Template talk:Infobox election

Template:Infobox election is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infobox election template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Infoboxes This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes Elections and Referendums This template is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add first and final round parameters as performed in sandbox diff. Testcase "Two round primary (found here) shows it works as intended DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 22:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DimensionalFusion:  Done. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 13:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Template:Infobox election/row has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Update row template as performed in sandbox diff to add first and final round templates. Works in testcases as at Template:Infobox election/testcases DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 22:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DimensionalFusion:  Done. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 13:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are many pages where multiple uses of this template causes the page to exceed the post-expand include size that I've had to fix in the past few years (as I write this, 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in California is the current culprit, but I recently had an issue with 2021 New York City Council election that resulted in having to revert a lot of otherwise good content). One way to reduce the include size is to reduce nested templates. To this end, I have created Module:Infobox election, which means you can use {{#invoke:Infobox election|row}} as a drop-in replacement for {{Infobox election/row}}. I've implemented this in Template:infobox election/sandbox, all the testcases seem to produce identical results, and on average it seems to reduce the include size of the template by approximately 1/3. If there is no objection, I will go ahead and implement this in the main template.

On a related issue, I'm working on rewriting the entire template entirely in Lua, which has the potential to reduce the include size by up to a further 75% (since instead of having {{Infobox election/row}} nested inside {{#invoke:Infobox|infoboxTemplate}} nested inside {{Infobox election}}, there could be just a single-level {{#invoke:Infobox election|infobox}} call), but that's going to be significantly more work. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to the implementation of the new row function in the main row template. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Election Infobox Color Bar that might be of interest to the watchers of this template. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 08:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Module:Infobox election has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change Module:Infobox election to use allow for custom labels, such as the 'Runoff' label in place of 'Final round'

DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DimensionalFusion, Pppery: I modified the code a bit so that any parameter can use custom labels by appending _label to the parameter name. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add final_round_label param. Change works in sandbox and on test case Template:Infobox election/testcases#Two-round primary Change performed DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 10:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In March a new parameter was added to the infobox (without discussion) to display an additional previous/next election link for elections held on a partial basis. It looks like this.

I think this is going to be pretty confusing to most readers given there is no explanation as to why there are two next/previous links – they will need to work out for themselves that one is for the next election to the same body and one for the next election with the same seats being elected (it took me some time to work it out).

So, questions: (a) was adding this parameter a good idea, and (b) if people want to keep it, how can it be concisely explained what the two different next/previous links mean? Cheers, Number 57 00:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57 I think adding the parameter was a good idea, as it allows people to quickly navigate to the next/previous "sets" of elections whilst retaining the ability to go to the next chronological election, even if not to the same seat.

I do think it a way of concisely explaining could be helpful. However, it's important to note that a second row of arrows is also used outside of the scenario of seat cycles, being used in articles such as 2020 Colorado Democratic presidential primary to link to the preceding and next primaries (CA/ME) to take place, as well as to link to the preceding and next instances of the same election (2016/2024) DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 15:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my view:

• (a) No, it was not a good idea. As Number 57 says, it is incredibly confusing, while I also cannot discern the usefulness of having a link to the election "next after the next" and the "previous before the previous". For navigating across the whole set of elections you typically have a template at the bottom of the article (which shows the full set of elections of a given country), whereas for individual "next/previous" elections just go to the article on the next/previous election to access the link to the election next/previous to that one.
• (b) I cannot see how it can, really.

Cheers. Impru20^talk 15:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:2024 United States presidential election, there is a discussion that was started in early June on the question of whether to use a January portrait of Trump in the infobox, or switch to a newer portrait from June. There was division between editors as to what photo should be used, and the what would be an appropriate rationale to justify either a change or retention of the status quo. However, this discussion seems to have died down.

I am posting notice here and other task forces and projects related to that article so editors un-familiar that it was taking place but interested in weighing-in can comment. After opportunity for any additional editors to comment has been given, I go to the admin notice board and will ask for any uninvolved admin to consider a closure. SecretName101 (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the last election parameter, when articles include both the vote percentage and the seats won, it is being done different ways in different article sets; some put % of vote first (e.g. 38.1%, 16 seats), some put seats first (e.g. 16 seats, 38.1%). It would be good to have a definitive approach to this.

It's always struck me as best to have the % first, both because that's how the results table shows it, but arguably more importantly because it's clearer that the % is the vote share and not the percentage of seats, which could be assumed when writing "16 seats, 38.1%". Cheers, Number 57 18:36, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "XX.X%, YY seats" because seats are ultimately derived from votes, not the other way around. I would be wary of establishing an absolute rule, but this seems to be the most common approach. Gust Justice (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, as of currently, parties are ordered in the infobox by number of seats, not by vote %. Changing the order in which this is shown would also mean that this would be counter-intuitive, and probably have implications re current consensus on infoboxes (i.e. people using the change to justify that the order of parties should be done by vote share instead, which will be a headache particularly for FPTP systems).

Further, I don't recall any major (or even minor) incident arising because of people mistaking the % share with the percentage of seats, particularly when just below the % and swing shown clearly relate to vote share. I, for myself, think that changing this across so many articles (which have used this format for decades) would be a nuisance to very little (if any) gain. Not having a strong feeling either way, but I am wary of the possible fallout of such change. Impru20^talk 10:38, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parties are ordered by seats won in the current election, not seats won in the previous election, so I'm not sure why this is relevant? On the second point I quite regularly see people filling in the percentage field with the percentage of seats (e.g. here), and there are several articles that still have this error (e.g. April 1872 Spanish general election or August 1872 Spanish general election). Number 57 14:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If for the current election you are going to put seats first, then it makes sense that the same order is preserved for the previous election. But if you change the order of the fields, then that's where you are going to have some serious issues.

Hmm but the examples you cite are a different situation, aren't they? Aside of being few (cannot see how that is "quite regularly"), these do not involve the "Last election" field at all (these pages do not even use it!) but the "Percentage" one, and indeed, relate to situations where a vote share is not available at all. That is not what you have brought up in this discussion, right? Impru20^talk 14:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was just attempting to demonstrate that there is confusion amongst some people as to what 'percentage' in the infobox refers to, hence why I think it would be better to have the % stated before seats to reduce the potential for people thinking it's the % of seats. Number 57 18:19, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see people adding the seat % to the "Percentage" field when there is no vote share % to begin with is a "confusion", but rather a fully intentional move: in those cases it is either the seat % or no % at all. We can discuss the merits of whether that field should be used or not in such cases, but that is a vastly different situation to the one that was brought to discussion here, which pertains the "Last election" field (which is left unused in the examples you cited) and involves both seats and vote share % (not the seat %). Impru20^talk 18:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the code in Module:Infobox election only shows a "First round" field if the election type is set to primary. Should this check be removed? DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 15:49, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would make it MUCH easier to insert maps for both presidential and parliamentary results. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 00:53, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This infobox is often too bloated as it is. Should we be encouraging that by implying we want more maps? We need to stop stuffing everything into the infobox, follow MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and remember we’ve got a whole article where we can display things. Bondegezou (talk) 06:12, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]