on pre-emptive disambiguation in constituency article titles, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. On limiting the convention so it is only used when disambiguation is needed, i.e. Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket rather than Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (UK Parliament constituency). DankJae 20:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

How external links are presented on US elections pages

@331dot, TW929, and Yoblyblob: I came to the conclusion that on US elections pages (e.g. 2026 Alabama gubernatorial election), when there is a subheading that says "Official campaign website", having "for [Governor/Senate/Congress/Secretary of State]" at the end of each link is a) redundant and b) not always accurate to the title of the page being linked to (e.g. Nick Begich's site says "for Alaska", not "for Congress"). So in the interest of being bold, I thought it would be simpler to just have the candidate's name. There was opposition (see Talk:2026 United States House of Representatives elections in Maine), so now I'm seeking feedback. I do understand that there is some opposition for the lists of external links to exist at all as well, so maybe that can be revisited if needed. Thank you! Nevermore27 (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I am inclined to support your proposal of just the names, since the header clearly describes them as "official campaign websites." I added the comment on that page to hopefully limit further mass edits followed by reverts. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 14:37, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

• Links to campaign websites should reflect the name of the campaign, not the individual specifically. Every politician seeks to be "for" the area they seek to represent, phrasing the name of their campaign that way is just promotion to say they're better than their opponents(who are not "for" the area); it's better to treat all campaigns the same and say they are "for X office". But if we're going to change this, matching the name of the campaign is better than just the name of the person seeking office. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  • The subheading already identifies the links as "official campaign websites", and does so for each district in the case of House elections pages. Nevermore27 (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Ward Names

If a ward changes its name slightly but the boundaries effectively don't change, should the page for that ward be named after the current ward name or the name it was originally created under. TheHaloVeteran2 (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I would say current name is preferable. Previous name(s) can be noted in the introduction. Nevermore27 (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

The name should be changed with the times. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:44, 8 October 2025 (UTC)