Talk:2015 Nigerian general election

edit war about tags asking for quality ref format.
I tagged claims today that were only referenced with a url, like . This is no full reference, see WP:CITEHOW That's why I added tags asking for a full reference.

The tags were promptly removed the same day, amazingly. 's edit summary stated "No idea why this is tagged, the source gives the full results", which is surprisingly shortsighted for someone who claims to have started about 5,000 articles (but maybe thats the problem?). And 's edit summary "removed tag as the date [14th Feb] is stated in the source" is also shortsighted, for someone who's been around for a while and should have encountered WP:dead links. Because 2 experienced editors basically admitted, they didnt understand the reasons for the tags, I am bringing this up here for all: In 1, 2, latest 3 years your bare link references will be dead, and then the person "...with the right to access the accumulated knowledge of humanity" cannot. Besides url and title, please state at an absolute minimum: Without a full reference, the claim attached to the ref will be unverifiable in rel short time. So, guys, you can remove tags that you WP:DONTLIKE all you want, but it's not smart - no harm to me, but harm to the readers, the community, by driving down the quality with your insistence on a sloppily referenced article with unstable references.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * the date of publication, plus better
 * name of the website and
 * name of the author(s), or
 * best: an archived reference
 * If you actually bothered looking at the references, you'd be aware that non-media websites often don't contain that information. For instance, the IFES reference you mention does not have a date of publication, nor a named author. As for the results table source, this is how election result tables are commonly presented across Wikipedia.
 * Rather than make sneering comments about other editors, perhaps you should actually try fixing the citations yourself if you really think it's that much of a problem, rather than just doing some drive-by tagging. Number   5  7  08:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Election Map With No Key?
What do the green and red areas mean??? This must be addressed or the image should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.168.151.175 (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The key is directly above, above the candidate names. Number   5  7  15:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2015
Please change "With results announced in all but one state" to "With results announced" since all the results have been announced.

197.242.126.88 (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Stickee (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for telling who was elected how! Add some wherefore?
--2003:45:487A:A200:D9D6:F35F:B173:9263 (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC): We still miss some quotes which issues and political promises were advertised / debated / deciding in this election article. Didn't any political commentaries / speeches / advertisements provide clues for which reasons the majority of voters swifted away from the incumbent yet?

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2015
This Picture is more recent for Buhari. "Buhari.jpg"

ChuckEngel (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * At Commons you have written "own work". Is this photo taken by you and do you have copyright licence for it? Iselilja (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * ❌ appears to be a copyvio of https://twitter.com/thisisbuhari - have tagged it for deletion at commons- Arjayay (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And it has now been deleted - - Arjayay (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Guebernatorial elections
Also happened, theyre not here. Lihaas (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)