Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Use of "Nonpartisan" in nonpartisan elections

We should have standardized templates in these sections. Of course, due to differences in electoral systems, there should be differences, but not a lot. Also, Americans have their own thing going on and they should probably figure out what to do, as Democratic Party (United States)#Recent electoral history and Republican Party (United States)#Recent electoral history try to combine legislative and presidential results in one table, then another presidential table. Ideally these should be three tables.

Also, these should abide by MOS:COLOR and MOS:COLHEAD. This means color should probably be restricted just to one column with minimal text (the "Results" column with won/lost/coalition), and to the composition bar, and should not be on cells where the text is extensive enough (i.e., like a name of a person or a party), more so if there are links.

We should also standardize if section titles are "President" or "Presidential" or "Presidential elections" or something else.

FPTP elections:

• Institutional Revolutionary Party#Presidential elections 1929–2024 is a good starting point, but there's a notes column where notes are quite long and should be on the prose or be abandoned altogether.
• Liberal Party (Philippines)#Presidential elections has an outcome column that is probably not needed as there is already a results column.
• There's also an ugly post-1987 section if you scroll all the way down LOL.
• Democratic Party (South Korea, 2015)#President looks best and should be the standard.

Runoff elections or more:

• Workers' Party (Brazil)#Presidential elections has a coalition column which may be necessary but can be distracting.
• The Republicans (France)#Presidential looks best and should be the standard.

FPTP elections:

• Labour Party (UK)#UK general election results also has a position column (which may not be needed), the result section has more words (rather than just won/lost/coalition, etc.)
• Liberal Party of Canada#House of Commons looks best and should be the standard.

Runoff elections or more:

• The Republicans (France)#National Assembly has probably an unneeded rank column (ranks are important per constitutency, but for national results this doesn't mean anything) but should otherwise be the standard.

STV elections:

• Sinn Féin#Dáil Éireann elections has probably an unneeded rank column (ranks are important per constitutency, but for national results this doesn't mean anything) but should otherwise be the standard.

Mixed-member proportional representation/parallel voting:

• Liberal Democratic Party (Japan)#Legislative results has probably an unneeded "No. of candidates" column, and the seats columns are to the left of the votes column. Otherwise this should be okay.
• Institutional Revolutionary Party#Congressional elections has columns for who is holding the presidency (head of state), which may not be needed, and may be confusing as it can refer to the person presiding the chamber. Again, this seems to be emulating the U.S. tables.
• Christian Democratic Union of Germany#Federal parliament (Bundestag) looks best and should be the standard.

Howard the Duck (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Staggered elections

• For staggered elections, aside from a "Seats won" column, there should also be a "Seats after" column. See for example Liberal Party (Philippines)#1946–1972 (just ignore the ugly mess that's post-1987; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal_Party_(Philippines)&oldid=1254434242 this is how it looked like] before that). Howard the Duck (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Negative responsiveness#Requested move 16 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I am wondering what the protocol is for making pages for electoral wards that were originally single wards, then merged with other wards only to become a single ward aagain. For example eastcote ward of Hillingdon London Borough Council. It started out as a seperate ward then became part of Eastcote and East Ruislip ward in 2002 and then became a single ward again in 2022.

Should the name be Eastcote (ward) for the first idnependent ward the Eastcote (2022 ward) for the second or should it be one page and just mention both time frames within the page? TheHaloVeteran2 (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:It seems revived constituencies have separate articles. See, for example, Cardiff East (UK Parliament constituency) and Cardiff East (1918–1950 UK Parliament constituency). Howard the Duck (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:I would recommend a single article rather than two, particularly at the local level instead of Parliament where more coverage exists. But I don't think local electoral districts should generally have standalone articles either. Reywas92^Talk 00:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::US state legislatures have articles about specific districts like California's 1st senatorial district for the California State Senate (contrast to California's 1st congressional district for the US House of Representatives). Staying in California, there are articles about Los Angeles City Council districts, such as Los Angeles's 1st City Council district, which is rather well developed.

::If WP:GNG can be found on local constituencies, nothing is holding back a person from writing an article about it.

::Staying on the original question though, in numbered districts, the article remains about the numbered district even if the actual places had changed. For example, in California's 1st congressional district, at its earliest it was mostly centered in southern California, then to San Francisco, then the Bay Area, northeastern California, now it's at northwestern California; it's been all over the state. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::In Canada, revived constituencies always go in the same article, unless the boundaries are radically different (and even then, this hasn't always been the case). I don't see what the need is for multiple articles. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:What do reliable sources do? CMD (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)