Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#WP:NOT.23NEWS

Recently ended up down a rabbit hole on Huntington, WV and stumbled on the page Recreation in Huntington, West Virginia. I'm wavering as to whether or not this fits the bill for a travel guide...I think it is, but I also fear that I might be a bit too zealous in my interpretation of the guideline. Thoughts? nf utvol (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:IMHO, yes. We do tolerate properly sourced lists of park facilities, such as List of parks in Los Angeles. That article is way, way beyond that and reeks of a wannabe travel guide. We have Wikitravel for that. That's why we don't have articles on Recreation in Los Angeles or Recreation in New York City. I would support either deletion or reduction to bare-bones bulleted lists broken into three or four articles. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::Agree with Coolcaesar, that this in large parts is a written like a travel guide (e.g. Harris Riverfront Park "After years of sluggish usage from the general public of Huntington and the Tri-State area, Harris Riverfront Park has seen a renewed interest in recent years from local citizens, city government, media and local businesses"). I would say that this page should be merged into the main article, with the waffle removed, as the main page isn't that big, or renamed as Parks in Huntington, West Virginia, and remove the non-park stuff and transfer it to the main article (again rewording so it's encyclopedic). Before you do any of this, either put a notice on the talk page for a week to gauge any opposition, or take to AFD and let the community decide.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Went ahead and took it to AFD to see what the consensus is. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recreation in Huntington, West_Virginia nf utvol (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:Please consider sending the editors of that page to Wikivoyage. The article itself could be transwiki'd, if wanted. @Pppery, I see that you marked m:Help:Transwiki as historical a couple of months ago. Where's the new process page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:: Not aware of any new formally documented process - I did that as part of mw:Project:MediaWiki documentation on Meta-Wiki as the page had been effectively historical but lacking the template since [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Transwiki&diff=prev&oldid=3134816 2011]. These days transwikiing, if done at all, is so rare that it's done ad-hoc without any standard procedures. Probably a post at voy:Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub might be warranted, though. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I have added a note at voy:en:Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub about this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• This seems to reflect the parent Huntington, West Virginia, "redeveloped into vibrant commercial space", "The city also has a wealth of architecture", and a mostly unsourced table of annual local events. CMD (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Surely everything in :Category:Library of Congress Classification violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY? Kowal2701 (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:There was consensus to merge sub-articles of Library of Congress Classification way back in 2009 but it wasn't carried out. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:That content may be better over at Commons or Wikisource, since that's all in the public domain. Masem (t) 22:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::I don't think it's an inherently problematic set of lists, but it needs some effort to add that "encyclopedic context". For example, surely there's a source around somewhere that explains why one of the groups is called "History, General and Old World" rather than "History" or "History, World" or "History, Outside of the United States" or whatever "General and Old World" means. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Does this article: List of programmes broadcast by Mediacorp Channel 8, fall within WP:NOTTVGUIDE? I've found several such articles recently, and I'm unsure how to proceed. Jdcooper (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:IMO that is either outright rejected by that portion of this policy or else rejected under wp:notability where a strict standard of wp:notability would be applied due to being very weak with respect to compliance with this policy. North8000 (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:You can find several more at :Category:Lists of television series by network. I don't think WP:NOTTVGUIDE prohibits those types of lists, but I wonder if it prohibits articles such as 2025–26 United States network television schedule though. Some1 (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

In a public election{{mdash}}to my understanding{{mdash}}a candidate has "won" when a result has been officially declared (whatever form that declaration may take).

Media tracking the election may, however, state that a candidate has "won" when a large majority of the votes have been counted and that candidate is so for ahead that their victory can be confidently anticipated. There is no intention to state that the candidate has in fact been elected. The statement that they have "won" is intended, and is generally understood, as not more than a confident prediction. It also sometimes turns out to be wrong{{mdash}}for example, postal votes counted later than the bulk of votes may remove the candidate's majority.

In Monique Ryan, in the section regarding the 2025 Australian parliamentary election, some editors have persistently taken "won" in media reports as a basis for saying that Ryan had been elected. They cite several media that are ordinarily reliable secondary sources. I have objected that this is to misunderstand the media statements: as a matter of initial understanding, not by way of any supplementary interpretation. Another editor, apparently agreeing with me, reverted the passages concerned.

In elections to the Parliament of Australia, all data about an electoral count are published, as the count proceeds, by the [https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/HouseDefault-31496.htm Australian Electoral Commission]. As I write, the AEC has not "declared" any results. However, it reports that the count in Ryan's division (Kooyong) is complete and one can see from the reported figures that Ryan has a majority of the votes. One can therefore expect that the AEC will declare Ryan to be elected. This should happen very soon, perhaps today.

The editors who disagree with me have restored the claim that Ryan has "won", one of them asserting in Talk that the election is "over". I have objected that an election is not "over" until a result is officially declared. However, since the claim will almost certainly become true in the very near future, I have not reverted the erroneous material.

I write here to seek an opinion on the following question: When, in the course of a public election, ordinarily reliable media state a candidate has "won", although there has not yet been an official declaration of the result, should WP state that the candidate has "won" (or words to that effect, such as "been elected")? Errantios (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:We are a WP:TERTIARY source and as such we follow what WP:SECONDARY sources say. We don't attempt to interpret WP:PRIMARY sources as this would consitute original research. I have explained this to you a few times. TarnishedPath^talk 00:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:We should be careful to make sure that preliminary results called by the press are stated to be that, compared to when the official election committee has declared the winner, but we shouldn't pretend that when the bulk of reliable sources immediately after the election have declared someone the winner, that we don't diminish that. That might mean saying "Smith was declared the winner of the election on election night." vs "Smith won the election." Masem (t) 02:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:I echo what TarnishedPath and Masem said. Adding to and tweaking that, when trusted sources determine that the vote is such that there is certainty that a particular candidate is successful in their bid, that is considered to be "won" by the common meaning of the term rather than saying that nobody has won until after the later process that makes it official. North8000 (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::Agree, the "won" refers to the election as a whole. Really the candidate wins when votes are cast, the counting just figures that out. It could be compared to a sports event; an athlete wins a competition when their time is the best, but also is awarded the medal at a later point. You could talk of them winning referring to both instances, or to the whole. CMD (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:I would say "when secondary sources say they won", but it would be a bit redundant as all the actual details have been covered by other editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

For election of an individual, the exact meaning of "has won" is "has been elected" and that is known only when the result is officially declared. There is no fact of "winning" until that point{{mdash}}no fact of winning for WP to record. WP should not be tracking "calls" based on current vote counts, however reliable those calls may appear to be. This is an encyclopedia, which does not consider itself to be a newspaper: WP:NOTNEWS.

Even a newspaper may adhere to that standard. Today The Guardian reported: {{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/18/centrist-nicusor-dan-on-course-to-beat-far-right-rival-in-romanian-election-exit-polls-suggest|title=Centrist Nicuşor Dan on course to win Romanian election with 99% of votes counted|work=The Guardian|date=19 May 2025|access-date=19 May 2025}} It also reported that European leaders were congratulating him on his "win", but was careful to specify that this was their "call".

On the other hand, there are cases in the recent Australian election (perhaps including Kooyong) where reputable media have reported that a candidate has "won" but have had to retract that call as more votes came in and the race got closer. As I write, in one division the leading candidates are merely 43 votes apart and waiting for a plane to arrive with about 100 votes cast overseas. (And wait, there is more! {{cite news|url=https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/teal-edges-ahead-as-libs-fear-bradfield-is-slipping-away-from-them-20250519-p5m0gg.html|title=Teal edges ahead as Libs fear Bradfield is slipping away from them|work=Sydney Morning Herald|date=19 May 2025|access-date=19 May 2025}} Errantios (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC) And more: {{cite news|url= https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2025/may/19/australia-news-live-albanese-zelenskyy-europe-pope-coalition-sussan-ley-nuclear-power-net-zero-ntwnfb|title=Bradfield independent declared provisional winner – as it happened|work=The Guardian|date=19 May 2025|access-date=19 May 2025}} "Declared", forsooth! But, beneath the headline, the "declaration" has only been by an ABC psephologist (albeit a redoubtable one) and on a margin of merely 41 votes. And now another update (amid other breaking news): after full distribution of preferences, the majority is still only 40{{mdash}}which, being less than 100, requires a complete recount of the votes in that division: {{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2025/may/19/australia-news-live-albanese-zelenskyy-europe-pope-coalition-sussan-ley-nuclear-power-net-zero-ntwnfb?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with%3Ablock-682ac5a08f0812fb97042dca#block-682ac5a08f0812fb97042dca|title=Bradfield goes to automatic recount after independent defeats Liberal candidate by 40 votes|work=The Guardian|date=19 May 2025|access-date=19 May 2025}} Errantios (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)) After counting all votes, including preferences and scrutineer challenges, there was a margin of 8 votes the other way: "On Monday, Boele was declared the provisional winner of the seat at the end of the two-candidate-preferred count, with a margin of 40 votes. The full distribution of preferences then led to minor changes in the margin as votes were challenged by scrutineers. Boele’s lead narrowed over several days until the two candidates were exactly tied late on Friday afternoon, before Kapterian nudged in front about 5pm."

There will automatically be a recount, which could take a couple of weeks. Source: {{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/may/23/bradfield-goes-to-a-recount-after-liberal-gisele-kapterian-leads-nicolette-boele-by-just-eight-votes|last=Dhanji|first=Krishani|title=Bradfield goes to a recount after Liberal Gisele Kapterian leads Nicolette Boele by just eight votes|work=The Guardian|date=23 May 2025|access-date=23 May 2025}} Not yet on the AEC website. Errantios (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Election of a government may be similar to election of an individual, as with the US presidency{{mdash}}where declaration of the result by Congress, after receiving reports from the electoral college, is normally a formality. Or it may be quite different{{mdash}}as in the UK, where the head of state makes what in principle, although only in principle, is a political choice following the declarations of individual results.

Declaration of a result is a primary source; it is a publicised statement, not requiring research. It is normally simple and clear, not requiring supplementary interpretation; so normally no recourse to secondary sources is needed. WP may rely on secondary sources that report the declaration, although direct citation of the primary source would be more reliable. Errantios (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:No, the fact of winning is already determined when the polls close. That fact is not known until ballots are counted, and is not legally acknowledged until the election authority certifies the vote, but it's still true as soon as the last ballot is in the box. As such, if reliable sources say a candidate has "won" they mean that candidate has won, not that the candidate will win when the result is certified. The certification is a legal determination of the winner of an election but isn't actually the victory itself. The victory itself is having the most votes.

:It's similar to official convictions: if A shoots and kills B, that's true as soon as it happens whether or not anyone saw it, and it's both true and verifiable for Wikipedia purposes if we have sufficiently reliable sourcing for it even if no conviction is ever obtained. The conviction is a legal certification of the fact of the murder, it is not and does not determine the fact of the murder itself. Loki (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::WP is not a newspaper, so we do not need to keep hourly progress of an election. As per WP:CRYSTALBALL, we should wait until the official results are in. At best, we could only say that newspapers are declaring the win, not that the candidate has won. But far better to just wait (and reverting any early comers).  Stepho  talk  00:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Usually, when reliable sources say that a candidate has "won" it is because the remaining votes still to be counted are so small and negligible that they may be dismissed as a margin or error and won't change the preliminary results, which can now be considered final for all practical purposes.

Let's say that by midnight after the elections in Gondor Aragorn has got 75% of the vote and Faramir 25% of the vote, with 97.8% of all votes counted. Aragorn announces his victory, Faramir accepts his defeat, "The Pelennor Times" and "The Osgiliath Post" announce the victory of President Aragorn, both parties start to prepare the presidential succession... and some days later, when the legal shenanigans have been cleared, the last votes are counted and we have the result of the complete 100% of the votes. But this time, the news is just a footnote that doesn't change anything.

As for sources, let me cite an example, the 2015 Argentine general election, with leading candidates Macri and Scioli. In an event that became a meme because of its absurdity, the TV channel C5N announced with giant fonts "Scioli has won by a wide margin" at 17:58, two minutes before voting booths were closed. Needless to say, the result was not the one they were expecting. Well, C5N ignored the procedure I mentioned earlier, and exposed themselves as an unreliable source by doing so. Cambalachero (talk) 03:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:Comment The question may have different answers depending on where and why the information is needed. If the information is needed for a list of results, it is possible that editors can use current media calls as indication of who "won" the election, even prior to certification of the election. If the question is whether a candidate should have a stand-alone page, there appears to be a desire to see an official 'call' (see the deletion discussion for Emma Comer). If we are just talking about prose, then Masem's suggestion is the appropriate one: "{{tq|That might mean saying "Smith was declared the winner of the election on election night." vs "Smith won the election."}} --Enos733 (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::We should be careful on results within the day of the election particularly if the losing candidate hasn't conceded yet. The line before we start naming the presumptive winner should be well after all polls close, the majority of the highest quality sources have called it one way, and the other candidates have conceded. WP is not a newspaper so there is no rush to state this in favor of getting it right. Just that in the months between the election and the formal process of naming te winner, then we can easily go with what sources recognize as the presumptive winner. Masem (t) 13:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Fine, so long as "presumptive" is specified. Except I wouldn't look for concession: it gets reported only when newsworthy, has no formal consequence and occasionally is withdrawn. Errantios (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC)