Wikipedia talk:Articles on elections

Dont you think "Boring" is NPOV??? -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Sort of. But the point of that section is to say "look, there are many boring details to cover, try to cover them the way these do."  If you think you can say it better, by all means go ahead.  Look around for what each election page is really good at, that is, what is the hardest thing about that election to cover.  For instance for the BC general election, 2005, as usual in wacko BC, it is the 45 parties most of which consists of one guy off his meds.


 * Neutrality is not always "boring" - sometimes colourful contrast makes for the most accurate picture. Since BC politics is actually not boring it is deceptive to cover it as if it is.  Perhaps the best thing to do is to put one strange campaign promise from each of those minor parties into the article.  ;-)

Why why why...
Are all Legislative elections called "Parliamentary", even when they use a Presidential System, or explicitly call themselves "Congress" or something like that? 68.39.174.238 14:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Enforceable?
Is any of this enforceable, or is it just an overview of the topic, and some suggestions about how to approach it?--Father Goose (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This smells like an essay to me, and I believe that marking it as a formal guideline would just be WP:CREEP. SDY (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'd say that it's more like an essay myself. What I'm sure of is that it's not a style guideline, which is how it was previously categorized.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess it's just one we overlooked. I'll mark it as an essay for now, since although it gives guidance, it doesn't look to be a guideline in the way that Wikipedia uses that term, namely a rule.--Father Goose (talk) 02:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)