Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums

Officially non-partisan races

I think that we should record the partisan affiliation of candidates, even in races which are officially non-partisan. My reason for this is that if the candidates clearly have partisan bias, and people are voting for them based on that partisanship, why should it not be easily visible? For example, the two candidates in 2025 Mobile mayoral election were both clearly Republican and Democratic, yet because the race was non-partisan it's impossible to tell at a glance of the infobox who is who, and you have to dig into the details of the article to figure out which party won.

A helpful comparison is for historical elections: structured parties haven't existed for lots of elections, eg the 1832 United Kingdom general election was fought between the loose factions of "Tories" versus "Whigs", yet we are perfectly content with recording their political party in the infobox because that's useful information! Another comparison with the UK is that ballot papers did not include party labels until 1974, and until then voters had to just remember the name of the candidate of their party, which I suppose makes the race officially non-partisan, yet we can still display the political party of the candidate because that's relevant information

Relevant policy: Even if the race is non-partisan, if major newspapers, election guides, and academic sources regularly describe candidates in such nonpartisan elections by their partisan affiliation, Wikipedia should reflect that per WP:RS and WP:DUE.

Thoughts? Should we include partisanship even in officially non-partisan elections? DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 19:05, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

"impossible to tell at a glance of the infobox" is doing a lot of work; the article as a whole is perfectly clear which candidate was affiliated with which party; their parties are listed in the third sentence. I don't think it's asking much to expect that readers actually read. Nevermore27 (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

That's just a for-instance. Looking at the 2022 Los Angeles mayoral election, nowhere on the page is any candidate's political affiliation mentioned. This intentional on the part of the page, as the race is officially non-partisan, despite at least 3 of the 4 candidates having a registered political party DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 19:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I for one would be happy to note partisan affiliation when information is publicly available, but I don't like the proposal of dispensing with nonpartisan labels entirely. Nevermore27 (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

What about an "Affiliation" row to be used for candidates non-partisan races when they are affiliated/registered with a political party? DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 19:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

In general, I think officially non-partisan races should be displayed that way. Even if a candidate's partisan affiliation is known, the lack of a party line means there may be multiple members of the same party running against each other (and typically without any party endorsement), making the labels confusing at best and biographical information at worst (you wouldn't put an independent candidate's ideological lean in the infobox, for example). I also think this is a a bit of an Ameri-centric concern, so I don't like the idea of adopting a rule without a number of caveats, because a strict application of the rule could lead to all sorts of weirdness on other countries' elections. Some exceptions can and should be made in instances where the non-partisanship is skin-deep, eg Nebraska — elections are officially non-partisan, but state parties have a slate of candidates they endorse — but those can be worked out on a case-by-case basis. Otherwise, I think the way we do it now (tables and infobox non-partisan, but partisan affiliation, if known, mentioned in body) is ideal. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

This is where I land as well. Nevermore27 (talk) 03:14, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

If reliable sources are indicating partisan affiliation, then I think we should as well. As long as we note that the race is officially non-partisan.-- Earl Andrew - talk 02:37, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Republican Party efforts to disrupt voting after the 2024 United States presidential election#Requested move 24 September 2025

Hello, there is a move discussion at the above link which may interest members of this project. Thank you! ASUKITE 15:09, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Plural or singular lead sentence for general election

Should the first sentence in general election articles be singular or plural? Eg, for 2024 Jordanian general election:

• Option 1: General elections were held in Jordan on 10 September 2024 (currently used)
• Option 2: A general election was held in Jordan on 10 September 2024

For me, the singular (option 2) choice makes the most sense, as a "general" implies plurality. This would mean the plural general elections implies that multiple general elections are taking place when a single one is taking place. Thoughts? DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 15:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

For additional context, there was a previous post here in 2018 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 13#Use of phrase "General elections" which had some discussion but didn't really settle on one or the other DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 16:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 is correct, I've updated it. Some changes you can just make. Nevermore27 (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 for me; the plural is commonly used for single elections (for the Jordanian case, see for example [1][2][3][4]), and I think is probably more common than the singular. Number 57 20:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  Well, the sources you provide say things like "elections to the House of Representatives", "parliamentary elections" or "the elections" which are correct as plural. However, the only time "general elections" as a plural themselves are mentioned are in the context of a series of elections, e.g. "Jordan permits international oversight of its general elections" which refers to the broader running of its elections over multiple cycles. All the other times "general election" itself is singular and used to refer to the whole event DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 23:13, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I've asked this at WP:REFDESK at least twice: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2016 January 22#House of Representatives election vs. House of representatives elections and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2018 March 28#Use of phrase "General elections". Howard the Duck (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

RfC on limiting Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles § RfC on pre-emptive disambiguation in constituency article titles, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. On limiting the convention so it is only used when disambiguation is needed, i.e. Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket rather than Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (UK Parliament constituency). DankJae 20:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

How external links are presented on US elections pages

@331dot, TW929, and Yoblyblob: I came to the conclusion that on US elections pages (e.g. 2026 Alabama gubernatorial election), when there is a subheading that says "Official campaign website", having "for [Governor/Senate/Congress/Secretary of State]" at the end of each link is a) redundant and b) not always accurate to the title of the page being linked to (e.g. Nick Begich's site says "for Alaska", not "for Congress"). So in the interest of being bold, I thought it would be simpler to just have the candidate's name. There was opposition (see Talk:2026 United States House of Representatives elections in Maine), so now I'm seeking feedback. I do understand that there is some opposition for the lists of external links to exist at all as well, so maybe that can be revisited if needed. Thank you! Nevermore27 (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I am inclined to support your proposal of just the names, since the header clearly describes them as "official campaign websites." I added the comment on that page to hopefully limit further mass edits followed by reverts. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 14:37, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

• Links to campaign websites should reflect the name of the campaign, not the individual specifically. Every politician seeks to be "for" the area they seek to represent, phrasing the name of their campaign that way is just promotion to say they're better than their opponents(who are not "for" the area); it's better to treat all campaigns the same and say they are "for X office". But if we're going to change this, matching the name of the campaign is better than just the name of the person seeking office. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  • The subheading already identifies the links as "official campaign websites", and does so for each district in the case of House elections pages. Nevermore27 (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Ward Names

If a ward changes its name slightly but the boundaries effectively don't change, should the page for that ward be named after the current ward name or the name it was originally created under. TheHaloVeteran2 (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I would say current name is preferable. Previous name(s) can be noted in the introduction. Nevermore27 (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

The name should be changed with the times. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:44, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Missing wards

2011 Cheshire East Council election has only about 4 1/2 wards listed, of many. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:02, 17 October 2025 (UTC).

Can add the rest today - thanks for highlighting! Gazamp (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Our Campaigns

I know OurCampaigns.com is considered a generally unreliable source per WP:RSPSS but I was hoping contributors to this WikiProject might have some insight about what's going on there. For a while, it's had this message on the homepage: "Due to the ongoing and constant DDoS attack on the site, sub-pages may only be viewed by people with valid login accounts." First of all, who is DDoSing them and why? Secondly, how does one create a valid login account if one needs to access a subpage to create a user account? I can't see that there's any way to contact anyone associated with the site; they don't have an email address or anything listed on the homepage or any social media presence. I just want to be able to access this truly singular resource. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)