Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indian_politics
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Indian politics page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
India Project‑class | |||||||
|
Politics Project‑class | |||||||
|
I've written an article on Vijay Nirani. Wanted to try writing my own Wikipedia Article and came across him in the news so thought he'd be interesting to write on. Could someone help me with reviewing it, I made the first round of edits but it's been pending approval for two weeks now. Workingisnotworking13 (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
"Only those parties that are covered by Reliable Media as a major contender for winning that election are listed in the infobox." is the current criteria for adding a party to the info box. However, based on it, a few points I think should get raised are:
1. One needs to wait till opinion polls (which come just before the election often) are out to add a party to the info box. So, till then the info might not be accurate.
2. The party may or may not be covered in so called "reliable" media as few/all media outlets might try to downplay a particular party. However, the ground level scenario might be different. What to do in this case? Depriving voters of information because some so called 'reputable/reliable media' did not cover doesn't seems appropriate to me.
3. Shouldn't a party that at least won 1 seat (Not zero) in the immediately previous election be added to the info box as it can stand to either improve their seat share this election?
4. Shouldn't the sitting party in govt and the opposition party be automatically added to it? (Although any article may cover it or not) Cvrr (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Cvrr
- First, Opinion polls are just a way to see what analysis is done by reliable sources. It is not necessarily based on it. Analysis articles are also considered to determine major contenders.
- Second, There are Independent media outlets too that do unbiased analysis. And above all Wikipedia works on sourced content. If you think this is incorrect then Wikipedia is not the place for you.
- Third, If we start adding every party that got one seat in previous election then think how big an infobox can be. How many parties should be added considering this proposal in case of Tamil Nadu or Kerala. Tamil Nadu has MLAs from 9-10 parties and Kerala has from more than 15-16 parties. So shall we add all? Definitely no. So this can't be considered.
- Party whose govt is there and largest opposition party are definitely added without debate whether sources cover it or not.
- I hope I have given all your answers. ShaanSenguptaTalk 16:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Third, If we start adding every party that got one seat in previous election then think how big an infobox can be. How many parties should be added considering this proposal in case of Tamil Nadu or Kerala. Tamil Nadu has MLAs from 9-10 parties and Kerala has from more than 15-16 parties. So shall we add all? Definitely no. So this can't be considered. - I understand your concern. So, can we do something like adding those parties in case the number of parties are limited to say 5 or 6? If more than that, as you've said it is too much info to fit into the info box.
- Party whose govt is there and largest opposition party are definitely added without debate whether sources cover it or not. - Sure, but I raised this because it is better if we explicitly mention it in the criteria so that it is explicitly made clear. Cvrr (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Cvrr format is same for every page. We can't use different format for every other page. If we add now then maybe some other editor can come up that if this can be added bcoz of 1 seat why not that. This will never end. So better only to add major contenders. ShaanSenguptaTalk 17:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding the absolutist language ("Definitely no. So this can't be considered"), this needs to be couched as a personal opinion rather than fact. Personally I don't see the issues with adding 9–10 parties to an infobox or even 15–16. This is pretty normal for election articles for numerous other countries which use {{Infobox legislative election}} – see 2023 Dutch general election (15 parties) or 2022 Danish general election (16 parties) as an example. This infobox was designed for countries where large numbers of parties win seats in parliament – which is a category India fits into. I think the issue is more resistance to change. Number 57 18:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Wow! This template {{Infobox legislative election}} is brilliant. It addresses all my concerns. I think we should be able to go ahead with this. Any concerns? @Shaan Sengupta Cvrr (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Using this infobox is completely ok. It's just that personally I don't prefer it because it doesn't have party symbol or leader image. If you want to go ahead with it you can. ShaanSenguptaTalk 02:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sure @Shaan Sengupta, I understand your concern about party leader image and party symbol. So, shall we go back to what I suggested? Using the old infobox for parties upto 5 or 6, but if they are more than 6 we'll use this infobox? {{Infobox legislative election}}
- This way when the parties are less in number we'll have more information and when the number of parties exceed a threshold, the information can be condensed by using the other infobox. What do you say? Cvrr (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- I gave my concerns. I leave the rest on you. Also I leave this discussion. You do what you think is right. Just keep it mind it doesn't defy rules. Happy editing. ShaanSenguptaTalk 05:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sure @Shaan Sengupta. Thanks a lot for participating in this discussion and giving your valuable time & opinion.
- I believe that using the current infobox if the number of parties to be added is less than or equal to 6 is fine. However, if the number of parties to be added crosses that threshold, we should use {{Infobox legislative election}} so that the information is not cramped up.
- Thanks to @Number 57 for bringing up {{Infobox legislative election}} infobox template. That is very helpful in Indian context where we tend to have a lot of political parties.
- Thanks All!! Happy editing! Cvrr (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- I gave my concerns. I leave the rest on you. Also I leave this discussion. You do what you think is right. Just keep it mind it doesn't defy rules. Happy editing. ShaanSenguptaTalk 05:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Using this infobox is completely ok. It's just that personally I don't prefer it because it doesn't have party symbol or leader image. If you want to go ahead with it you can. ShaanSenguptaTalk 02:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Wow! This template {{Infobox legislative election}} is brilliant. It addresses all my concerns. I think we should be able to go ahead with this. Any concerns? @Shaan Sengupta Cvrr (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding the absolutist language ("Definitely no. So this can't be considered"), this needs to be couched as a personal opinion rather than fact. Personally I don't see the issues with adding 9–10 parties to an infobox or even 15–16. This is pretty normal for election articles for numerous other countries which use {{Infobox legislative election}} – see 2023 Dutch general election (15 parties) or 2022 Danish general election (16 parties) as an example. This infobox was designed for countries where large numbers of parties win seats in parliament – which is a category India fits into. I think the issue is more resistance to change. Number 57 18:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Cvrr format is same for every page. We can't use different format for every other page. If we add now then maybe some other editor can come up that if this can be added bcoz of 1 seat why not that. This will never end. So better only to add major contenders. ShaanSenguptaTalk 17:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, can someone join me in this discussion to help me figure out what is the status of some of these legislators from the 15th Andhra Pradesh Assembly, especially when they have left the party (initially won) to join the other but haven't officially considered by the Speaker since that would have disqualified them from the party as per the anti-defectipn law. Now while some of the legislators party is reflected in the article, the others isn't. It is quite confusing and I seek your comments. Thank you. 456legendtalk 01:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I have all the Indian general election articles on my watchlist, and I see endless edit warring on them, primarily over (a) which parties to include beyond the main two and (b) images of party leaders.
Can I suggest than Indian general elections adopt {{Infobox legislative election}}, which allows all parties to have won seats to be listed and has no images of party leaders, which should end the edit warring? As an example this is what the 1967 election article could look like (although it would need someone to fill in the missing party leaders). Despite listing all 20 parties, it takes up less space than the version with only five parties. It also has the advantage of avoiding using images of party leaders like this, which always looks a bit odd.
It is also possible to split the infobox up into national parties, state parties and other (like this). Cheers, Number 57 14:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Just a a follow-up to this – edit warring over the infoboxes of historic elections seems to have markedly increased in the last few weeks – constant changes of leader photos and removals and additions of certain parties. Does anyone have any objections to this being rolled out across the general election article series? Number 57 20:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- No objections to this suggestion. It seems like a good idea to prevent edit warring. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I am in favor of this approach only until the results are declared. But once the results are declared, I would like to include only the notable and winning parties in the infobox. As for historical elections, we must enforce the rule:
The major contenders should not be removed from infobox after the results are declared even if they get 0 seats, because they "were" the major contenders "during" the election.
It would be beneficial to discuss and document who the major contenders were during an election (all the Indian historical general elections), in my opinion. Maybe this could be achieved by setting a realistic standard? - 456legendtalk 02:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Firstly, there is no "rule" that must be enforced. But more importantly, the whole issue is that no-one can decide what "notable and winning" parties are, hence the endless edit warring over which parties to include. In some cases very small parties are "winners" because they are part of the winning coalition. Keeping the existing infobox format also doesn't end the endless edit warring over leader images. What is your issue with just including all the parties in the infobox? Number 57 11:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- India is a country with huge number of political parties and including all of them in the infobox will only make it very lengthy and might not be suitable for the reader to focus their attention on the election highlights. I don't think hosting information regarding all the parties contesting in the election on the infobox even after the election results declared is feasible. Regarding the criteria on "notable and winning", I am of the opinion that a maximum of 4 parties should be allowed to be on the infobox provided they have secured 3% of vote share with atleast 1 seat in the election. (This is a ideal case that they are treated notable when they are contesting in a election in a state or in the general. There would be a huge probability that they are covered by the reputed and reliable sources.)456legendtalk 17:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian politics/Election: Article structure. We can use Infobox legislative election too. So, don't edit war and remove this from Kerala and Tamil Nadu লাল সেলাম কমরেড (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- India is a country with huge number of political parties and including all of them in the infobox will only make it very lengthy and might not be suitable for the reader to focus their attention on the election highlights. I don't think hosting information regarding all the parties contesting in the election on the infobox even after the election results declared is feasible. Regarding the criteria on "notable and winning", I am of the opinion that a maximum of 4 parties should be allowed to be on the infobox provided they have secured 3% of vote share with atleast 1 seat in the election. (This is a ideal case that they are treated notable when they are contesting in a election in a state or in the general. There would be a huge probability that they are covered by the reputed and reliable sources.)456legendtalk 17:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Firstly, there is no "rule" that must be enforced. But more importantly, the whole issue is that no-one can decide what "notable and winning" parties are, hence the endless edit warring over which parties to include. In some cases very small parties are "winners" because they are part of the winning coalition. Keeping the existing infobox format also doesn't end the endless edit warring over leader images. What is your issue with just including all the parties in the infobox? Number 57 11:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I am in favor of this approach only until the results are declared. But once the results are declared, I would like to include only the notable and winning parties in the infobox. As for historical elections, we must enforce the rule:
- No objections to this suggestion. It seems like a good idea to prevent edit warring. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree with just like 2022 Italian general election লাল সেলাম কমরেড (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
A lot of surveys don't mention their margin of error, there could be even surveys without margin of error as they are confident enough about forecasting the exact numbers in the result. If they come from reliable sources and renowned news agencies, I think it still can be added with mentioning N/A for margin of error. For pre-poll surveys, I thing the numbers are the most important things. Any unreliable survey-conducting agency can also publish the datas with mentioning the sample size and margin of error. Hence I think things like margin of error are not must-need-things, the reliability of the publisher should be the criteria. What are the views of you guys about this? Ku423winz1 (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I see your point, but I tend to disagree. While I agree that the reliability of the publisher is crucial, I believe that including the margin of error is essential even for confident forecasts. This transparency helps readers understand the certainty of the survey results and allows for a more informed interpretation. Also including the sample size is important. Overall, I think both the reliability of the publisher and the inclusion of the margin of error are important factors in assessing the credibility of survey data. 456legendtalk 11:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)