Template talk:Infobox election/Archive 3

These terms shout not be used as it does not make clear if it referring to the state of the parties before or after the election Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 15:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Seems pretty obvious to me... -Noname2 (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Also the government/opposition makes no sense when the two largest parties form the government such as Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 15:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps there should be an option added instead weather to include government/opposition or not, because in most cases the second place party is the opposition. --Noname2 (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is nonsensical; for many elections in proportional election systems, this distinction does not make sense, as often the first party forms a coalition with the second party. (Or even the third party forming a coalition with the second party, as in Austria after the 1999 election.) —Nightstallion 09:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, until someone adds a way to customize the labels (since I don't know wikipedia code), I'm going to undo this edit. --Noname2 (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Erm, no -- right now, the majority is against using "government" and "opposition", because it doesn't make sense in most systems. Stop reverting. —Nightstallion 20:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There's only 3 people discussing this. And what countries use "first party"? --Noname2 (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It'd be great if there was a field in this template for voter turnout - can someone with template skillz through it in? --Padraic 22:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good idea, where do you think the section should be put? --Philip Stevens (talk) 07:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe near the top, underneath the date? That seems to be the place for the non-party-specific facts. --Padraic 13:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Philip Stevens (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone more acquainted than I am with Mediawiki's arcane syntax change "PM-Elect" for British general elections? "New PM" would perhaps work. The concept of "Prime Minister-Elect" is nonsensical, as Prime Ministers are appointed, not elected. —Wereon (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree but wording is an issue. "New PM" is not great because if the incumbent party wins, he simply remains PM. Also, to be precise, a new PM would need to be appointed some time following the election. Possibly "Next PM" could work though it still hints a little at a change in leader. "Following PM" might be correct but something about it rings wrong for me. Any other suggestions? DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Canada generally refers to the leader of the newly elected governing party as the Prime Minister - Designate. The same is true of new party leaders chosen for govening parties. Until actually named Prime Minister by the monarch or viceroy, that new leader is the Prime Minister Designate. Online sources suggest the same term is used in Australia and Ireland. --Llewdor (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I'd edit it myself if I could figure out how, so confident am I that it's a better term. --Llewdor (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I like this term for new PMs but it's not accurate, is it, for continuing PMs? DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. The Prime Minister continues to be the Prime Minister until he resigns - in all cases - which is why the viceroy first asks him if he can form a government, regardless of the election outcome. So, for example, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is still Prime Minister following yesterday's Canadian election. But that would be true even had he lost the election. Until he informs the viceroy that he no longer wishes to lead the government, he's Prime Minister. Certainly if another party had won the election its leader would now be the Prime Minister Designate, but I honestly can't tell you whether Stephen Harper today is both the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister Desginate, or if he's just the Prime Minister. --Llewdor (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

He remains PM until losing confidence of the House, there is no re-swearing ceremony or anything; he just continues on. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"Next PM" may not be particularly formal nor florid but I think it is accurate. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The proper term should be 'Prime Minister-Designate" not "Prime Minister-Elect." Next PM, etc. is not a proper term. Can someone fix this? I'm not sure how and it appears to be something beyond our powers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.59.51 (talk) 08:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The proper term is not -designate when the PM's party wins and he continues on as PM, as I noted above. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added a parameter "posttitle", which, if used, designates what the term is for the "victor". If not used, it is the same as it was before: {{{title}}}-elect. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we should add additional parameters for the seats held prior to election and the seat change due to the election itsef. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add hCard microformats by wrapping the name of each person (candidate/ nominee/ running mate, etc.), thus:

<span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[name]</span></span>

but am wary of breaking the template. Can someone assist, please? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. It slightly bothers me that all of the US election boxes use the current 50-star flag, and not the one that was in use at the time. I poked around a bit and found that Template:Flagicon has a "variant=" attribute which can set the correct flag, but that the election infobox template currently has no way to pass such an attribute to Flagicon.

I think that changing the line

{{flagicon |{{{country|}}}| size=50px}}

to

{{flagicon |{{{country|}}}| variant={{{flagvariant|}}}| size=50px}}

would allow this, but I wanted to check here first as I'm not too familiar with template syntax.

Antony-22 (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this infobox appropriate for state election articles such as United States presidential election in Missouri, 2008 and United States presidential election in Indiana, 2008? It is already used in these articles, but the wording of the infobox parameters suggests that it is only for elections nationally. It is also NOT used in the state election articles for the 2004 presidential election (see United States presidential election in Pennsylvania, 2004 and United States presidential election in Florida, 2004). I am thinking that it probably should not be used, but does anyone else have any knowledge on where exactly this infobox should and shouldn't be placed? Timmeh! 01:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Could we have a parameter to indicate the speaker of the house being elected at the time of a legislative election? Domminico (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Should popular vote winners' (in the United States) totals be in bold in this infobox? There seems to be no real consistency among the 2000, 2004, and 2008 presidential election articles. No earlier election articles have the popular vote winners' total and percentage in bold, but the 2000 article does, as well as the 2008 article. The 2004 article does not. I can see the reasoning for putting the numbers in bold, as to show who won the popular vote and how it may differ from the winner in the Electoral College. However, since the popular vote has no effect on the outcome of the election, I would suggest the numbers not be in bold except when they have unusual usefulness as in the 2000 election. Timmeh! 00:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Copy/paste discussion from Talk:United States presidential election, 2008 [1] here to centralize. (Further) reverts at articles affected by this should add "per Template:Infobox Election and point to this thread so editors are not only aware of it but also in need to comment here if they think or feel different and would like to reach a different consensus. Till then I consider the template example as consensus which should be applied to all affected articles w/o exceptions (unless there is a clear valid reason and different consensus reached on one (affected article's talk page to do so).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Bold only the Electoral winners. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm re-posting my comment here from Template:Infobox Election because it was getting no replies. Should popular vote winners' totals be in bold in the election infobox? There seems to be no real consistency among the 2000, 2004, and 2008 presidential election articles. No earlier election articles have the popular vote winners' total and percentage in bold, but the 2000 article does, as well as the 2008 article. The 2004 article does not (when I posted the original comment). I can see the reasoning for putting the numbers in bold, as to show who won the popular vote and how it may differ from the winner in the Electoral College. However, since the popular vote has no effect on the outcome of the election, I would suggest the numbers not be in bold except when they have unusual usefulness as in the 2000 election. Timmeh! 14:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Our election system doesn't recognize the popular vote to determine the winner and therefore it would give to much weight bolding them in the infobox. We have them (besides others) in bold in the more detailed tables further down the article and that should do it.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Only the Electoral Vote winner, shoul be in bold. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The only number that makes a difference is the electoral college vote and that is the only one that should be bold. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I see the usefulness of having the popular vote total and percentage in bold in the 2000 article (and, perhaps, the articles for the elections elections of 1876 and 1888, in which articles the popular vote winner's totals are in bold), but it would seem inconsistent to me to only have the popular vote total and percentage in bold in such a small number of articles.

Also, states. If the popular vote total is not bold, then neither should the higher number of states carried be in bold, as that number does not determine the winner either.

The 1888 presidential election article's infobox is interesting - the higher electoral vote total is in bold, and the higher popular vote total and percentage are in bold, but the higher state total is not in bold. We should try to make the infoboxes from each election more consistent with each other. Penthamontar (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe the best method would be to not have either the popular vote total/percentage or the number of states won in bold, unless the candidate who wins the election does not win the popular vote. Then the popular vote total and percentage should be in bold. It wouldn't cause too much inconsistency, as that has only happened three times. Timmeh! 23:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Timmeh, when the winner does not carry the highest number of states, do you think that the loser's highest number of states be in bold, as in 1976? Penthamontar (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the number of states carried has any effect on the winner of the election. The popular vote does, as the popular vote winner in each state gets its electoral votes. In contrast, the number of states won really has no effect on the outcome of the election. You can win with as little as 11 states or lose while winning as many as 40 (including DC). Timmeh! 00:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I just think we shouldn't put "losers" in bold. No electoral vote --> no bold.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Presenting the states carried in bold is maybe not needed but ok with me.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• (outdent) Ok. As for the electoral vote there is no question about it to leave it in bold as is. Right? Everything else is a matter of personal preference and since personal preferences shouldn't be a factor in an encyclopedia we could just leave the whole rest "un-bolded".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

A candidate's number of states carried affects the outcome of the election because carrying states gives the candidate electoral votes, which are what ultimately matter.

The fact that a candidate could lose the election with 39 states and DC does not mean that the candidate's number of states carried does not matter. A candidate could lose the election with 75% of the popular vote, but that does not mean that the popular vote does not matter. Just the same, a candidate could lose the election while carrying more than 75% of the states, but that does not mean that the candidate's number of states carried does not matter. Penthamontar (talk) 07:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Only leave the electoral vote of the winner in bold. Timmeh! 12:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of "only winner in bold"... i think there was some copy-pasting that made person#4 become bold too. I'm thinking of changing:

{{#if:{{{{{#if:{{{nominee4|}}}|nominee|candidate}}4|}}}|{{!}} style="text-align: center" {{!}} {{#ifeq:{{{ongoing|}}}|yes||'''}}{{{{{#if:{{{nominee4|}}}|nominee|candidate}}4}}}{{#ifeq:{{{ongoing|}}}|yes||'''}}}}

to

{{#if:{{{{{#if:{{{nominee4|}}}|nominee|candidate}}4|}}}|{{!}} style="text-align: center" {{!}}                                  {{{{{#if:{{{nominee4|}}}|nominee|candidate}}4}}}                                 }}

(which looks pretty much like the rows for nominee5 and nominee6, and IMO this is the desired outcome). This shouldn't create any problems, but i'm announcing it just in case. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been seeing if I can adapt this template to the elections for the UN Security Council, using United Nations Security Council election, 2008 as a guinea pig, and for the most part it works just fine. However, the template has the annoying "To be determined" thing pop at the bottom, which confuses the living daylights out of me. Can anyone inform me why, and how I can get around it? I've posted the template and my filling of the infobox. I've commented out the annoying bits on the main page.

Thanks! Lockesdonkey (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

{{Infobox Election
| election_name      = United Nations Security Council election, 2008
| country            = United Nations
| type               = legislative
| ongoing            = no
| previous_election  = United Nations Security Council election, 2007
| previous_year      = 2007
| next_election      = United Nations Security Council election, 2009
| next_year          = 2009
| seats_for_election = 5 (of 10) non-permanent seats on the [[United Nations Security Council]] 
| election_date      = 17 October 2008
| map_image = UN Security Council 2009.svg
| map_size = 300px
| map_caption = Security Council after 2008 elections.
| title = Members
| before_election= {{ZAF}} <small>([[United Nations geoscheme for Africa|Africa]])</small> <br> 
{{IDN}} <small>([[United Nations geoscheme for Asia|Asia]])</small> <br> 
{{PAN}}<small>([[United Nations geoscheme for the Americas|LatAm&Car]])</small> <br> 
{{BEL}}  <small>([[Western European and Others Group|WEOG]])</small> <br> 
{{ITA}} <small>([[Western European and Others Group|WEOG]])</small> <br> 
| posttitle = New Members
| after_election = {{flag|Uganda}} <small>([[United Nations geoscheme for Africa|Africa]])</small><br>
{{flag|Japan}} <small>([[United Nations geoscheme for Asia|Asia]])</small><br>
{{flag|Mexico}} <small>([[United Nations geoscheme for the Americas|LatAm&Car]])</small>
<br>{{flag|Turkey}} <small>([[Western European and Others Group|WEOG]])</small>
<br>{{flag|Austria}} <small>([[Western European and Others Group|WEOG]])</small> 
}}

I've figured out the problem: it appears that "after_party" is a required field, which auto-fills to "To Be Determined" when not filled. Can this be changed? Alternately, can there be some mechanism for leaving it completely blank? Thanks! Lockesdonkey (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Before the 2008 presidential election, there was a big dispute over which party nominees should be listed in the infobox. I suggest implementing the below text above the notes section so that we have a set standard for something like this. The below is adapted from this proposal, upon which consensus was reached to adopt in the 2008 election article.

Candidates must surpass the following requirements in order to be listed in the infobox prior to a presidential election:

• The party candidate must be listed on the ballot in enough states to win 270 electoral votes.

• The party candidate must exceed 12% of the nationwide popular vote in any one of the following polls: ABC News, Associated Press, CNN, Fox News, Gallup, Ipsos, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, CBS News, NBC News, MSNBC, Newsweek, Time Magazine, US News & World Report, or USA Today.

• Once a candidate gains the 12% milestone, he or she will remain in the infobox until the election. This assumes the candidate is running around that figure and has not lost support entirely due to some scandal, gaffe, etc. If support drops below 6.6% (see [1980 United States election article]) then discussion should ensue on the talk page to see if there is consensus to remove the candidate.

• Any candidates who do not meet these criteria may be listed in a prominent wikilink to "Other candidates."

Timmeh! 16:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't see in the template code how this is caused but in the infobox as displaying on British Columbia general election, 2009 these labels display above those of the leaders of teh two parties so far listed (the template, if not already with room for it, needs to display four). My concern is the "First Party, Second Party" gives a POV impression of the party's rankings and projected results. This has to be changed and pronto, as the election campaign is imminent, and the effect of this is POV. Can someone please explain why it's doing that - it doesn't do it in the sample infobox of Bush etc overleaf - or please just make the correction (and allow for two other party leaders, unless that's as simple as just adding more party3= etc fields.Skookum1 (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Use the "ongoing = yes" parameter on the article page. --maclean 05:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Currently, setting "ongoing = yes" turns on a flag that reads:

This article or section contains information about a forthcoming election. Content may change dramatically as the election approaches.

In many cases, this will be inappropriate. As I type this in late April 2009, the Indonesian legislative election can be considered "ongoing", as the counting is still taking place, but it certainly isn't "forthcoming", since the voting is finished.

Perhaps it would be better to have separate flags within the Infobox for congoing or forthcoming, or perhaps the message on the tag needs to be changed.

Ordinary Person (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

At present, this infobox (which can get quite long), doesn't treat edit links for article sections correctly. The problem can be seen at Icelandic parliamentary election, 2009, where there are three edit links pushed to the bottom of the infobox instead of appearing at its left-hand side. Physchim62 (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The answer was to use the {{fixbunching}} template, which I have now done for that article. The problem is not actually the infobox, but a result of it and the Iceland government template both pushing down into the next sections. This is a problem that could happen with any templates or images (but obviously comes into play more often with longish infoboxes). -Rrius (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

In the context of Indian elections, most governments at both the centre and the states are run by coallitions rather than by a single party. It would be great if this Infobox permits us to add the "Alliance" in addition to the existing "Party" field. This new field can be non-mandatory so that it does not impact those elections where the concept of Alliances does not exist. If there are no violent objections to this idea, I shall try to add this parameter into this template shortly in the future.
Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 07:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

As there were no objections to my suggestion, I have made the additions. The changes were tested in Sandbox prior to making the changes. I have also verified the election pages of a few countries to ensure that it looks fine. In the unlikely event anyone notices something going crazy, please revert my changes and leave me a message on my (talk page. Pages verified are - Indian general election, 2009, United Kingdom general election, 2005, United States presidential election, 2008 & Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008
Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 16:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I'm wondering if someone can help me edit the infobox since I'm not familiar with infobox markup syntax. I want to make the party name bold in the absence of the party leader field. In Indonesian elections, the leader is not as significant as the party itself. It doesn't make sense to be using this field since the winning party doesn't necessarily make its leader the speaker/chair of the assembly.

{{Infobox Election
| election_name      = Indonesian legislative election, 2004
| country            = Indonesia
| type               = parliamentary
| ongoing            = no
| previous_election  = Indonesian legislative election, 1999
| previous_year      = 1999
| next_election      = Indonesian legislative election, 2009
| next_year          = 2009
| seats_for_election = All 550 seats of the [[People's Representative Council]] and<br/>all 128 seats of the [[Regional Representative Council]] 
| election_date      = 5 April 2004
| image1             = [[:File:Golkar logo.jpg|110px]]
| party1             = Golkar
| last_election1     = 120 seats, 22.44%
| seats1             = 128
| seat_change1       = +8
| popular_vote1      = 24,480,757
| percentage1        = 21.58%
| swing1             = 0.86%
| image2             = [[:File:PDIPLogo.png|100px]]
| party2             = Indonesian Democratic Party – Struggle
| last_election2     = 153 seats, 33.74%
| seats2             = 109
| seat_change2       = −41
| popular_vote2      = 21,026,629
| percentage2        = 18.53%
| swing2             = -15.21%
| image3             = [[:File:Optimized_image_93214277.png|85px]]
| party3             = National Awakening Party
| last_election3     = 51 seats, 12.61%
| seats3             = 52
| seat_change3       = +1
| popular_vote3      = 11,989,564
| percentage3        = 10.57%
| swing3             = -2.04%

| title              = Speaker 
| before_election    = [[Akbar Tanjung]]
| before_party       = Golkar
| after_election     = [[Agung Laksono]]
| after_party        = Golkar
}}

Thanks for the help! Arsonal (talk) 06:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the "current election" box as it should not be part of an infobox. It was also throwing hundreds of elections into the current category (e.g. NZ 2011), not to mention the problem with dating the box. If there's consensus we can reintorduce it, but it's a hack, albeit a clever one. Rich Farmbrough, 02:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC).

Does anyone know if there's any way that this template could support the inclusion of an ImageMap to be used on certain articles in place of the map_image parameter? It could be useful in articles for elections with subarticles discussing the election in specific areas, for example United States presidential election, 2008 and 2004. I tried it out in the sandbox, and I think another line similar to the map_image parameter would be enough, but I'm afraid I'm not knowledgeable or confident enough to add it myself. Thanks. — Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 19:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be awkward, but I'm still kind of waiting on an answer here. If anybody can help in any way, or can direct me to the talk page of somebody who may be able to help, it'd be very much appreciated. Thanks! – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 19:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

{{#if:{{{party1|}}}{{{color1|}}}{{{colour1|}}}|<!-- Images 1, 2, 3 -->
{{!}} colspan=2 {{!}}
{{!}} style="text-align: center; border-bottom: 6px solid {{#if:{{{party1|}}}{{{color1|}}}{{{colour1|}}}|{{{color1|}}}|<!}}{{#if:{{{color1|}}}|--}}{{#ifeq: {{{party_colo{{#if:{{{party_colour|}}}|u|}}r}}}|no||{{Template: {{{party1}}}/meta/color}}}}{{#if:{{{color1|}}}|-}}{{#if:{{{color1|}}}|->}}{{#if:{{{color1|}}}|#{{{color1}}}}}{{#if:{{{colour1|}}}|#{{{colour1}}}}}"{{!}} {{#if:{{{image1|}}}|{{{image1}}}}}
{{!}} style="text-align: center; border-bottom: 6px solid {{#if:{{{party2|}}}{{{color2|}}}{{{colour2|}}}|{{{color2|}}}|<!}}{{#if:{{{color2|}}}|--}}{{#ifeq: {{{party_colo{{#if:{{{party_colour|}}}|u|}}r}}}|no||{{Template: {{{party2}}}/meta/color}}}}{{#if:{{{color2|}}}|-}}{{#if:{{{color2|}}}|->}}{{#if:{{{color2|}}}|#{{{color2}}}}}{{#if:{{{colour2|}}}|#{{{colour2}}}}}"{{!}}{{#if:{{{image2|}}}|{{{image2}}}}}
{{!}} style="text-align: center; border-bottom: 6px solid {{#if:{{{party3|}}}{{{color3|}}}{{{colour3|}}}|{{{color3|}}}|<!}}{{#if:{{{color3|}}}|--}}{{#ifeq: {{{party_colo{{#if:{{{party_colour|}}}|u|}}r}}}|no||{{Template: {{{party3}}}/meta/color}}}}{{#if:{{{color3|}}}|-}}{{#if:{{{color3|}}}|->}}{{#if:{{{color3|}}}|#{{{color3}}}}}{{#if:{{{colour3|}}}|#{{{colour3}}}}}"{{!}} {{#if:{{{image3|}}}|{{{image3}}}}}
{{!}}-
}}

This is pretty broken... — RockMFR 00:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please fix the colours for UKIP and The Greens in this infobox over at Norwich North by-election, 2009 please? -- ^[User]Jamie JCA_[Talk] 23:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to modify this template to allow for any number of candidates to be included, Possible array of multiples of three per row? Ukr-Trident (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm terrible with templates; would anybody be able to take a look at Alberta general election, 1905 and tell me why the party colours and all the data after the map aren't displaying? Steve Smith (talk) 06:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Solved the second issue. I still can't figure out why the party colours aren't displaying. Steve Smith (talk) 06:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

What I do, when I am trying to do something that is on another article, is I go to that other article to see how its done. 117Avenue (talk) 06:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I actually tried that, using Alberta general election, 2008 as my model. The template there doesn't seem to use the colour fields at all. Thanks for sorting it out, though. Steve Smith (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering why the template wasn't rendering right here, with the image/colors not displayed. I realized the parameter "party1" is defined twice in the sample template, first for the main candidate, and then for the minor candidate. I removed part of that section, and now the template is working fine. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 22:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there any place in the Infobox to place a link to the link to MPs after the current election? You can use previous_mps & next_mps to provide a link to the MPs elected in the previous & next elections, but I haven't found anyway to link to the list of current MPs. Maybe this can be a link below the flag? That way the link is placed in between the links to the previous MPs & next MPs. Any thoughts?
Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 17:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A link can be placed in the seats_for_election, like Canadian federal election, 2008 and United Kingdom general election, 2005. 117Avenue (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel this is misleading as the term implies that the leader is currently in office wheras at the time of the election that is not necessarily the case. Previous would be a safer word. This is a template with wide application but I think it should be changed. --Gibnews (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. 117Avenue (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is the flag needed here? Gnevin (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

To represent what the election is for, but remember, if it is a non-free flag, you can't use it. 117Avenue (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:ICONDECORATION says using flags should have an Encyclopaedic purpose. These are purely decorative and don't help the reader . Gnevin (talk) 10:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

They are not decorative, and something does happen when you click on them, (it should go to the country's article). 117Avenue (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think these flags do have a non-trivial identification value. Yes, they're not strictly necessary since the name of the country/state/city/etc. is part of the article title, in large bold text at the top of the page, but I don't think it is as irrelevant and distracting as other flag icon usage out there. Also, per my comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#RFC: Removing flag icons from templates in Category:Election and referendum year templates, the tiny icons on the bottom-of-page navbox are redundant and useless if there is a larger sized identification flag in this infobox. But if both are removed, something is lost, I think. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

non-trivial identification value more so than the words in the title and bold in the open paragraph? The user still knows the country this is related to by reading the words. If they want to learn about the flag they can go to flag of x. Why include the flag here and not the seal or coat of arms or a map. This is not a long list or anything else the MOSICON says is acceptable. It's nationalist pride and territory marking. Why don't we add flag to every article that has the word Ireland or France or whatever in the name for identification value? Gnevin (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The seals and coat of arms are more often non-free or copyrighted, and cannot be placed on any article other than the country/state/city and the article on itself. 117Avenue (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That isn't really and argument about why the flags are useful Gnevin (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

In the upcoming Dutch general election, 2010 no less than 11 parties are defending parliament seats.

Limiting the number of parties to 6 seems a bit arbitrary as we have no space for almost half the parties, even more problematic one of the Vice Prime Ministers (Andre Rouvoet) is the leader of a small coalition party that is in numbers at place 7 in the representation. The limitation to 6 parties means that we cannot show one of the government parties. Can it be extended? Arnoutf (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, now we have to select six out of eleven parties. This is not a neutral point of view in any way.—Totie (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that the infobox for the 2000 Republican primary election doesn't have pictures?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Either a party or a color needs to be specified for each candidate. 117Avenue (talk) 07:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add a diagram with the final composition of the chamber, just like I did in the Spanish Wikipedia, see here. Any objections? Dove (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

map_image can already be used to add an image to the infobox. But if you want two images in an infobox, I see no problem. 117Avenue (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem perse. But you will have to adapt the picture though. If you want to use puppets (like you do in spain) the image should automatically (based on a single parameter) recallibrate based on number of representaties (e.g. in the Netherlands the image should only depict 150 representative). This is probably fairly advanced programming. The alternative would be the much more boring "half pie chart". Arnoutf (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll do the changes shortly. I don't mean to add automatically the image, someone will have to make the picture in Commons for each election; I will only add a second map_image field. Regards. Dove (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

How do I make a parliamentary election show two columns (2x2) rather than three (3x2)? Croatian parliamentary election, 2011 looks ugly right now, and I can't easily fill out the remaining two slots, because three smaller parties got 3 MPs (HDSSB, IDS, SDSS), and yet another one got 2 MPs but was in coalition with one of the top four (HSLS) so it was even more important. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Use candidate numbers 1, 2, 4, & 5, rather than using number 3. 117Avenue (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

While the width of this infobox is generally ok for view via a normal web browser, it is almost impossible to see the whole infobox via the iPhone/iTouch application. The optimal width of the info box should be 239px. I understand it will take a lot of work to change every thing, but it is important that wikipedia works/can be viewed on all mediums. nat.utoronto 00:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The size of the box is dependent on the size of the candidate pictures or map added to the box. If you don't like the way wikipedia looks on a phone you'll have to take it up with Wikipedia. 117Avenue (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like the way Wikipedia looks on the iPhone/iTouch you'll have to take it up with Apple. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

(1) Actually, the size of the photos could be fixed and the infobox could be reorganized to fit 239px. and its not the way wikipedia looks, but the way this infobox looks on the iPhone/iTouch. (2) Taking it up with Apple will do nothing as this has nothing to do with Apple. nat.utoronto 03:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

In the Spanish Wikipedia, I modified your infobox into a vertical design, instead of the horizontal one used still in the English Wikipedia. How about if you take a look? It's way much smaller, and it can be perfectly displayed in a small mobile device like my iPhone. Dove (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

A number of parameters have been removed, with the addition of those, and a full six candidates, it would be just as long. 117Avenue (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You're not entirely correct. Yes, we removed some parameters, but although the final template may be as large than the one you use with all the parameters, it is also thinner, and you don't have the problem described in the "Template too wide to sit beside text" section below. Dove (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

And as I mentioned below, this box is the same width as other infoboxes on the English Wikipedia, unless expanded by big portraits or maps. 117Avenue (talk) 05:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the top of the infobox at United Kingdom general election, 2010, the layout of "‹ 2010 · members <Flag> Next ›" is, shall we say, a bit crap as the flag is off-centre, the bullet point between 2005 and members implies separation/next element (as in navboxes), and for some reason the elected MPs are missing. I suggest that, if we cannot find a consistent, legible and user-friendly way of including the "members" links, they ought to be omitted. 86.41.61.203 (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's because the MPs in the next election haven't been elected yet. Look at the previous elections, they're centered. 117Avenue (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, but I am afraid that does not address the problem. 86.41.61.203 (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I want to use this template at German presidential election, 2010, but find it very difficult to use, because the candidates are supported by several parties, which makes the template look like this[2]. The template seems to have one party as the only possible alternative. (one candidate is the candidate of CDU, CSU and FDP, and the other is a non-partisan candidate backed by SPD and Greens) Josh Gorand (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(also see Talk:German_presidential_election,_2010 Josh Gorand (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC))

I am unfamiliar with the politics of Germany, I didn't know one candidate could have several parties. If there was only two parties you could use the alliance parameter, but you want to show three for Wulff. Your options are:

1. Change party1 to CDU/CSU (like 2009), add alliance1=FDP and alliance2=Alliance '90/The Greens
2. Add party_colour=no and party_name=no anywhere in the template, then replace party1 with party1=[[Christian Democratic Union (Germany)|CDU]], [[Christian Social Union of Bavaria|CSU]], [[Free Democratic Party (Germany)|FDP]] and party2 with party2=[[Social Democratic Party of Germany|SPD]], [[Alliance '90/The Greens|Green]]
3. Add party_name=no anywhere in the template, then add colour1=000000 and colour2=CC0000, and replace party1 with party1=[[Christian Democratic Union (Germany)|CDU]], [[Christian Social Union of Bavaria|CSU]], [[Free Democratic Party (Germany)|FDP]] and party2 with party2=[[Social Democratic Party of Germany|SPD]], [[Alliance '90/The Greens|Green]]
4. Any combination of the above with alliance. 117Avenue (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

---------

This can occur in the United States as it did in the 1872 election. In that election, Horace Greeley and others founded the Liberal Republican Party and they nominated him as their candidate. Later the Democrats, wanting anybody-but-Grant, decided to nominate Greeley as well. So the infobox should list Grant as Republican and Greeley as both Liberal Republican and Democratic. As mentioned above, that does not work.

Although the word alliance is not really appropriate here, I tried to see if I could get that to work. Unfortunately, if there is no "alliance1" defined, then "alliance2" is ignored, and I cannot figure a way to define "alliance1" so that it renders as blank.

Any ideas? — JPMcGrath (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This template is used for party leadership elections as well as standard presidential and parliamentary elections. In a party leadership election, all candidates are members of the same party, so the requirement to specify a party to allow images to display forces editors to choose between not using images or repeating the party name under each image. (See, for example, Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 2005.) Would it be possible to make it so images can display without displaying a party? -Rrius (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, enter in the colour instead. 117Avenue (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what that means. Ideally, no colour and no party would display as they would be superfluous. -Rrius (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I mean replace party1=Conservative Party (UK) with colour1=0087DC. 117Avenue (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That only partially answers the problem. Instead of unnecessarily repeating the party name and colour, it only unnecessarily repeats the colour. Would it be exceedingly complex to make it so that images show without including either one? -Rrius (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No. I started watching this template well after the original write, so I figured there was a reason why they wanted a colour for the image. In my opinion I think that there should always be a colour, I think it represents the candidate well. 117Avenue (talk) 06:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

How I can add more results, when there are multiple ballots. I need it here: German presidential election, 1949 --Boris 15:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

In some elections, such as the 1789, 1792, and 1820 United States presidential elections, there is only one candidate who "deserves" to be included in the infobox. But if only one candidate is included, you get extra whitespace between a number of the fields. Does anyone know why this occurs, or know of a fix for the problem? — JPMcGrath (talk) 03:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. It was an issue relating to whitespace around the conditionals for the additional columns. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

...and reverted. It might not be possible to fix this without resorting to using HTML rather than wikicode; I'll keep trying, though. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. I've been meaning to take a look at the template code, but I don't relish the thought and I've been avoiding it. If you can fix it, you would make my day. — JPMcGrath (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Could someone familiar with this template take a look at this diff from Michigan gubernatorial election, 2010. As of now, five parties have ballot access, but only two have made their nominations. The Libertarian nominees, at the beginning of the second row (party 4), display correctly. But even though the US Taxpayers candidates are (correctly?) entered in the party 6 fields, they are displayed in the party 5 spot. This has been taken out of the article until it can be fixed, because it incorrectly suggests that the US Taxpayers nominees are actually the Green Party nominees. Suggestions on how to fix this display error? cmadler (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Filling in "TBA" for blank parties works for now. The conditional code needs some bulletproofing to detect this; I'll try to have a look later. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I notice now that the nominee1 appears bolded, and I'm guessing this is somewhere in the template formatting? Is there a fix for that? cmadler (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This wasn't something I changed. I don't see that this is intentional, however; I'll have a look and see if I can fix it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I can see the offending code, but it isn't working properly (the conditional always passes). I don't know why, but at any rate the bolding was never documented so I've removed it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I prefer that the old inbox be put backed. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What, precisely, do you want "put backed"? Most of the changes that have been made are to make the code more manageable and the template more consistent and easy to follow. Individual changes can be discussed, but the whole lot isn't going to be reverted without good reason. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Some recent changes appear to have introduced an error, the infobox at New Zealand general election, 2011 has some code text

style="text-align: center; width: 20%"

appearing above the 2nd and 3rd entries. XLerate (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Any other problems, please let me know. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! XLerate (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

One of the most glaring omissions in this infobox is the lack of a prominent link to a list of MPs elected in the election. There are prominent links to the list of MPs elected at the previous and next elections, but not to those elected at the election which the infobox is summarising. I'm sure that this arose unintentionally, but it's a perverse situation and a nuisance for users.

This was discussed above (see Current MPs list), where the suggestion was made to include a link in the seats_for_election field, but that's inadequate in two ways:

1. The link is obscure. The United Kingdom general election, 2010 currently has that field set to 650 seats to the House of Commons ... the plain reading of 650 seats in that contest would lead the reader to expect a link to a list of constituencies, not a list of MPs. (In the UK context, the list of seats is at List of United Kingdom Parliament constituencies). The list of MPs should be a prominent link, not buried in a misleadingly-labelled part of a phrase.
2. If the current solution is used, there is no place for a list of constituencies.

So I have used the sandbox to demonstrate a way of doing it, by adding a new data field, elected_mps (name chosen to match existing fields previous_mps and next_mps). Diff here, and output here.

Please can we implement this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris, that was very quick. I had just notified WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom and WikiProject Elections and Referendums, but that notification is probably superfluous now. I will update the /doc page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Just one voice to say or add to any others that this template is really too wide to sit beside the start of an article. At 1152 by 864 on a 19" monitor, it can squeeze the text to less than 10 words per line. Instead, how about making it the width of the article and placing the article's first paragraph or two of the article above it and the rest of the article below it? And/or maybe make it (partially) collapsed so it doesn't squeeze the text by default. 212.84.100.119 (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This template uses the standard infobox meta template that all infoboxes uses. If its larger than normal, then its due to large candidate pictures or map image. Where did you see this larger than normal infobox? 117Avenue (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it really only approximates the {{infobox}} look; it's a hand-coded table which is styled to match. That said, it shouldn't be that large; as you say, this would seem to be an article-specific problem. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw the example in United Kingdom general election, 1992, then, when I visited the template's own page here, realized that just about all instances would squeeze the text too much. 212.84.100.119 (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC) The information inside the template also tends to be squeezed, e.g. I just looked at United Kingdom general election, 1987. With both text and template being squeezed, I'd say some redesign and/or collapsing is needed.

The pictures are already small in those two articles. I don't think there is anything that can be made smaller. 117Avenue (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In that case, please make the template or at least parts of it collapsed by default. If that's likely to be accepted, I'll have a try at it myself. 212.84.100.119 (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be a band-aid solution at best. The simple fact is that the template contains a lot of textual data and it's organised into five table columns. With that layout, there will always be cases where the template gets very wide. In the long run it may be worth looking into moving to putting only two parties on each row, or an even broader rethink. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, up to five columns seems too wide nearly all the time, especially on a smaller screen. But why not have the nutshell summary, i.e. without the pics and stats, on display by default with a 'more' or 'show' link to include the pics and stats if and when the reader wants to see them (soon learning that the text will then be squashed but the template can then be collapsed back to the nutshell state again). Why would this be band-aid rather than a good solution? Other sidebox-style templates I've seen here use collapsing sections. 212.84.106.112 (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This election template appears to be the standard template for use in a verity of elections. However, I am a bit perplexed at the limited choices to fill-in for the template's "Type" field: presidential, parliamentary, and legislative. It seems misleading, considering the fact that this template is also used on elections not of those specific types, such as on United States Senate and U.S. gubernatorial election articles.

In these cases (examples below), what I've seen is that the "presidential" option is selected. But why mislabel something? Why not add the option of "gubernatorial" and "senatorial" (among others) to the available choices? A gubernatorial or senatorial election is not a presidential election, so why force people to input an untruth to use this template?

Examples for the abovementioned:

• Gubernatorial
  • Connecticut 2010
  • Florida 2010
  • Pennsylvania 2010
• U.S. Senatorial
  • Connecticut 2010
  • Florida 2010
  • Pennsylvania 2010

The case for a "gubernatorial" and a "senatorial" option are just thoughts that I have decided to post here. If for any reason there should not be added these options, please let me know why and how I'm wrong. Thank you! --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's really "misleading" if it's just in the hidden code, but ideally it could be more neutral wording (e.g., "person" to cover any elected office for an individual). I imagine that the template would still need to recognise the current options so that existing articles still function correctly. I'm only a noob to templates, so I'm not sure how difficult it would be to factor in different options which have the same effect. —sroc (talk) 03:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you on being new to templates. But thank you for at least sharing your thoughts on my question. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 05:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

For a single-winner election (e.g. election for senator, mayor, governor, congressman, president), use presidential. For congressional/parliamentary/legislative elections, use legislative when there is a majority party, and use parliamentary when there isn't. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 07:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue raised here is providing neutral wording options. For example, for elections for senators, mayors, governors, congressmen, etc., why use the word "presential" (which literally refers to presidents); can we have neutral wording such as "person" or "individual" that could apply equally (and unambiguously) to all of these options? And similarly for the other options (I'm still not clear on the distinction). —sroc (talk) 09:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This is for the activation for some of the parameters on the template. For example, "seats won" won't appear if you choose "presidential." I think the difference between "legislative" and "parliamentary" is that the "number 1" party is labeled as "majority party" in legislative while it's called "first party" in parliamentary.

In any case these three do not appear on the template so I don't think there's no harm done. If we'd making one for mayor, congressman, governor, etc. it is redundant, and if we'll change "presidential" you'd have to change hundreds of articles it's not worth it. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 09:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's not a big issue as it's hidden in the background, but if it can be built in as an alternative option (e.g., so that "person" has the same effect as "presidential") so it continues to work on existing articles, it'd be nice. —sroc (talk) 10:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It's OK to leave it. If one has to use this template they look it up at the parameters list. Mostly the legislative/parliamentary types are only used in general/legislative election articles while special/by-elections and single winner elections use the presidential. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 10:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The placement of the flag between the years of the previous and subsequent elections seems to be confusing rather than arbitrary. It almost seems as if the flag represents the period between those years. Perhaps the years could be more clearly displayed thus:

Previous election		Next election
2007	2010	To be called

This could perhaps be tied in with the previous and next parties/leaders, although this may lead to complications in cases where the leader is changed between elections, e.g., if a leader dies, is impeached, etc., would the elected leader or the person who replaced them (or both) be named? —sroc (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have just made this change, after testing on the sandbox page seemed to work for all of the test cases. Hopefully everyone is OK with this. —sroc (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Just when I thought that I had my head around templates, the version that I worked on developed a glitch that inserted blank space at the top of some (but not all) articles that contain the infobox. If anyone has any solutions, please feel free to have at it. Thanks also to SuperHamster for pointing this out and restoring the last working version. —sroc (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ay, but if we're going to be giving credit, kudos to Magog the Ogre for pointing this out at the Help desk :) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, now being aware of such a wonderous place, I have called out for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk#Help with blank lines appearing above infobox. I have tried to find the source but I'm at a loss. I will be indebted to anyone who can fix this! —sroc (talk) 13:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I have now fixed the glitch! It seems that the glitch may have derived from the sandbox, somewhere in the listings of the 4th, 5th and 6th parties, as the glitch disappeared when these lines were removed from the template. I copied the whole template from the original to the sandbox and all now seems well. I also noted that the Template:Infobox election/testcases had some inconsistencies between the comparisons (e.g., one example had a different flag year on only one side, two examples had the last/next leader info missing on one side) which made it appear as though the sandbox version had a glitch when in fact the glitch was in the testcases. I have implemeneted the new version and checked several articles that contain the template and they all seem to be working fine now. —sroc (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Currently, when the next leader is not completed, this defaults to "TBD". However, this has led to some confusion, as discussed at Talk:Australian federal election, 2010#-elect. The problem here seems to lie particularly in this case where there are two parties mentioned: the one on the left is the incumbent (who also appears roughly above the listing for "Incumbent Prime Minister") and the other on the right is the challenger (who appears above the listing for "Prime Minister-elect"). Although an earlier version showed "Prime Minister-elect" as "To be determined", some people appear to have taken this at a glance to imply that the person named on the right (in this case, opposition leader Tony Abbott) is the "Prime Minister-elect" because his photo and stats appear on the same side of the infobox as those words. This has been exacerbated in this case because the end result is still yet to be declared more than a week after the election (the leaders having to negotiate with individual members of parliament to form a majority). I have suggested, in the meantime, that the "Prime Minister-elect" section simply be blanked (as shown here) to avoid any such implication. There seems to be no particular value including it if there is no real data to include there anyway, particularly if including something there is causing confusion or ambiguity.

In light of this, I propose that the template be amended so that the next leader section be omitted when the name is left blank. That is, instead of defaulting to "TBD", it is not shown at all (nor is the heading "[title]-elect"). If you wanted to include this in a particular instance, you could simply write "TBD" for the name of the next leader and the heading would be shown automatically. Thoughts? —sroc (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that this has been raised before. —sroc (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it is necessary while the election is ongoing for either the before or after to be shown. The entire last section could be left off until "ongoing" is set to "no", couldn't it? -Rrius (talk) 12:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It could, but I don't think it should. I think that the incumbent is important (certainly notable) information worth having. Aside from more obvious reasons, it may help to interpret the data in terms of "seats needed": the incumbent may well not need any seats, and seeing their name/party listed as the incumbent may aid the reader to understand why their "seats needed" figure is "0". —sroc (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe one of the more concerning problems with the template is the misrepresentation of an incumbent prime minister as "prime minister-elect" or "prime minister-designate" after an election that his or her party won. Regard Canadian federal election, 2008, for instance: Stephen Harper was prime minister before the election, which his Conservative Party subsequently won. The prime minister's commission was never withdrawn; he did not thus become prime minister-designate, he just stayed prime minister. The only case in which "prime minister-designate" would be appropriate is if the incumbent prime minister's party lost the election. The same applies to the infobox at Australian federal election, 2010. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I realize that the winner of the election does not become the leader immediately after the election. But the problem is the term "-elect", this term is not used when the incumbent leader gets voted back in. I don't know of any better wording than "after election", any ideas? 117Avenue (talk) 06:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

How about "Elected <title>"? This would be equally applicable whether the incumbent is (re-)elected or a challenger is elected. Bear in mind also that this can be customised in individual cases if necessary. —sroc (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Could work. 117Avenue (talk) 03:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way for the template to be amended so wording could be determined on a case-by-case basis? The above "Elected <title>" is certainly better than the "before election/after election" option or always displaying "-elect" by the winner's name regardless of incumbency, but I think the best choice would be to base the wording per the circumstances of each election instead of having a one-size-fits-all approach. This can be accomplished mainly in two ways: First, if the incumbent is re-elected, the wording should be "Re-elected <title>." Second, if the incumbent is defeated or the race was open, then use the old standard of "<title>-elect." For example, use "Re-elected Senator" here, but use "President-elect" here. Additionally, just "Elected <title>" should be a third option for certain occasions, such as when an incumbent dies or resigns and then the person who succeeds them wins a subsequent term of their own. We cannot say "re-elected" then even though the person was an incumbent because they were never technically elected to the position in question in the first place (an example being the 2006 Connecticut gubernatorial election, in which incumbent Rell won election (not re-election) because she took over in 2004 upon the resignation of the state's previous governor). So in conclusion, I support three possibilities for the field: Re-elected <title>, <title>-elect, and Elected <title>. Election-specific circumstances should decide which one to use on a case-by-case basis. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 07:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If a custom posttitle is desired, the posttitle parameter can be used. But this discussion is to determine the many uses that don't use the posttitle parameter. An if statement can be introduced to determine if the before guy and after guy are the same, but as you stated, this would be incorrect if the before guy wasn't elected to begin with. I just want to use a term that can apply to all uses. 117Avenue (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

"Winning candidate," I suppose, could work for all uses. It's not a posttitle, just a simple declaration of the winner. Beyond that, I don't really have anything else at the moment.--Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that "Winning candidate" carries other issues about the legitimacy of being declared a "winner" in a parliamentary election, particularly in cases where there is a slim majority or even a minority of votes (with a majority of seats, in a coalition, etc.). I suggest that "Elected <title>" is the most neutral of the terms proposed as it is correct in all cases. If the terms "Re-elected <title>" or "<title>-elect" or anything else are desired, they can be implemented in individual cases using the posttitle parameter of the infobox — but IMHO, coding these into the infobox template for an array of situations would be overly involved and unnecessary. —sroc (talk) 05:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If we are to retain the flag icon (see #Flag above), it looks a bit barren now. Should we perhaps it out by adding provision for links to other articles about elections/politics for the country/state/etc.? For example:

I don't see the purpose of having the flag and years on separate rows. Now the flag doesn't have anything beside it, and there is a space between the before and after years. 117Avenue (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There was discontent at Talk:Australian federal election, 2010#flag at top of infobox that the flag was out of place being between the years, as if the flag represented the present election. Therefore, as I discussed at #Placement of the flag/years above, I re-worked it to be more like previous/next chronology lists in other infoboxes, and also like the incumbent/next leaders at the bottom of this infobox. Other suggestions? —sroc (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

How about moving the election date between the previous and next, to create a secession timeline, like this? 117Avenue (talk) 07:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Upon further examination, I have realized that without "previous election", the first column, with the row titles, gets squished, I now propose this change. 117Avenue (talk) 04:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I'm just curious how this will look with additional fields such as turnout filled out, as none of the examples in the sandbox show this. Could someone edit/create an example will every possible data field completed so that we can see how this appears? —sroc (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, in my opinion it looked odd before, and it didn't get moved. 117Avenue (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I find it a bit confusing that the seats won in the last election come before the seats won in the election being discussed, e.g. Australian federal election, 2010.

It would be simpler to find out the number of seats at a glance by showing the current results first. This is the case when most new results are presented.

E.g., currently:

Leader's seat Lalor Warringah
Last election 83 seats 65 seats
Seats won 72 72
Seat change ▼11 ▲7

Proposed:

Leader's seat Lalor Warringah
Seats won 72 72
Seat change ▼11 ▲7
Last election 83 65

I can implement this in a few weeks if there is consensus or at least no significant objection here. Thanks, Facts707 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes this is ridiculous. It has last election and then the change, expecting you to do arithmetic based off the least important number in the infobox. It would be better to remove last election entirely than to have the current joke. —Centrx→talk • 14:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

By all means have "Last election" appearing after "Seats won" and "Seat change", but I do not think that we should remove it entirely. One side effect is that there is no longer any indication of the seats won at the last election in the case of future/ongoing elections where there is no data for "Seats won"/"Seat change": see Template:Infobox election/testcases#8 for an example. If there is consensus to omit "Last election", then it should be hidden when there is data for "Seats won"/"Seat change" but shown otherwise (not deleted altogether). —sroc (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, at least have them for future elections. 117Avenue (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If the article for the next election (parameter "next_election") doesn't exist, why isn't a red link included? Why not use a link to encourage creation of a new article? According to Wikipedia:Red link, it ought to be linked.

Specifically, the code in the present template is: {{#ifexist:{{{next_election|}}}|[[{{{next_election}}}|{{{next_year}}}]]|{{{next_year}}}}—Markles 16:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it may not generate an automatic red link because some elections may be too far in the future to garner the required threshold of significant coverage by reliable sources to even begin work on the article. For example, the 2012 U.S. presidential election is two years away, but so major that it is already discussed by reliable sources. However, the next Connecticut gubernatorial election (after this year's) won't be until 2014, and since the outcome of this year's is still forthcoming, no one is talking about the inevitable 2014 race yet. Since red links encourage article creation, the reason this template doesn't generate them is probably to avoid WP:CRYSTAL situations from resulting from them. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's exactly it. I removed it because too often articles for future elections are created too early. 117Avenue (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there anyway we can change the previous holder's title like we can the "posttitle"? I mean where it says "President before election" (or "Incumbent President" in ongoing elections), can a template function be added to make that variable if need be? I was trying on the sandbox, but I couldn't get it to work.--Tim Thomason 23:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Use title for the title before election. If the title after the election is different, than use posttitle. 117Avenue (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking something like posttitle that would remove "before election" from the title. Because right now, I can't find any way to do that. posttitle is similar, in that it removes the "Elected" from the post-title. I've played around with title, but it always leaves a "before election" tag.--Tim Thomason 06:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

For what election is "{title} before election", an inappropriate phrase? Infoboxes are intended to provide constancy across the English Wikipedia, I don't see how it could be a problem. 117Avenue (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

We have an option for seats and electoral votes, but should we also add the option of delegates for primaries and leadership contests? - Pictureprovince (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Please make it possible to introduce the fields "Nominee" and "run_mate" for the type "Parliamentary". We will have a parliamentary election, the European Parliament election in 2014, with presidential nominees (candidates for Commission president) who won't be party leaders or parliamentary group leaders. Thanking you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien-223 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Why can't you just change the type to presidential? 117Avenue (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This edit seems to have disrupted the way the the seats_for_election parameter displays. As I recall, it used to be centered, but that is not the case now. What's more, it is small and left-justified, but a link for opinion polls appears below it centered and full-sized. I doubt that's the right place to put a link to opinion polls, but it does help demonstrate what's wrong with the other parameter. For an example, see 41st Canadian federal election. -Rrius (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed it too, but it just started today. I am hoping it is just an update in the wiki software, and will be remedied soon. The information box on images saved at the commons don't appear on Wikipedia today either. 117Avenue (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I still don't know why that happened, the cell started with an !, and should have been centred and bolded by that, but its fixed now. 117Avenue (talk) 04:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably can go beneath the line where it says "All ____ seats of the <chamber>." For example, in United Kingdom general election, 2010:

All 650 seats in the House of Commons.

Needed to win: 326

–HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually you are wrong. A party can win without a majority of the seats. Are you perhaps proposing what is being used on Canadian federal election, 2011, which displays the seats needed for a majority? 117Avenue (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

No, that's what's "seats_neededx are for. How about "outright win" or something. So apparently majority is not universal as we thought. lol –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Still not sure we're on the same page. The concern brought up at the Canadian election (and subsequently the Alberta election), is that the term "seats needed" isn't clear if it is the seats needed to win the election, or to win over 50% of the seats. Since there is no way to say how many seats are needed to win, we went with the statement of how many seats are needed for a majority. Is the term "326 seats needed for a majority" not correct in the UK? 117Avenue (talk) 04:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the Canadian or the UK Conservatives "won" their respective elections anyway; otherwise the Canadians would not have formed a minority government, and their UK counterparts would've not formed a coalition with the Lib Dems. It's like saying no party "won" the election. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

True, no party has "won" the election until the Queen (or her representative) says they can makeup the government. That is why I (and the others who convinced me) avoid the word "won", and prefer "majority". 117Avenue (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

True too, but whatever the king/queen/representative has to say has no bearing on the election that had just happened. Anyway, aside from the seats needed to win, perhaps other stuff needs to be added like voter turnout. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 06:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a line for voter turnout. 117Avenue (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You cannot judge who "wins" an election in a single-member plurality system, especially not by defining a win as only achieving a majority. You do not need a majority to "win" an election under SMP, you simply need a plurality of the seats. It does not matter if it is a minority or a majority. Subsequently, you cannot necessarily determine a "win" from the results of an election. In the parliamentary system of the UK and Canada, a sitting Prime Minister does not lose his job after an election loss until he formally resigns. This is what opens the door to coalitions, etc. Saying "seats needed to win" is, in a sense, simply incorrect. A second-place party could form a coalition with another minor party and thus form a government. Would you say they "lost" the election, even though they ended up forming government? I'm much more in favour of having the "seats needed for a majority" as can now be seen on Canadian election pages. -ACL- (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If a party did not a majority, then it lost the election. UK Conservatives lost the election, hence they formed a coalition government with the Lib Dems. If any party forms a coalition, or forms a minority government, it lost the election. There are times no party can win an election. The government formation is not a part of the election process if no one wins it.

Actually, this is worse in proportional systems, as no party can win a majority of seats -- by default, everyone loses. You lose leverage in a minority or coalition government, if a party controls a majority of the seats, it can do what it wishes (as is in Japan during the LDP's heyday when policy was discussed in LDP caucuses, then they sleep in parliamentary deliberations lol). –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That isn't how we see it in Canada, the Canadian Conservatives won the 2008 election, but with a minority of the seats. 117Avenue (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

With the way the dissolution was handled, it almost certain correct to say they lost that election, otherwise it wouldn't be dissolved in that manner (it could've been dissolved, but the Conservatives could've chosen when to dissolve parliament). –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That's completely incorrect. When you refer to dissolution that means they lost confidence of the House in the previous legislative session. That has nothing to do with elections, whether the Conservatives chose to dissolve or were forced to dissolve. You are also incorrect in saying the UK Conservatives lost the 2010 election. I'm not going through my entire explanation again, but simply not being able to attain a majority does NOT translate into an election loss under the single-member plurality system, which is the electoral system Canada and the UK uses. -ACL- (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

HTD: it doesn't matter if you are correct or not about the terminology used in the UK. The infobox needs to be universal. How does this look? I named the parameter majority_seats. 117Avenue (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh sure, I can be settled on "Seats needed for a majority" but the only way to win any legislative election, single-seat or multi-seat constituencies, is by winning majority of the seats -- this is different from winning a seat which can be via plurality -- as laws can only be passed via a majority vote, and if you don't win majority of the seats, you'd lose the election, and you'd have to ask for help from someone else, or in Canada's case, hope and pray the MPs elected on the election preceding the legislative session won't gang up on you.

As further testament to this, on the lead of United Kingdom general election, 2005, it says "The Labour Party under Tony Blair won its third consecutive victory" while United Kingdom general election, 2010 refuses to say outright the Conservatives won the election, stating that "The Conservative Party, led by David Cameron, won the largest number of votes and seats", not "The Conservative Party, led by David Cameron, won the election."

BTW, if we're settling into "seats needed for a majority" (which probably means differently in many places), I suggest using two columns instead of one, like normal infoboxes. For example:

Seats contested:   650 seats in the House of Commons
Majority of seats: 326

This can also be handy in U.S. Electoral College where you do need 270 to win.–HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 06:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

"Seats contested" won't work, because there may be some where the writ was dropped, but no one contested it, and was won by acclamation. This isn't the case anymore, but the infobox needs to be usable for historical elections. 117Avenue (talk) 06:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right. What's a good word? This can be optional so that it won't screw up other articles, though. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 06:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, I couldn't think of one, it's too late here for me to think. 117Avenue (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)