Template talk:Infobox election/Archive 5

Lists of elected members
Currently there are the fields,   and. Searching in the archive, it appears the previous & next ones were simply added originally analogous to the other previous & next parameters, whereas the elected_mps parameter was added later on to fill the "perverse" lack of parameter for the members elected in the actual election that the infobox is summarising, rather than the previous or next election.

So it seems there didn't go much thought into the initial addition of parameters. However, I do not see how the members elected in the next election are in any way relevant to the election being described. The elected MPs are obviously relevant, and the previous MPs are so too since they were outgoing at the time of the election being described. For an example of all three being used, see e.g. Canadian federal election, 2011. For an example where the most relevant one isn't used, see Indian general election, 2009. In general, the parameters don't appear to be used that much.

I think it makes sense to deprecate these three in favour of two parameters:  (maybe there's a better term) and , both displayed in between the election dates rather than directly below them: 2010 ←                  2014                   → 2019        outgoing members         elected members

This seems much more logical to me. What do others think? SPQRobin (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems sensible. Number   5  7  17:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I changed the template to the new system. It is mostly backwards compatible. Though I think ideally these links should be at the same place as the "Prime Minister before election" & "New Prime Minister" (not sure if at the top or bottom), but that's more complicated. SPQRobin (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I also think that's a good idea. They look a little out of place at the top. While we're at it, I also think the turnout look a bit weird at the top, and would like to see it below the party results (if at all – I do think it's a little pointless – this is meant to be a brief summary, and I think there is far too much detail included sometimes). Would also be in favour of getting rid of the opinion polls link. Number   5  7  21:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the outgoing and elected members should be placed at the bottom. (Also, the elected members should be named as such, not just "members".) I oppose removing the turnout as it measures abstentions, a valid option for voters in many countries. It doesn't look out of place where it is, but I'm open to suggestions as to a more appropriate location. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 23:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree we should be careful not to add too much detail to the infobox, but I think turnout is essential enough to include (the location looks fine to me). I would agree with removing the opinion polls link. As for moving the members links, for this we should probably make a more general multi-option system out of "before_election" & "after_election". It would also solve the (imho) problem that we link to the Prime Minister, but not to the formed cabinet/government, which is often in fact constitutionally more important. Something like this perhaps: User:SPQRobin/sandbox (in actual use you'd need to mention max. 2 or 3 obviously). SPQRobin (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

But it reduces the information available. Can't we return to the old system, which was able to present more information? Byzantium Purple (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you refer to the "next_mps", I think it was barely relevant to the election being described, and imho it only caused confusion as the links were placed directly below the years with just "members" as label, while members obviously serve between elections. It is preferable to show only relevant information in a clear way. We also don't mention who is President or Prime Minister after the let's say 2019 election when we're on the e.g. 2014 election article. SPQRobin (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

"Delegate count"
In US presidential primaries, I suggest that, when, the fields   read Projected delegate count instead of simply Delegate count. This is because the counts are really only projections until the national conventions, and that fact should be made clear. Changing the title of the field is simpler than appending a note manually. Are there objections? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 23:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Specifically, I am suggesting this edit be made on Infobox election/row which is template-protected. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 02:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: we should reflect that the delegates are only projections (for now). Prcc27💋 (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, I would like to make a similar proposal for ongoing general elections in the United States so that "electoral vote" reads "projected electoral vote" until the electoral college actually votes in December. Prcc27💋 (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: succinctly adds clarity to the process Shwoodham (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I suggest this edit on Infobox election/row to make it clear that, as long as US primaries are underway, delegate counts read "Projected delegate count". With Super Tuesday around the corner, which might attract more viewers, I think it is best not to wait too long before making the change. I invited contributors to both major primaries' articles as well as the Elections WikiProject to comment on the proposal. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 14:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Frietjes (talk) 14:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * note that some of the other fields are suppressed when yes. Frietjes (talk) 15:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Point taken. My proposal therefore actually introduces new problems. I have a potential solution. Since there are already "presidential", "legislative" and "parliamentary" types, would it be possible to introduce a fourth "primary" type? I would gladly work on it to make sure it is coherent. Among other things, a "primary" type would not only allow popular vote to show while the election is ongoing, but it would also allow for the "Incumbent" nominee to be referred to as "Previous" nominee. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 15:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggest these two edits on Infobox election (diff) and Infobox election/row (diff).

These edits introduce a new election type,, which triggers the following changes: Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 18:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Incumbent  and   before election become Previous  ; and Elected   becomes simply  .
 * 2) States carried becomes Delegations with plurality
 * 3) Popular vote, percentage, counties won and counties 25% threshold are displayed even when the election is ongoing
 * Request disabled. Can we get some discussion/consensus on this please before making significant changes to the template? Thanks &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My bad, I started a new section below. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 14:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

show_blank_fields
I removed the show_blank_fields parameter which was being used internally to suppress the blank fields section after noticing problems with Costa Rican general election, 1994. as far as I can tell, this had no negative impact on any of the examples in the testcases. please do let me know if there are any unintended consequences. I am adding the Costa Rica example to the list of test cases, and I have temporarily saved the version just before my most recent changes in the sandbox for comparison. Frietjes (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Fontsize issues
There are a bunch of WP:FONTSIZE issues in this template. Does anyone have any objection to replacing the small text with italics to comply with the accessibility guidelines and the WMF's non-discrimination policy? ~ RobTalk 01:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You can make the changes you want to Infobox election/sandbox and we'll see how it looks on Infobox election/testcases. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 10:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Not all the differences are visible in the testcases, but you can see some of how the small text looks vs. italics in testcases 4 and 5. ~ RobTalk 10:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright I see. Well I think we can actually do without both small and italics in this case. Could we simply leave it as normal text? Perhaps even get rid of the bold? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 10:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with that too. I just proposed italics because that's the typical preference of editors when I point them toward FONTSIZE. The bold should definitely go, at the very least. Doing now. ~ RobTalk 10:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Check the testcases again. I've removed bold and displayed two options. The regular sandbox is with italics, sandbox2 is without. I only added sandbox2 on the testcases for number 4, and I'll undo that and CSD tag the second sandbox when we're done discussing. I think I personally prefer the italics, but I'm much more concerned with making this template readable to those with poor vision/partial blindness than worrying about italics/no italics. ~ RobTalk 10:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd go with the roman type instead of italic, simply because it keeps everything more uniform. I'l wait for your answer and then I'll go ahead and make the change to the template directly. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 10:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 April 2016
There should not be a limit on the number of candidates.

217.38.121.178 (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC) PAGE''' ]]) 23:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌. In order to have an "unlimited" number of candidates, the template would need to be completely rewritten in Lua. If you wish to implement such a rewrite, either create a draft module yourself and request one be made at WP:Lua/Requests before using edit template-protected. Thanks. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK

10th, 11th and 12th parties
The template for parliamentary elections can currently display 9 parties. However, the next Danish general election will have at least 10, likely 11 or 12, parties run. I believe the remaining parties should be shown on the sidebar before the election, while only the parties winning seats should be shown after the election. So I suggest that spots for the 10th, 11th and 12th parties are added to the template. Kaffe42 (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If there's that many parties, you should use Infobox legislative election. This election infobox is largely designed for two-way or three-way contests. Number   5  7  22:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Kaffe42 (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

New for primaries
I'm suggesting the creation of a new  of elections to be called. These two edits here and here show exactly what kind of change I'm advocating for.

I believe such change is needed for the following reasons:


 * When US primaries are ongoing (i.e. the field ), Delegate count should read Projected delegate count to make it clear that the numbers are only projections or estimates. This has already been implemented.
 * When the primaries are ongoing, the popular vote, percentage and some other fields should still be shown. This is in contrast with the other election types for which these fields are suppressed until the election is over.
 * For primaries, Incumbent (...) and (...) before election doesn't properly describe what should instead be the Previous nominee.
 * For primaries, a better description than States carried is Delegations with plurality since that includes the states, territories and DC.

It is unfortunate that for the past years the useful field  has not been used for primaries because the template is not adapted for it. I'm hoping the changes I'm suggesting might allow us to utilize the full potential of this template. I remain open to any comment or modification. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 14:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds sensible. Number   5  7  15:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * fine with me as well. Frietjes (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Great idea of a separate template for primaries. I would advocate for including caucus reults and percentage beneath popular vote so that the full "presidential preference vote" can be summarized, perhaps solving the popular vote in the infobox debate. Also a line to show the number of regions with no "presidential preference vote" -- this year the Republicans have 7 states/territories with no such vote and so no pledged delegates. Shwoodham (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the proposal here is not to create a new template, but to adapt the one currently available. As for the popular vote controversy, I'm hoping that we can skip it for this proposal so that we can make some progress on those aspects that are not controversial. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 16:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I support this, nice job. -- Bobtinin  (talk)  18:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood, and supported. Shwoodham (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I support this in general, but there are two problems with the precise wording. First off, I suggest "estimated" instead of "projected" - because a projection is a prediction of something that happens in the future (and thus violates WP:CRYSTAL) whereas an estimate is not. Second, "Delegations with plurality" is problematic because a Delegation by definition includes both Pledged and Super Delegates - there is no such thing as a "Pledged Delegation" and an "Unpledged Delegation". If this is changed to "Contests Won," it avoids this problem as this explicitly references the person who won the nominating contest, which is what we're going for in this case.PotvinSux (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right that "Contests won" makes a lot more sense (and is shorter). I also agree that "Estimated" is a better term than "Projected" but I don't think "Projected" is WP:CRYSTAL since the information is well sourced and not something we came up with. In any case, I think your terms are better suited. I'm going to go ahead and make the change since I don't think it's controversial. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 02:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Approved, thanks for your efforts! Perhaps you could add the current ongoing primaries to the test cases? Speaking of test cases, I see a problem where the primary is over and the delegate count still says "Estimated" (see last test case on the 2008 primaries). — JFG talk 02:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, you marked that test case "ongoing", and the label is correct for closed elections. Perhaps you could use the 2012 primaries as a closed test case instead of 2008, and use the 2016 as an ongoing one? — JFG talk 02:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry I don't quite get what you'd like me to do. Which test case do you mean? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 10:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

As discussed immediately above, I request these two edits (here and here). Although Template:Infobox election is not protected, Template:Infobox election/row is protected, and both edits must be done at the same time in order to work. There seems to be a consensus both from users contributing to primaries articles and users from WikiProject Elections that my edits are beneficial and not controversial. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 23:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Protection has been adjusted on THIS template to templateeditor (>9500 transclusions). This same edit request can still be used. —  xaosflux  Talk 03:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Request disabled as, due to a change in user rights, Abjiklɐm should now be able to make this edit him/herself. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Troubleshooting
The primary type currently appears to break the after_election parameter, which no longer displays. — Nizolan  (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * can you fix or revert? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually this is a feature, not a bug ;) This is the normal behavior of the template when  and it was not introduced by my changes. Compare Template:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 and Template:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 17:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, my mistake. There should be a way to add Template:navbar to the infobox without relying on after_election in that case though—having the navbar makes editing the infobox more convenient when it's a separate template (and more obvious for inexperienced editors). — Nizolan  (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Nizolan, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ARepublican_Party_presidential_primaries%2C_2016&type=revision&diff=707939177&oldid=707924129 done]. Frietjes (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! — Nizolan  (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We now have a case with Template:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 where the contest is ongoing but the winner Donald Trump is already known. An editor added him to the  field but it doesn't show up as long as  . Setting   would display it but would also not be truthful, as the primary election process will continue until the convention in July. Could you perhaps add a case   which would trigger the display of the   name as "Presumptive nominee"? This would be helpful for all such long-winded primary election processes. — JFG talk 06:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I think we can achieve the same without another option for . Simply, if   and   has a value, the field would appear and read Presumptive .... I'm currently out of town and cannot invest time in seeking consensus, updating the template and troubleshooting. Perhaps you could gather some opinions on the question, and on Monday I'll gladly make the necessary changes if there are no objections. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 10:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a very elegant solution; I think we can just boldly do it. — JFG talk 16:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. DrArsenal (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ I updated the template to allow display of a presumptive nominee; also added two test cases and . It works well in the sandbox but I need a template editor to apply to the official protected template (or give me permission to do it myself). — JFG talk 23:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done Izno (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

previous_mps
I was wondering why many of the New Zealand general election infoboxes had a parameter missing and I found the November 2015 discussion where it was decided to deprecate the  field. I've fixed the code in the infoboxes from 1978 onwards (have yet to go backwards from there) and swapped everything over to, but I don't really understand why the field was deprecated. Why wouldn't it simply redirect to the new field? I guess that many other projects had their infoboxes broken, too.  Schwede 66  19:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware the parameter called had been changed too, and I agree this was a mistake by whoever made the change to the code – there was no need to change the parameter name, and if it was changed, a bot should have been requested to change all articles using it. Number   5  7  20:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at the history log, it would appear that it's this edit by SPQRobin that introduced changes to the  field. There are a large number of New Zealand general election articles using this field; see New Zealand general election, 1975 for an example. Can this be mended, please? I don't mind whether that is by doing a bot run that swaps fields over in the affected articles, or by tweaking the code of this template. But it needs to be fixed.  Schwede  66  18:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

First party, Second party, headings
In Template:Infobox_election (article example: Australian federal election, 2016) the words "First party", "Second party", etc above the leaders' images do not seem particularly helpful, especially given that there is a "Party" field below the images. Should we remove them? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Default "no" for ongoing
The documentation says that the default value for ongoing is no but some instances where ongoing was not specified did not take this into account (I found this on page European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom), which I ). So I have now (US presidential election, 1952) to have an empty ongoing and amended the sandbox code to display the after_election and after_party. All other test cases look undisturbed. Please check my work and apply results to the live template. — JFG talk 18:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good. applied some tweaks before I synced. Please ping if there are any issues. — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 20:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thx Andy. Funny, the syntax ongoing was my first idea but then I read in Help:Template that the recommended syntax was  in order to display the default even is the parameter is an empty string, so I used that but I see you chose the simpler style and it still works. What an awful syntax, glad we have Lua modules now! — JFG talk 20:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm yeah that's a good point I suppose, but our checks for ongoing are when yes (including in Infobox election/row), so the discrepancy for the empty param case is just incidental. Thanks for letting me know though :) — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 20:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Use of bold formatting for the winner's figures
I've raised this as a result of a discussion at Talk:Australian federal election, 2016.

I notice that Infobox election includes the use of bold formatting (''') in the Usage section of the documentation but then is not consistent with the use of bold for winners' counts/percentages in the examples.

I assert that the use of bold to mark the winner's numbers is contrary to MOS:BOLD. The only reason I can see for making them bold is for emphasis - but emphasis is one of the explicit cases when not to use boldface. I suggest that the bold formatting of winners' counts/percentages should be removed from both the formatting and the examples. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wholly agree. Not only is it unnecessary, it also doesn't work properly as you can't bold the party names if using the meta templates (which I believe the vast majority do). Number   5  7  16:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Use of bold formatting is useful for cases when there is more than one winner. In that case, it clarifies who has won, and who hasn't.  Schwede 66  20:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't work properly though. You end up with some lines bolded and others not. Number   5  7  15:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Minnesota gubernatorial elections 1896-1900
I was working on disambiguation when I encountered these three election pages 1896, 1898, and 1900 in which a coalition between parties, but led by the Democratic Party of Minnesota, was headed by Gov. John Lind.

Since I could not see how to properly add the Democratic-People's Party (Minnesota) into the templating system, and I wasn't about to create a page for it, I scaled back the automatic party links and built them by hand. This "looks" right for the user, with the exception of the blank party color cells.

If someone would like to guide me, I'm willing to do more work to set this all straight, but if this is satisfactory to other editors, I'm satisfied to have knocked off another disambiguation page with links from article space.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  07:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're not going to create an article for the alliance, then what you've done is probably the best solution. If you did want to create an article and have an associated shortname and colour for the alliance, then you'd need to create templates at Template:Democratic-People's Party (Minnesota)/meta/shortname and Template:Democratic-People's Party (Minnesota)/meta/color akin to Template:Republican Party of Minnesota/meta/shortname and Template:Republican Party of Minnesota/meta/color. Cheers, Number   5  7  08:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's how it works. I don't think I would have figured that out on my own.
 * I think I'm going to leave it to some Minnesota person to dig up enough information about the coalition to create something more than a 1-sentence article.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  22:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 October 2016
Can the "States carried" string be customized? Not all countries are subdivided by "states", they can be subdivided by provinces or some other form of constituencies.HaEr48 (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

HaEr48 (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That field right now is meant specifically for US presidential elections, whose process involves winning states, as well as US primaries, for which that number sometimes matter in determining who can make it to the parties' National Conventions. In what other context do you think this field should also apply? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 12:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Disabled for now, as this requires further discussion &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

New type for general election
Before the electoral college actually votes, the ongoing election template should read "projected electoral votes" instead of "electoral votes". Or is the template already set up that way..? Prcc27🌍 (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You proposed a similar thing for the primary election (projected delegate count vs. delegate count). Do you know how to implement this change? Prcc27🌍 (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the template is not set up that way, but you bring up a good point. I don't know what's the best way to implement this. We cannot use the  parameter since it suppresses many fields like   and others. I'll check whether the   field is used by elections other than US presidential elections. If it used exclusively for the US, we can add an extra parameter, for example   which would work like  . Is it known in advance on what day the electoral college will vote? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 11:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, the electoral college always meets on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Election day is almost here. Is there any way we can implement my proposal? Prcc27🎃 (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's almost ready. Besides displaying "Projected electoral votes", is there anything else that should change before the electoral college votes? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 12:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. There's a new optional parameter, . When , it displays "Projected electoral vote". Once the college has voted, we can either change its value to   or remove it altogether. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 15:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much!!! I have a question though; since it can't be used when it says ongoing = yes, are we not allowed to use the parameter on election night? Or is the election no longer considered ongoing once projections start rolling in? Prcc27🎃 (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. For the purpose of this template, I'd say that, yes, the election is no longer ongoing as soon as we want to show popular vote, electoral votes and others. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 00:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Add optional "electoral college" percentage
I think it would be worth-wile to auto calculate this (or input). -- A Certain White Cat chi? 07:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Electoral Vote Counts Before Faithless Electors Should Be in US Election Infobox
In light of the large number of faithless electors that voted the other day, its clear that the infoboxes on American presidential elections fail to adequately address the issue. Take the 2000 election, for example: before the faithless elector, Bush won 271-267. That the top of the page says 271-266 obscures that fact that given how every electoral college jurisdiction has at least 3 electoral votes, any one state would've put Gore over the top because had he gotten exactly 270 EVs. In that case, it would've been highly doubtful Gore would've had any faithless electors. Faithless electors tend to only act when the winner/loser result is fait accompli. Therefore, I propose that the infobox at the top of the election pages has stars for faithless electors or parens after the actual count with how many faithless electors there were. It allows for a fuller and clearer picture of what truly happened when the voters went to the polls. Atrix20 (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Update template to support two-round elections
Hi, I've made modified versions of Infobox election and Infobox election/row, to be found here and here, that support two-round presidential elections such as those in France. In detail, I have:


 * Added two sets of variables, sr_vote and sr_percentage 1 to 9, that take the second-round votes and percentages
 * Added two rows to each column that display those variables if present
 * Added two rows to each column to label the first and second rounds if these variables are present
 * Added conditional indentation to the popular vote and percentage labels, which only shows if these variables are used

A demonstration of the new template can be found here, showing both a two-round version of the 2012 French presidential election infobox, as well as other infoboxes lifted verbatim from election pages to demonstrate that these changes do not change their formatting. If you do decide to copy my changes wholesale, be sure to remember to change references to "User:Quantum_Burrito/new_election_template/row" to "infobox election/row" in the main template, but no other changes should be needed. Oh, and if you're checking for alignment defects, rows beginning wit the letter "S" look like they are misaligned, but aren't. The same thing happens with the unmodified template.

Any comments or opinions on the change? Quantum Burrito (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This isn't required. Consensus is that for two-round elections, only the candidates in the second round should be shown in this infobox. The fewer people in it the better, and having five people in it really isn't terribly helpful as a summary. Number   5  7  23:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Where was this consensus reached? This seems grossly misleading as even a summary for French presidential elections, they are not two-horse races. And infoboxes for legislative elections frequently have five or so parties. Quantum Burrito (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know, it's been in place for as long as I've been editing election articles, which is almost a decade. I also don't see it as misleading. Number   5  7  23:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth in terms of changing the template, I do think this should at least be made an option. Both rounds are displayed in the infobox in the French Wikipedia, and the editors there likely know both than either of us what constitutes a for summary. Such an old consensus must be re-visited at some point after all, to ensure it is still consensus, and not just the way things have always been done. Quantum Burrito (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's the choice of French Wikipedians though, so not terribly relavant here and would lead to inconsistencies between different articles. I have seen infoboxes on other language wikis (e.g. Spanish) that are completely different to what we use. I suggest you highlight this discussion at WP:E&R if you want more input. Cheers, Number   5  7  00:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose As above. We already have a way to deal with this. Number 57, like me, has been around Wikipedia long enough to know that change for the sake of change usually adds up to not very much at all. doktorb wordsdeeds 00:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

RFC about this template
Just to put a notice here that an RFC is in progress that I think affects this template. Anyone interested can see here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Changing flags within the infobox
Hi. I am currently working on articles related to elections in Wallachia and Moldavia -- not yet saved, but I have used the editor and previewed how they might look. The problem I have is that adding "Wallachia" in the infobox creates a link on the flag in the current infobox: namely this one. The problem is that the flag there is a (somewhat speculative, reconstructed) version of the flag Wallachia used in ca. 1600, and elections took place there in the 19th century, when the flags in use were successively this one, this one, and this one. Is there a script that would allow me to link to Wallachia, but with a flag that is not anachronistic (i. e. not with the default flag in the country infobox)? I'm sure this type of problem has/would/will show up for other countries/elections. Regards, Dahn (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I worked it out. Dahn (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Code refactor
I have refactored the code to use infobox. there should be no significant changes in the appearance. a comparison with the old version can be seen in the testcases. please let me know if there are any problems, so we can add more examples to the testcases, and debug. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The infobox changes somehow made the infobox heading to be now left-aligned. For example, this. It can be specially seen in the "registered" and "turnout" fields: The figures there were all centered and now look with a left-leaning align. Concurrently, the "outgoing/elected members" fields did not look like that; those were centered, and had the arrows in the inner side (as opposed to the outer side, which is were they look now). Also, I think the font used for that section has been slightly enlarged and the section height having increased (I mean for the section where the date and the years for the previous/next election, as well as the outgoing/elected members fields are placed).
 * I don't know if those changes were intended (or if some are even relevant), but indeed, those are some changes I can see right now from the old version. Impru20 (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Impru20, I added your example to the testcases in this section. the appearance before the code refactor is in the "old" column.  it looks like the only real difference is the alignment of the data in the top two label fields.  we can definitely fix that if the data should be center aligned there. Frietjes (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the difference I spotted when I saw the change, and there doesn't seem to be any other variation. Given that it has been traditionally centered and that the old version setting has seemingly not caused any troubles, a fix would be fine, thank you. Impru20 (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Impru20, should be fixed now. Frietjes (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It isn't. This is how it looks now. Impru20 (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Impru20, all three look the same. what web browser are you using? Frietjes (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I see the first two ones equal, but they don't look the same than the third one (the old version). I usually use Chrome, but I've checked with Firefox and the issue persists so I don't think this is a browser issue. In the two first models, I see the numbers centered only with respect to the box they're within, but with respect to the whole table they're visibly off-centre and slightly to the right. The arrows in the infobox heading are still at the outer side of the box as opposed to the inner side, and the outgoing/elected members fields are still off-place (when compared to the old version). Impru20 (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Impru20, the arrow placement is the standard per template:succession links (example 5 looks better to me). the data values associated with the labelled fields are centered within the column, but since there is a label, clearly it won't be centered with respect to the entire infobox.  I made a minor adjustment and the Spain example looks the be the same for all three in my browser. Frietjes (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * (e/c) I also see a difference with the original, even after the latest change; the outgoing/elected members are offset from either side in the original, but left/right aligned immediately beneath the years in the new one and sandbox (I'm on Chrome). Number   5  7  21:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Number 57, are you just pointing out a difference between the two, or are you saying that it looks better with the outgoing/elected members skewed out-of-alignment with the other succession links? Frietjes (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Both. I think it helps separate the two sets of succession articles. I see you seem to have changed it now though? Number   5  7  22:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, after your latest changes I now see the second and third tables nearly equal (the only difference now being the arrow placement&mdash;which I really don't know how it is possible that they're different if you assure that this is standard&mdash;and that the heading section (the one including the dates and the outgoing/elected members) is slightly taller than the old version. The registered/turnout section is ok in the sandbox version, though. Impru20 (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Possible to display alternate existing attributes?
We have a situation where the popular vote is disputed; the numbers vary depending on how you count them. I'd like to display both counts which requires an alternate for each of: Is that possible with the existing template? James J. Lambden (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * popular_vote1
 * percentage1
 * popular_vote2
 * percentage2
 * You can just do that using  between the two sets of results. I don't think we need a separate parameter.  Number   5  7  17:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Flag icon
This template encourages the use of a flag icon that is contrary to the manual of style: see WP:INFOBOXUSE and MOS:FLAG. I've raised this issue in the context of the current UK general election: see discussion at Talk:United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017. I propose the template is altered to prevent use of a flag icon, or guidance is given to discourage the practice.

WP:INFOBOXUSE says, "Avoid flag icons." (bold in original). MOS:FLAG states: "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many." There's more; I recommend going to read it. There's nothing specifically on election articles, but it does also say, "Beware of political pitfalls, and listen to concerns raised by other editors. Some flags are (sometimes or always) political statements and can associate a person with their political significance, sometimes misleadingly." Election articles are, by their nature, political and flags can be powerful symbols in elections. Bondegezou (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I oppose that the use of a flag icon in this template is contrary to either WP:INFOBOXUSE and MOS:FLAG. I already stated my reasons in Talk:United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017, but to summarize them, the use of flags in this infobox is neutral (as it just reflects the country's flag at a given time). Further, manuals of style don't forbid their use on election infoboxes, and it could be argued to constitute one MOS:FLAG exceptions as they help users to quickly differentiate different country/region/town elections when looking at several election articles from different countries at once. Also, the widespread use of flags in election infoboxes (in this template as well as others) both in the en.wiki as well as other wikipedias for so much time contradicts Bondegezou's claim. Surely, he should be counted as "an editor who raises concerns" on the issue, but concerns relating the flag's presence in election infoboxes are very limited, as well as proportionally negligible when compared to the widespread practice of flags' use. Impru20 (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * MOS:FLAG was written by a small group of MOS fanatics and has little support outside of the clique of about six editors who try and enforce it. It is widely ignored, usually to the benefit of Wikipedia. The design of an infobox is about aesthetics, and I have to say it looks far better with the flag than without. Number   5  7  18:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Flag use looks totally appropriate for elections. They are events which are intimately linked to a nation, so the flag is not decorative or misleading; those are the cases that MOS:FLAG cautions against. — JFG talk 18:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 's claim that use of a flag is neutral seems somewhat questionable to me. There is a concrete issue here with respect to WP:NPOV. There is psychological research demonstrating that exposure to flag imagery has an effect on people's political views and decision making, generally shifting people to more right-wing views. See:


 * Hassin et al. (2007), “Subliminal exposure to national flags affects political thought and behavior.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(5):19757-61. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/50/19757.short


 * “The results portray a consistent picture: subtle reminders of one's nationality significantly influence political thought and overt political behavior.”


 * Carter et al. (2011), “A Single Exposure to the American Flag Shifts Support Toward Republicanism up to 8 Months Later.” Psychological Science, 22(8):1011-8. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0956797611414726


 * “We report that a brief exposure to the American flag led to a shift toward Republican beliefs, attitudes, and voting behavior among both Republican and Democratic participants, despite their overwhelming belief that exposure to the flag would not influence their behavior.”


 * Kalmoe & Gross (2013), “Priming America: Experimental Tests of Flag Imagery Effects in Presidential Elections.” APSA 2013 Annual Meeting Paper; American Political Science Association 2013 Annual Meeting. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2301127


 * With respect to some other specific arguments above, Impru20 suggests that flags are useful “as they help users to quickly differentiate different country/region/town elections when looking at several election articles from different countries at once.” While I can believe Impru20, who does so much useful work in this area on Wikipedia, often looks at several election articles from different countries at once, it does seem to me to be a common use case for the average reader of Wikipedia! describes a “clique” of “MOS fanatics”. Really? If the broader community was so keen on flags, it could re-write MOS:FLAG in a week. WP:TINC.
 * argues that usage here is not what MOS:FLAG is warning against. As I said elsewhere, if you look at the examples given at MOS:FLAG for where flag icons are appropriate, it's for when "such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself." That is, when the table has different countries listed in it. It goes on, "Examples of acceptable exceptions include infobox templates for military conflicts and infoboxes including international competitions", i.e. when you have multiple different actors involved. There is no support at MOS:FLAG, as far as I can see, for using a flag icon on its own in this manner. Bondegezou (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As it has been already stated and you yourself acknowledged, MOS:FLAG does not say anything specific to election infoboxes. You say there's no support for this at MOS:FLAG, yet it doesn't forbid this either. I as far as I'm concerned, this is the first time that I hear from someone that a MOS has to specifically support something in order to go ahead with it. You insist on military conflicts and the such, but these are put there as an example only, not as the only exception allowed (again, as you yourself reflected: "examples of acceptable exceptions include (...)". Again, you're interpreting policies and guidelines very restrictively. Election infoboxes are used specifically for given countries, and flags just reflect the countries in which those elections are held. This has nothing to do with ideology or people's view, and frankly, I see it as rather absurd that we've to neglect a country's flag just because some people may feel offended. The Nazi flag is one of the most controversial in history and it's used widely in templates relating to that theme. The use of a country's flag when that flag is used by that country is an entirely neutral and verifiable fact. This is an encyclopedia, after all, so people's emotions and feelings should be put aside. Flags in election infoboxes are correctly used to identify the country in which the election is held, so they can't be argued to be either decorative, misleading or controversial. They've a purpose and are useful, and MOS:FLAG is absolutely not against that. Impru20 (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , I really don't think I'm misinterpreting the manual of style. WP:INFOBOXUSE says, "Avoid flag icons." (bold in original). MOS:FLAG states: "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many." That's pretty clear!
 * You haven't really addressed the evidence I've presented that flags are not neutral symbols. It is not about people being offended: it is about an encyclopaedia seeking to present information in a neutral manner. Why use something that is loaded with symbolism when we don't have to? MOS:FLAG is clear that words are to be preferred to identify countries. Bondegezou (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So, would you remove flags everywhere from Wikipedia just because of your interpretation of MOS:FLAG? You've been replied by other users that they are not distracting or useless in election infoboxes, so your own claim comes down. Another issue would be that we choose to use another country's flag in an UK election, for example, but it uses the UK flag, which is that country's flag. I still can't see where it is not neutral, I've already addressed this. You had to resort to quoting authors to try to justify your case, so I don't thing MOS:FLAG is that clear in this issue or you wouldn't be interpreting it so strictly. The fact that MOS:FLAG doesn't say anything about election infoboxes (either supporting or discouraging the use of flags within them), that it doesn't categorically forbid the use of flags at every instance but allows for exceptions and that its nature seems aimed at preventing that people use unrelated flags just for the sake of it, leaves this issue open to interpretation. And so far, we can say that flags in election infoboxes have an use and a purpose and are not there just to decorate the article but indeed encyclopedic. This, and the fact that if those were so unneutral we'd have already seen some sort of major outcry or attempt at removing them, yet so far this seems only one user's claim against a common Wikipedia practice. Your views are indeed respectable, but are not supported by actual facts or evidence that flags do indeed cause so much trouble as you claim when used in election infoboxes. Impru20 (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll also add WP:ICONDECORATION as an argument backing up the use of flags. It clearly states this:
 * "Icons should serve an encyclopedic purpose and not merely be decorative. They should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation. Icons should not be added only because they look good: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction. An icon is purely decorative if it does not improve comprehension of the article subject and serves no navigational function. Where icons are used for layout purposes only, consider using bullet points as an alternative."


 * Arguments for keeping the flag within the infobox are precisely based on this: they do indeed improve navigation (by helping users differentiate different countries' election when looking at several articles at once) and they do indeed serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension (helping in a more visual country's identification at first glance. They also help differentiate different government systems using different flags: i.e. both the Spanish general election, 1936 and Spanish general election, 1977 were "Spanish" elections, but the 1936 was held under a republican system whereas the 1977 one was held under a monarchy. They're not understood as comparable elections, for instance. Just as German federal election, 1912 and German federal election, 1919; Italian general election, 1924/1934 and Italian general election, 1946; etc). And it's also curious how arguments here exposed against the use of flags don't tend to argue on whether they're a distraction or merely decorative, so even this is not an issue here. So far, the use of flags in election infoboxes doesn't constitute any of WP:ICON inappropriate uses. And WP:APPROPRIATEICONS acknowledges that these may be used in infoboxes too (though it brings a limit to the "repeated use" of an icon in an infobox, requiring it to be previously explained. This doesn't apply to election infoboxes as they don't make a repeated use of icons). So far, of the actual inappropiate uses that could've been brought to justify the removal of the flag from the infobox, none has been argued (not that any of them was of application, anyway). Rather, arguments for its removal are based only at a restrictive interpretation of a manual of style. As a result, I'm fairly sure that, by all the exposed arguments (and these were not few), the use of a flag in election infoboxes does comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Impru20 (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't want to argue about it, but I would just like to say that, to my mind, the flag makes the infobox clearer to read, easier to navigate with, and more attractive. It also very much seems to me that WP:WORDPRECEDENCE is supposed to ensure that words "should be given greater precedence over flags, and flags should not change the expected style or layout of infoboxes or lists to the detriment of words"; the spirit of that policy is to prevent a different situation from the situation that Bondegozou wishes to employ it to prevent. Dionysodorus (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Personally, I consider the use of the Union Flag at the top of the template to be suitable (per current version); while the flag's historical image and usage is stable enough that the argument of differentiating governments is fairly irrelevant (even with changes in Ireland, the flag has remained unchanged since 1801), it still provides a useful immediate figurehead to illustrate that it is a UK election, as opposed to another country. And while I agree that flags are generally quite controversial in the UK (especially when looking at the Union Flag vs constituent nations' flags), a simple single usage in this instance seems to be appropriate to me - so long as editors aren't liberally inserting them next to every MP's name (especially SNP MPs), I believe it should remain relatively uncontroversial. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Forcing Depreciated Syntax
Hey all,

I'm not sure how high up on the scale of priorities this is, but I was having a look at Category:Pages using deprecated image syntax, which keeps track of pages that use in an infobox as opposed to just stating the image name. This template, right now (and Template:Infobox election/row) actually forces users to use that format, as there is no size parameter for the candidate images (i.e. image1_size) and there is no default size. Thus you see it on pages like 1st Podemos Citizen Assembly and United States presidential election, 2016. If someone could add a default size (my preferred option) or size parameters, that would be awesome.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

To be changed to:

I've previewed this on the sandbox, and done a preview of United States presidential election, 2016's code with the sandbox, and it all checks out. The Module:InfoboxImage allows for both file syntax and just the images, so this code will If performed I can edit the Template documentation (which is not protected) to include the various image size parameters. --216.12.10.118 (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * [1] Standardize size while still allowing for variation amongst pages when it is appropriate;
 * [2] Allow users to update syntax away from the depreciated code (see above);
 * [3] Not result in any changes to existing pages (meaning pages that use this template will not be visually affected).
 * This could be a good idea. I'll eventually check if nothing breaks with this edit, or someone else can do it. One suggestion however, I think there should be an option for only using one size parameter in the reasonable case that a user wants to set all pictures to the same non-default size. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 16:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ Infobox election/row, which image n are passed to, already invokes Module:InfoboxImage. Sizes should not be set to a certain pixel dimension; upright should be used instead, see WP:IMAGESIZE. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 19:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * my fault! I should have posted the request on the Although wait ... [1] many of the images used in this template do have default sizes, because [2] this what happens if you do not set the size/use depreciated syntax (for example this is from 1st Podemos Citizen Assembly; I'll delete the examples later so we're not transcluding the template on this page). If I'm reading Category:Pages using deprecated image syntax ... we are *not* supposed to use the [[File:Image.jpg]] format. But this happens when I don't ...--137.54.34.253 (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Is the goal uniform size or reasonable size? See some examples I've added below yours. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a solid question, and I've just done some research on it, so I'll give the best answer I can. Quickly before that: I'd just note that we could possibly satisfy all worlds (allowing, but not forcing, depreciated syntax and allowing different sizes for each image) with parameters with no default (bearing in mind that this parameter, with Module:InfoboxImage, would not change the look of any pages that use this template).
 * As to your question, I sampled quite a few pages that this template is transcluded on. Most use the same image size for both images, though there are exceptions, like Scottish Parliament election, 1999, United States presidential election, 1932, and United Kingdom general election, 1966. Some pages that do specify the same size look very strange, like Newfoundland and Labrador general election, 2003. Additionally, there is almost no size consistency across pages, so not setting a default is probably the right decision. My specific goal is not uniformity; it is to allow the possibility that a user would not have to use depreciated syntax in order to set the size . Of course, I mean for this to be used on Template:infobox election/row, and once again I apologize for bumbling that request.--137.54.15.236 (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've made changes to Infobox election/sandbox and Infobox election/row/sandbox. image_size and image_upright are for all images, and image n _size and image n _upright are for individual image n. Currently 0.75 when there are two images in the row and 0.5 when there are three. Examples without any sizing parameters specified. Play around with some testcases (2, 3), and let me know if you are happy with the changes. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * These changes seem to solve the issue. Can we implement them?— TAnthonyTalk 15:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

But wait, there's more! I just found myself fooling around with those parameters but gave up before saving anything. Basically, the problem I had was that the images would only render properly as thumbs by using a pipe to a fixed width. Using upright in various configurations caused the images to render either at full size, or as a thumb which was twice as large or larger than it should have been. Also, I clicked on the link to that Podemos election article. I shouldn't have had to scroll all the way to the very bottom of the article just to find out where this election occurred. We're supposed to be writing for a general audience who may not be intimately familiar with every topic they encounter, correct? That and the overall tone of what I saw led to me to believe that we have a lot of fans of Pablo Iglesias around here, who are using the mere existence of some reliable sources to turn Wikipedia into yet another venue for strapping a rocket to this dude's back. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Captions for photos?
It appears that it isn't possible to put a caption on the candidate photos used by this template. This is problematic, since we often don't have a photo of the candidate at the time of the election.

The example I'll proffer is Nebraska gubernatorial election, 1990. We don't have a c. 1990 photo of candidate Ben Nelson, so we're using his official U.S. Senate photo, which was probably taken something like twenty years after the election. In 1990, Nelson was fairly youthful; by c. 2010, he was gray-haired and jowly.

Since the candidates' looks can play a role in the election (see Kennedy vs. Nixon, 1960), we should try to give the readers images of the candidates as they appeared at the time of the election, or let them know when we're not doing so. Unfortunately, the template doesn't allow us to add a caption like "Photo c. 2010". Could it be adapted to give this option? Ammodramus (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect automatic linking of Other as political party
Can anything be done to stop this? For exampl, as seen here: older ≠ wiser 11:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , should be fixed now. Frietjes (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Suppress "first party", etc. in parliamentary version
Is it possible to have a switch to suppress "First Party", "Second Party" in parliamentary version of the infobox. There is currently an argument discussion over at Talk:New Zealand general election, 2017 about who constitutes the sixth and seventh party, and the consensus there is to suppress the ordinal counting of parties. We currently have a work-around by placing the party name in the Leader field, but this is less than ideal. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 23:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could just remove it all together. I don't really see what purpose it serves – the order in the infobox makes it quite obvious. Number   5  7  23:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * removing the labels would be fine with me. or, we could have a noheaders option (or something like that) to suppress them. Frietjes (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's remove them and see if anyone notices/objects. Number   5  7  16:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * okay, I added "display:none" to that row. we can also completely remove the code. Frietjes (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , the desire to remove the "first party" &c. label is precisely because the NZ articles are violating the natural ordering: that is, the party listed sixth didn't come sixth. If "the order in the infobox makes it quite obvious", then we have a problem, because the infobox is now misleading. It lists 6th a party that didn't come 6th (and likewise 7th). This seems preposterous to me, but I hit a brick wall of local consensus. Bondegezou (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Home Subdivision, Subdivisions Carried, Runoff/Second Round
I have seen the "States carried" and "Home State" parameters, presumably intended for U.S. elections, also used in articles about Presidential Elections in Colombia (unitary state, the subdivisions are Departments) and Argentine (federal state consisting of Provinces, not States) elections, and in the Sri Lankan presidential election, 2015, "Home State" was used for the Provinces, while "States carried" was determined by Districts.

Also, I repeatedly saw cases (Including the Argentine election article), in which separate dates, registered voters' numbers, and turnout figures were given both to the First and the Second round, but the popular vote/percentage/states carried figure was only for the Second round.

So, can it be possible to implement these parameters?

| ongoing_second_round = | state_name = | state_plural = | district_name = | district_plural = | home_district = would appear as "Home [District]" in the wikibox, according to district_name. | districts_carried = would appear as "[District]s carried" in the wikibox, according to district_name_plural. First Round parametetrs: popular_vote, states_carried and districts_carried are, and would remain, used for the second round; if any of these parameters is filled, popular_vote, states_carried and districts_carried's titles in the infobox would switch from "Popular vote", "Percentage", "[State]s carried" and "[District]s carried" to "Popular vote (second round)", "Percentage (second round)", "[State]s carried (second round)" and "[District]s carried (second round)" | popular_vote_firstround = would appear as "Popular vote (first round)" in the wikibox. | percentage_firstround = would appear as "Percentage (first round)" in the wikibox. | states_carried_firstround = would appear as "[State]s carried (first round)" in the wikibox, according to state_plural. | districts_carried_firstround = would appear as "[District]s carried (first round)" in the wikibox, according to district_plural. | swing = would be used for the swing between the first and second rounds.

So, for example, under the new parameters, the French presidential election, 2002 article might have:

| state_name                   = Region | state_plural                 = Regions | district_name                = Department | district_plural              = Departments | image1                       = Jacques Chirac.png | nominee1                     = Jacques Chirac | party1                       = Rally for the Republic | home_state                   = Limousin | home_district                = Corrèze | popular_vote_firstround1     = 5,665,855 | percentage_firstround1       = 19.9% | popular_vote1                = 25,537,956 | percentage1                  = 82.2% | states_carried1              = 22 | districts_carried1           = 100 | swing1                       = 62.3pp

Also, since some countries have more than one elected Vice-President, Peru, for example, having two and Honduras three shouldn't there also be these parameters?

if running_mate_second and/or running_mate_third are filled, running_mate's title in the infobox would switch from "Running mate" to "First running mate". | running_mate_second = Running mates for the Second Vice-Presidents in Afghanistan, Costa Rica, Honduras, and Peru, as well as in the appropriate historical elections; would appear as "Popular vote (first round)" in the wikibox. | running_mate_third = Running mates for the Third Vice-President in Honduras as well as in the appropriate historical elections.

Glide08 (talk) 11:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with making the second set of changes you suggest. However, I do question why we actually need to have the home region/state in the infobox. It's relevant to the person but not to the electoral system. Would it not be better just to remove it completely? Also, I don't think we should be including states/districts carried unless it's relevant to the electoral system (which off the top of my team, I think is only Kenya and the US). Number   5  7  13:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Kenya, US, Indonesia, Nigeria AFAICR. Glide08 (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC).


 * Yeah, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Kenya also require a georgaphic majority (20% in half of, plurality in two-thirds of and 25% in half of.), according to https://www.constituteproject.org/search?lang=en&key=hoselect&status=in_force. Glide08 (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, I don't think we should be including the first round details in the infobox. It would be better to just remove it from the minority of articles where it is included. Number   5  7  13:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * All for more options in the infobox. I think first round details are useful to include. Home region and states carried are holdovers from a US political culture that sees these things as significant. WP:RS report them in the US, so I think we need to keep them for US elections, but we could discourage use elsewhere. The use of home constituencies in UK election articles has long seemed silly to me. Bondegezou (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Colours
Can the coding be changed to also allow party colours to be entered starting with a #? Currently this has to be omitted for it to work, but allowing colour codes starting with a # would mean party meta color templates (e.g. Conservative Party (UK)/meta/color) could be used, which would be preferential to hard-coding colours (as when the template colour is modified, all the uses would be updated). This would typically be for cases where a party runs in an election under a different name (or an alliance), meaning the party name is a piped wikilink rather than using the meta/shortname template. Cheers, Number   5  7  07:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree with the above suggestion. Mélencron (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Request: deprecate turnout & percentage, replace with VAP, VEP, & RV subtypes
Currently the infobox has "turnout" (i.e. percent of ?? who voted) and "percentageX" (i.e. percent of ?? who voted for candidate X).

The problem is that ?? could be very different things:
 * 1) voting age population (VAP)
 * This is sometimes further narrowed to citizen VAP — but note that non-citizens can sometimes vote, e.g. Canadian residents of the UK. Unqualified, I believe it should always mean total VAP, since citizenship is part of eligibility. Note that total (not citizen) VAP is what e.g. FEC reports.
 * 1) voting eligible population (VEP)
 * 2) registered voters (RV)
 * 3) turnout (total votes)

Therefore, I request that the template be changed to:
 * 1) add turnout_count (i.e. total # votes cast), voting_age_population, voting_eligible_population, and registered_voters
 * 2) calculate and display turnout (the %) and percentageX for all 3 types (as available), using turnout_count and popular_voteX as the nominator and voting_age_population, voting_eligible_population, & registered_voters as the denominator
 * 3) deprecate and flag for fixing any manually entered entry in turnout or percentageX

E.g. for United States presidential election, 2016, this would work out roughly like so:


 * mentioned here just for reference; unchanged
 * nominee1 = Donald Trump
 * popular_vote1 = 62,984,828
 * nominee2 = Hillary Clinton
 * popular_vote2 = 65,853,514


 * deprecated
 * turnout = 55.7% 0.8 pp
 * percentage1 =
 * percentage2 = 
 * added
 * turnout_count = 136,669,276
 * voting_age_population = 245,502,000
 * Note: 245,502k is total VAP & 224,059k is citizen VAP, per census reference
 * voting_eligible_population = 218,959,000
 * registered_voters = 157,596,000
 * calculated & displayed
 * (header) Turnout: 62.4% VEP, 86.7% RV, 55.7% VAP
 * (Trump) Percent: 46.1% (voters), 28.8% (VEP), 40.0% (RV), 25.7% (VAP)
 * (Clinton) Percent: 48.2% (voters), 30.1% (VEP), 41.8% (RV), 26.8% (VAP)

Sai ¿? ✍ 09:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this is highly unnecessary and a solution searching for a problem. It's pretty clear that "turnout" means "voter turnout", and we don't need any percentage vote for candidates except that of the votes. I also think adding anything to do with voting age population is usually a very bad idea, as in most cases this figure will come from somewhere else, and so its comparison with registered voters is a form of WP:SYNTH. Number   5  7  09:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Elected prime minister is not appropriate wording for parliamentary democracies
Reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_general_election,_2018 I noticed that the infobox reads "Elected Prime Minister". The Italian prime minister is never elected, not just after this election, but in general. He or she is nominated by the President of the Republic and voted in office by the Parliament (both chambers on top of my head). A parliamentary election normally triggers this process, but it is triggered more often by a "vote of no confidence" or the resignation of the prime minister. In one instance, the Prime Minister, Aldo Moro, was killed, and also in that occasion there was no need for immediate new elections. Italy has had 65 governments since 1946, but only 18 parliamentary elections (wikipedia sources). It seems that the latest election may be an instance of an election without a new government, but that would be a first AFAIK and per current President (Mattarella) public statement. Nonetheless it is legally possible that the outgoing prime minister, Gentiloni, will stay on until new elections. Trying to correct the error, I realized that no such wording is in the infobox. The election infobox template has before_election and after_election fields. But it appears that the former is rendered as "Before election" and the other as "Elected" instead of "After election" which is more generic and compatible with different forms of government. A parliamentary election template should assume a parliament is the result of the election. Only in some forms of government the executive and legislative branches are renewed at the same time, with the same election. I apologize if my note misunderstands the correct use of the infobox, as I am new to it, but on the politics my confidence is high. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.162.178 (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Which leader?
If incumbent party leaders lose their seats (or retire, etc) at the election, should they be listed as "leader#" or should their party's successor (as a result of the election) be used instead? For example, in United States House of Representatives elections, 1994, the Republican leader, Robert H. Michel, retired and the Democratic leader, Tom Foley, lost re-election in his own district (constituency). As a result therefore, Newt Gingrich became the Republican leader and Dick Gephardt became the Democratic leader. Therefore, who should be listed as Leader1/Leader2: Michel/Foley or Gingrich/Gephardt? —GoldRingChip 13:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think how we've answered that question before is that it is the person who was the leader during the election. Foley was the leader during the campaign: what happened at the end is irrelevant with respect to that part of the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with this approach – whoever was leader going into the election should be listed. Number   5  7  16:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks.
 * Then, as a follow-up question: should the Leader1/Leader2 of a past election be ordered by winner/loser of this election (ex post facto) or by status going into the election?
 * For example, in the same article as above, the Democrats were the majority going into the election but the Republicans won the majority in the election. Should, therefore, the Republican leader, Robert H. Michel, be "Leader1" even though he himself was never in the majority? —GoldRingChip 19:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The parties are shown in the infobox in the order they came in the election. The "leader" of each party is the person leading the party through that election. Bondegezou (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's a good rule to use. —GoldRingChip 21:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Bug WRT fifth party
See American Labor on the right hand side of United States House of Representatives elections, 1940 Hcobb (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The infobox is fine. The problem was at American Labor Party/meta/color, which I've now fixed. Cheers, Number   5  7  21:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

US Elections
Why not have popular vote swing between elections for each party and change in states carried in the infobox? Bomberswarm2 (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 January 2019
Please change  to. This will allow on pages such as 2017 United Kingdom general election for the note (which says that the actual number of seats for majority is lower in practice) to go after the sentence, rather than after the number. The new parameter's (majority_seats_note) use would be optional. -- Ted Edwards  18:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

add V•T•E to template
we should add the "view" "talk" "edit" buttons to the infobox, to encourage folks to contribute to improving the template.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Navbar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapmaker345 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * no, any edit link should go to the content, not to the template used to format the content. Frietjes (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Percentage seats
I think it would be useful to also display what % of seats in a parliament each party won, in addition to the % of the vote (the former being, particularly under FPTP, substantially more important.) Cripipper (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is necessary or helpful. Infoboxes are often already overly complex and this would just add to the clutter. Number   5  7  23:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)