Jump to content

User talk:Number 57/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18

Page moves

Hello, Number 57,

I see you are changing some of Ruling party's dozens of page moves today. Is there a problem here? Just wondering if a word is needed. Liz Read! Talk! 19:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: I think it's fair to say they have a bit of a history of making mass moves that are rather rash. Whether it's because they are unfamiliar with standard article titles (they are still a relatively new user) I am not sure. However, this is not the first batch of article moves of theirs that I've had to undo. Some of the moves today (the Serbian ones) were particularly problematic, as the titles were just wrong (the National Assembly elected in 1990 that they moved to 1st National Assembly of Serbia wasn't the first National Assembly, as Serbia had a parliament named the National Assembly from the 1800s until WWI. Had it been another user I might have left a message on their talk page, but I've had some quite negative (and tiring) interactions with them that I didn't want to repeat. Cheers Number 57 19:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Understood. Last month I came across a lot of empty categories they had created before they realized that the category titles were incorrect. That was when they had just started editing. Until this morning, I didn't know that there was a database report on editors who were doing a high number of moves where I stumbled upon both of your activity. If I understood the field of international political parties and assemblies, I'd know where to start but I am unfamiliar with judging what they are doing right and what is wrong. Thanks for spending your time correcting their errors. Liz Read! Talk! 01:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

So, I am wondering about infoboxes...

I noticed you are an admin and are listed as a member of WikiProject Elections and Referendums. I need to know if what I am saying at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#So....infoboxes... and at Talk:2021 United States gubernatorial elections#Images in infobox is reasonable. My concerns are the infoboxes. How the infoboxes are constructed, how the infoboxes present information, at 2021 United States gubernatorial elections and in other articles in the US gubernatorial election series... they are not following MOS, in that they are not summaries of the key details in the various articles. Frankly, I am not sure these particular infoboxes quite make sense to our customers, the general readership of Wikipedia. Anyway, would welcome your input. Feel free to message me on my talk page if you wish. Shearonink (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Shearonink: Election infoboxes don't have to contain images or indeed party leaders – unfortunately a number of editors are obsessed with having an image (in my experience this has been the main reason for opposition to switching to {{Infobox legislative election}} for parliamentary elections).
I would suggest the best option for this particular article is to remove the image, leader and leader's seat and just leave 'Seats before', 'Seats up', 'Seats won', 'Seat change'. Alternatively, you could retain the image field, but use the party logos instead (I have seen this done for a few elections). Number 57 08:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

April Fools

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Users for Deletion regarding a possible conflict with which you may be involved. Thank you. Idan (username is Zvikorn) (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

2021 Delhi sikh committee elections

Dear user this page is important as nearly 2M people of Capital city of India i.e. Delhi will vate for it and more then 30M people will be affected by it. So remove this page from deletion Alluburam (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

2020 Singaporean general election

Hello Number 57, I do not wish to bludgeon the discussion there, but this is a interesting discussion nonetheless. You had said that "it was written with naturalness in mind, and the adjectival form fits better in the format than the noun form". Would that not mean that the vast majority of sources not using the adjectival form constitutes the non-adjectival form as the natural form instead? This is precisely the issue I am raising. Seloloving (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The most important thing for me is having consistency. We use adjectival forms for election article names unless there is an issue with the adjectival form, and it is clearly not an issue here. Number 57 21:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
There's where our points divulge as I believe there is indeed an issue which I have raised, while you feel it does not constitute one. Nevertheless, I will stick to community consensus and appreciate your opinions, thank you. Seloloving (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Revert

Revert you're moves of National Assemblies of Serbia... Why do you think the Serbian WP titles them 8th National Assembly of Serbia, 9th el cetra? Because its their official names [1].

Stop vandalising WP. YOu know very little of you're doing! --Ruling party (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

You're argument is also laughable.. This argument "This is a list of members, not an article on the Assembly" is not a defence.. Than in best scenario (seen from you're perspective) the titles should be "Members of the 20th National Assembly of South Korea" instead of made up name! --Ruling party (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
If you think reverting your moves is vandalism, then the issue is worse than I thought. Next time I see a rash mass set of moves made by you, I'll be requesting a move ban at ANI. Number 57 12:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
its you're way of being Number 57 that is the problem. For instance, you haven't responded to criticism I outlined above. You have two options; 8th National Assembly of Serbia and Members of the 8th National Assembly of Serbia or go with an entirely made up name... You choose the made-up name. --Ruling party (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
The existing title is preferable as the eighth National Assembly of Serbia was elected sometime in the 19th century, not in 2008. Number 57 19:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

1951 French legislative election in Algeria
added a link pointing to Democratic Union
Highvie Hamududu
added a link pointing to Choma

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Rangeblocks

I blocked a few ranges related to the ANI thread you recently posted. Would you mind taking a quick peek at them and letting me know if any of them look like too much collateral damage? I don't know enough about the topic area to determine how constructive the edits are, or which fit the pattern of the disruptive editor harassing you.

93.143.96.0/19
93.137.0.0/20
93.140.128.0/20

Thanks, OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: It does look like them. They appear to be based in Croatia, but largely edit Asian football stuff. Cheers, Number 57 10:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Use of suboffice in Officeholder infobox

Hi, thank you for your contribution to the discussion of the use of the suboffice attribute on the Officeholder infobox for Irish ministers. We are probably close to a consensus for using it for Ministers of State only, but not cabinet ministers. Do you know what the take-up of this feature is in general so far across Wikipedia? Thanks, Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

It's used for virtually all Israeli politicians, but that was because previously they had {{Infobox member of the Knesset}}, which laid out the info in that way. The primary reason for the introduction of the suboffice/subterm parameters was the TfD that resulted in it being merged into {{Infobox officeholder}}. I am not sure about its wider use, although there was a discussion on the template talkpage that might give you some clues to its usage for other countries' politicians. Number 57 11:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful background context. I think it is overall a better way of displaying information helpfully to readers, but I won't rush into a change either without consensus. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
@Iveagh Gardens: I wholeheartedly agree – once you have more than two or three positions, the officeholder infobox is not an effective summary, particularly as it has so many parameters and many editors are either unaware of or unwilling to comply with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE... Cheers, Number 57

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1995 Georgian presidential election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Independent.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1961 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

A tag has been placed on Category:1961 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 14:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:AFC Varndeanians F.C. players

A tag has been placed on Category:AFC Varndeanians F.C. players requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Greenland election diagrams

Yes I notice that, but I didn't made those particular graphics. I'll see if I make others with the English template colors. --Elector Factor (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Centramerican election

Hello. What do you think of making a separate line for election to the Central American Parliament in each of its six members election template? In the same way that we have one for european election in european countries.--Aréat (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Albanian Elections

KQZ. Dude, it is in the list above on the counties list Bes-ARTTalk 18:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bes-ART: The page won't load (taking too long). However, KQZ says 'Numri total i zgjedhësve në list: 3588869'. So why the difference? If you want to add different numbers, you have to provide another source. Cheers, Number 57

Question on Party Switching

Hi! I'm currently the main editor on the 2021 Bolivian regional elections article. Recently, one of the elected governors announced that he had switched parties. Ordinarily this wouldn't be an issue but in this case he had not yet taken office.[1] My question, then, is whether his new party Adelante Pueblo Unido (APU) or his old party Jallalla La Paz should be marked as the winning party? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Krisgabwoosh: I would list it as the party he ran under; I think listing the party that they switched to post-election as the winner would be misleading. The subsequent defection can be noted in the prose somewhere. Cheers, Number 57 15:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
That makes sense. Thank you very much! Krisgabwoosh (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Santos Quispe rompe pacto con Jallalla La Paz; Chui habla de traición". www.paginasiete.bo (in Spanish). Retrieved 2021-04-30.

Need a bit of help on Belgian elections

Hey there,

I noticed you're an admin that does election pages and was wondering if I could get some guidance on the full results tables of the recent federal, regional and European elections. I've been going through Belgium's election pages and it's just a whole mess that needs fixing. I want to make the tables simplified, somewhat similar to the 2019 federal election results tables, but it seems the years ranging from the late 1990s until 2014 have these separate template pages for their results. Is it possible to get these templates removed and then replaced by the simpler ones like the one that I mentioned without causing any trouble? A signal of whether to go-ahead or not is sufficient for me in regards to that question.

Also, if you have by any chance some resources or links to their election results that would be great. The references to these results are all confusing as well so I'm trying to gather whatever sources I can get.

Hoping to get your reply. Kirill.alx (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kirill.alx: You don't have to worry about deleting the templates – you can just replace the template with a table hardcoded on the article and the templates will eventually be deleted as unused. It's also worth checking whether the tables are used elsewhere. If they are, you can replace them with a copy of the table on the main article using the code {{#section-h:XX|Results}}, where XX is the article name and by putting onlyinclude tags around the results table (see e.g. 12th Parliament of Singapore#Result of the 2011 Singaporean general election, which calls the results table from the 2011 Singaporean general election article).
Also, with regards to the format, there is a new results table template ({{Election results}}) to try and get results tables in a consistent fashion all across Wikipedia (I'm slowly going through countries adding it – I have done Luxembourg and the Netherlands but not yet Belgium). I've added it to the 2019 article so you can see how it works. If it helps, I have an excel sheet that you can paste results tables into and it spits out most of the code for the new style of table (it really speeds the conversions up for me). If you email me, I can send you a copy. Cheers, Number 57 22:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
That's good news! It's good to know that there's a new results table template. It's pretty much needed at this point. And I would love to have the excel sheet! I definitely want to have a go at Belgium's election results at this point since I just finished cleaning up the work of the election results per party in their respective pages. What's your email by any chance? I'll contact you from there Kirill.alx (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
@Kirill.alx: If you go to my userpage, you can click on "Email this user". Also, I forgot to say that the best source for pre-2007 elections is this, which has full results for all elections prior to 2007. This for 2007 elections, and I'm sure you can find official sources for the more recent ones.
The template is pretty handy as it automatically calculates the percentages and totals, which has helped me identify quite a few typos in old results tables (because the total of what was in the table doesn't match what it should be). Number 57 22:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Awesome! Thank you for the links! I've emailed you as well Kirill.alx (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
@Kirill.alx: I've tried adding a mid-table header row to the template (see here). Do you think think this might be useful for the elections by college, or are the other solutions (using the coloured row or the cand/dsv combination) better? The one thing that makes me slightly unhappy about this is that the percentages are still for the total. I wonder whether another option might be to get two consecutive tables to fit together, which would enable something like this). I am not sure how to do this, but I'm sure one of the Lua experts could suggest how. Cheers, Number 57 22:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@Number 57: Hey I just saw this only now, my apologies for that!; I think the second option works the best personally. It could be like where the first two separate tables won't need the valid votes and the other information but at the third table, it would be included at the very bottom for the purpose of just tallying up everything (i.e. the votes which they received without ruining the percentages by whichever group/table it belonged to) which includes the first two tables. I think that this might be the best possible way to deal with it. Let me know though if you find a way to do that! Kirill.alx (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Request to edit Template:Infobox officeholder]

Can you please add the field | servicenumber= under Military service category in the Template:Infobox officeholder. Many article have this field in the source for the infobox but is not shown in the article due to unknown parameter. So please add it. :-) Soap Boy 1 (talk) 07:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Laulu Fetauimalemau Mata'afa.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Laulu Fetauimalemau Mata'afa.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Schwede66 01:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your message.

I presumed that Wikipedia liked citations - I had made an effort to try and update clubs pages where they were incorrect - in particular managers - which I note have all been removed. As the only website that will realistically cover managerial changes at the likes of Chalvey Sports and Sandhurst Town I don't really see what the harm is and you acknowledge FiB as a reliable source - we regularly share stories from other publications (Bracknell News, Maidenhead Advertiser, Wokingham Paper etc) on our social media channels so we are certainly not blinkered in that sense and if I was able to add them as suitable citation I certainly would. In relation to the Mick Woodham/Staines Town link - I couldn't be a more reliable source given that Mick rang me the day before to tell me it was happening.

I was happy to update the articles as a local expert (the Staines Town listing even says it requires citations) and provide citation links but if this is wrong or against guidelines then I will leave the updating to other people and concentrate on Football in Berkshire.

Thanks, Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomCanning1983 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

RE: Lancing F.C.

I am in the process of gaining more information from the club about the team and players. Shall update accordingly. I find your comment about a "non-notable" football team bizarre. Who has the right to proclaim something notable or non-notable. The club is important to the local community and quite frankly, who does it hurt to add more data to the clubs Wikipedia page?

If you aren't interested in the club, don't visit the Wikipedia page. Nothing inappropriate has been added to it and would ask you to desist from removing content which is valid to the club from it's page.

Regards,

Thomas User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk 16:13, 13 May 2021 (GMT)

I didn't say the club was not notable, I said the players were not notable (which they are not, according to Wikipedia guidelines). It's your view that the player list is valid content, but I don't think it is, and I would not add it to the article of the non-league club I support.
I'm also a little worried that in your time on here you have somehow not picked up on some quite major points. Given your comment about "Who has the right to proclaim something notable or non-notable", are you actually aware that we have notability guidelines? Or that what is important to a community is irrelevant to what should be on Wikipedia, and "who does it hurt to add more data" is a classic argument to avoid (so much so that we have WP:DOESNTHURT). Number 57 16:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Election results table

Hey there. I was supposed to ask this a couple of days ago but I've been reminded again after I was reading through the talk page of the 2021 Scottish Parliament election. Is there any chance we could get a swing vote change column on both the constituency and regional votes? I looked through the test cases for the template and found no sections dedicated for MMP systems. Hoping you can find a way to address this so that this can be used for countries like Germany. Cheerio Kirill.alx (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kirill.alx: It can be done, but probably has to be both or neither, otherwise it adds even more complexity.
On a related note, when you add the swings, could you do them to the same decimal places as the percentages, otherwise I think it looks a bit odd (the Bulgarian ones you updated had 2dp for the percentages and 1dp for the swings). Number 57 18:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer having no swings because of complexity but I do understand the concerns they have since other elections have swing changes whilst MMP ones don't. So I think it would be better to add swings for percentages for both constituency and regional, but I oppose adding a seat change column on both since that's just unnecessary in my opinion.
That can be done. I'll update them in a bit but I just happened to copy the swings as provided on the tables and completely ignored the fact that it was only at one decimal point. Thanks for noting that! Kirill.alx (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@Kirill.alx: Nearly done (see here). Just one issue I cannot get my head around (the second round swing total character ('–') appears in all other tables, but I have asked a Lua expert for help – hopefully should be resolved soon. Cheers, Number 57 15:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@Number 57: Looks fantastic! Let me know once the issue has been resolved. Thanks very much for all the hard work! Really appreciate it man :) Kirill.alx (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@Kirill.alx and Erinthecute: Now complete; Erin, the election results template can now do two round/vote parliamentary elections with or without the swing parameter (see Template:Election results/testcases#Seats in each round in the testcases page or 2021_Senedd_election#Overall for an implemented version). If using the swing parameter, it will appear for both sets of votes, as the template cannot (currently) handle an imbalanced version with three columns on one side and four on the other. Cheers, Number 57 19:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
That's excellent, it works really well. The only minor issue I can see is that swings for valid and invalid votes and turnout display in "total seats" column. Putting in separate valid/invalid swings for both votes is probably an unnecessary level of detail, so I don't really care about that. As for turnout, it's not a big deal with for example Germany where turnout for both votes is always the same, but I noticed that turnout values are different for the Senedd election, so having separate swings may be necessary there. Erinthecute (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@Erinthecute: I hadn't yet got round to fixing how the valid/invalid/turnout swings are displayed (as it's not frequently used), but will have a look at it today. Number 57 10:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@Erinthecute: Actually it was really quick to implement – see Template:Election results/testcases#Swing in each round. Let me know if you come across any other anomalies that aren't picked up in the testcases. Cheers, Number 57 10:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Largest cities of Israel

Template:Largest cities of Israel has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

English Football Updater

Hi there, i've just created an article for Forest Row F.C. who are playing in the Southern Combination League. In the English Football Update, its stated they played last season in the Middlesex League, this is incorrect, they were in the Mid-Sussex Football League Premier division. EddersGTI (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@EddersGTI: Corrected. I must have been confused by the FA's abbreviations. Number 57 14:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@Number 57: Thank you, are you able to check if Forest Row F.C. and Montpelier Villa F.C. articles are sufficient for Wikipedia? There is very limited information on them that I could find. EddersGTI (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@EddersGTI: They are a bit weak and you should aim for significantly more text when publishing; I have expanded the Forest Row one a bit and I'd recommend you do the same with the Montpelier Villa one – they have a decent honours list, so you should be able to write that into some prose. A few other tips:
  • Non-free images cannot be more than 100,000 pixels in size, so a 400x400px image is way too large. You should crop the image to avoid all the whitespace around it, and then shrink the bits you need enough to make it under 100,000px in size.
  • You shouldn't leave spaces between punctuation marks and references.
  • Add clubs to the league catgories (e.g. Category:Mid-Sussex Football League).
  • Make sure the source actually contains the material you're referencing. You used this source to reference the foundation date, but it does not contain the information in question.
  • League handbooks are a good source for a club's honours record
Cheers, Number 57 16:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Lapid

Please note that I have brought my move, which you reverted, up for discussion st Talk:Lapid. Feel free to comment there. Animal lover 666 (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Page Title Edit request

Good Day

I work for a community radio station named Ekurhuleni FM formerly East Rand Stereo. I want to update our Wikipedia page as part of refreshing our station's online presence, could you please change the title of the East Rand Stereo page to Ekurhuleni FM. The wiki has caused us a lot of difficulty in terms of google search results. If you need any further information or proof feel free to visit our new website https://ekurhulenifm.org/ or the old www.939.co.za website where you will be forwarded, you can also contact me via email calvin@939.co.za or no-reply@ekurhulenifm.org

Kind Regards Cavin Lane NightShyNomad (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@NightShyNomad: I have moved the article. Please be aware that due to our WP:Conflict of interest guidelines, you should not edit the article. If you have any suggested improvements/corrections, you can suggest them on the talk page and add {{Request edit}} to draw attention to the request. Cheers, Number 57 12:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the edit, I have only changed facts like our name and other important information, I hope that this is ok.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2013 Paraguayan general election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Avanza País.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Jose Diego Alvarez MR

Hi, would you mind checking the replies to your !vote at WP:Move_review/Log/2021_June#José_Diego_Álvarez and perhaps re-evaluating accordingly?

Thanks! —В²C ☎ 19:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

1945 Indian general election
added a link pointing to Muslim League
1988 Bangladeshi general election
added a link pointing to Jatiya Party
2018 Bangladeshi general election
added a link pointing to Jatiya Party

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Images instead of leader pictures

I see you reverted an edit that reinstated the pictures of the party leaders at 1998 Indian general election. One of the images there has since been deleted and the other looks like it might be on the way out. What is the deal with that?Dhalamh (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The editor in question was making tonnes of messy edits to infoboxes, changing party leaders and changing the images multiple times. The last time I reverted them on the 1998 article was because they were doing so as an IP after their account was blocked. I've replaced the (deleted) images used on the 1998 and 2004 articles. Cheers, Number 57 15:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

1978 Bolivian general election

Hi! I've been going through the Bolivian elections and adding information as well as election infoboxes. I've hit a roadblock with this one because the winning contestant, Juan Pereda, was one the ballot two separate times and thus won two different vote totals (Nationalist Union of the People:986,140, 50.90% // Revolutionary Nationalist Movement of the People: 40,905, 2.11%). I was wondering if in the infobox I should aggregate both vote totals together with maybe a note explaining the aggregation or should I just use the main vote total. Thanks! Krisgabwoosh (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Krisgabwoosh: Yes, aggregating the votes for the candidates nominated by multiple parties (Bernal as well) sounds like a good idea. I would put their main party first and the second one on the line below. Cheers, Number 57 16:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Perfect, thank you. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

On templates removal in the Index

Re on this edit which you removed some templates from the index, are these safe for deletion? Asking cuz these templates will be picked up in the next index rebuild. – robertsky (talk) 01:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Elections Templates

Hey, I've added the European, Asian, Central, and South American election templates for deletion. It's nominated under June 12. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 Algerian legislative election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freedom and Justice Party.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

UEFA Cup winners

Ok I will take a note of that, thank you!

Geregen2 (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2021

How come you edited South African News but you have never lived nor visited this country. Why? West Africa (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Content West Africa (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◎ | melecie | t 10:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

James Rowe

Thanks for putting the page protection on James Rowe (footballer, born 1983). I opened up a sockpuppet investigation yesterday because of the multiple different recent SPA editing. I don't know why I bother with this page - its constantly being vandalized by both extremes. I was getting to the point were I was just going to open an AFD like you recommended at WT:Footy for the WP:FOOTY failure, since the GNG is debatable. Hopefully the protection helps, I guess we'll see on July 1. RedPatch (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@RedPatch: Although the SPA was inconclusive, I share your suspicions that the accounts are linked, especially the Magnum and Rosie ones, which appeared shortly after his mother complained on the talk page. Still waiting for someone in the media to notice that the article was written (and is policed) by his mother as I'm sure it would make an amusing story. Cheers, Number 57 15:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Any thoughts on the message the user left on my talk page. They're complaining about one of the sources (which is used as a citation to say that the team struggled to get results in his early tenure but by the end were doing very well - although the 'article' is biased). I'm not from England, so I don't know what sources are quality and what are not, but I don't feel that the information in the wikipedia article is outlandish, although that reference may not be the best. I also find it ironic that they said they removed it because it was a "fan article from a Glouchester fan" when that same user added an article titled "FAN COLUMN: 'James Rowe is best thing to happen to Chesterfield since Paul Cook' " here. So "fan articles" are acceptable if they like it. Do you know anything about the source they are complaining about "Severn Sport". Is it reputable and notable for a wikipedia article, or do they have a point?
I could just replace it with this article from Derbyshire Times which I just googled. Says the same thing, and is from the same source as the fan article they wanted to add about Chesterfield - although I'm sure they won't like it because it mentions he only won 3 of his first 14 matches. Should I just so a straight swap with the new source I found. The "controversial line" in the wikipedia article that they want removed is "After arriving at Gloucester, the team initially struggled before the season was shortly cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic." Hardly controversial especially since I included " they were able to rebound quickly and began the 2020-21 National League North season with four consecutive league wins, equaling their best league start in 78 years, as well as eight wins through nine matches" in the next sentence. If I include the highlights, I feel the lowlights could also be included, especially if its in a neutral light. Just wanted to hear your thought before I replace it with the new source. RedPatch (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@RedPatch: Yes, perhaps the solution is just to replace it with the Derbyshire Times one – as you said, it seems to say pretty much the same thing. I don't really see the issue with Severn Sport personally. I think the editor in question is just looking to turn the article into a positive puff piece. Number 57 10:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I changed the reference to the Derbyshire Times one. I agree, they definitely just want it to be only a puff piece. RedPatch (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

African Elections Templates

I've started the nominations for the unused African elections templates starting with Zimbabwe under June 16.

I don't want to keep adding more to your talk page, but more templates are being added. It will take me two to three days to nominate the rest of those African elections templates. So keep a watch for them starting from the June 17 Tfd's where more are nominated for deletion. Thanks again for bringing this to my attention. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

All the remaining African elections templates have been added under June 18. The work is done. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Edits by Purasuvakam

Hello Number 57, would you be able to mass revert the changes Purasuvakam is making? They do not seem to have responded to your comment on the visibility issue and are adding them across a wide range of pages. Thank you. Seloloving (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Seloloving: Do you not have rollback rights? Cheers, Number 57 14:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
No, I do not. Apologies if you are busy. I will see what I can do when I have the time. Seloloving (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
@Seloloving: I've reverted them all and left a message on their talkpage. Number 57 14:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, the assistance is greatly appreciated. Seloloving (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Turnout

Hey, I was curious if you can help me fix the turnout for two templates on this page (Zaječar and Preševo), the number of eligible citizens in both of those cities and the turnout are mentioned in the text above the templates. Kosjerić looks to be okay, I don't know what's going on with the other two templates. Thanks, --Vacant0 (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Vacant0: The issue seems to be that someone has mistakenly entered the total number of voters in the electorate field. Number 57 14:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 Done Fixed it, thank you I appreciate it!! --Vacant0 (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Newcastle Town F.C.

Good morning Number 57

I notice that six weeks ago you reverted an edit by Jpswade which drew attention that the club being sponsored by Red Industries. You said it was (Not lede-worthy)

A month a go you reverted an edit of mine making a similar point. Your rationale was (This is not an appropriate place to advertise)

Red Industries has a poor reputation because of the widespread smell from Walley's Quarry, a landfill site in Newcastle-under-Lyme. There are regular public demonstrations which have featured several times on BBC Midlands TV news. The MP is involved. See also Newcastle-under-Lyme#Environment

The purpose of our edits is not advertising, but to let Wiki readers know that this company tries to promote a tarnished reputation by sponsoring a local football club - Newcastle Town F.C.. I hope your edits are not intended to suppress the fact of sponsorship of the club by Red Industries, but you may understand why, at face value, that appears to be your objective.

I expect to cancel your recent reversion shortly but invite your comments first.

ArbieP (talk) 09:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for message; I did notice afterwards that this was not advertising. However, it was still highly inappropriate for Wikipedia and was rightly removed. You should not be using Wikipedia to "let readers know that this company tries to promote a tarnished reputation by sponsoring a local football club." Adding text to the article stating "They run Walleys Quarry in nearby Silverdale which smells." is really not acceptable. I would advise you cease using Wikipedia to promote this agenda. Thanks. Number 57 09:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello Number 57; thankyou for your prompt reply. Let me start by saying what I agree with you on: Wiki is not a place for campaigning, or, as you put it "to promote an agenda". And I share with you a general distaste for sponsorship, which is a way businesses promote themselves. But we need to get this into perspective. On the one hand Manchester City play at the Etihad Stadium; Arsenal play at the Emirates Stadium; Bayern Munich play at the Allianz Arena, but Chelsea, Manchester United and Liverpool play at grounds which have no sponsors name.
My edit points out that The ground is also known as the Red Industries Stadium and adds citations to support this factually. May I suggest a solution we may agree on, - to re-instate the first sentence of my edit (referring to the name) and dropping the second (referring to the smell)?
ArbieP (talk) 10:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Still struggling to see the need for this. Many non-league grounds have sponsorship and in most cases it's not mentioned. Number 57 10:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
OK, you don't see the need for it. But I'm disappointed that you feel so strongly about the issue of naming sponsors (even when there's a good reason) that you revert my edit again, without a real explanation, especially as I've tried to engage with you on the issues. ArbieP (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I've given an explanation both above and in the edit summary. The fact that you've engaged with me about this doesn't mean I'm going to agree with you. Number 57 17:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

Information icon Hello, I'm The4lines. I noticed that you recently removed content from Rhodesian passport without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I've Done.) 16:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@The4lines: The material in question was recently added by an editor who has added dubious material to several articles and is the author of Government of Rhodesia, which is currently up for AfD and looks like it may be a hoax. Number 57 16:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Number 57, Ah, I see. Sorry I didn't realize. Feel free to remove the warning if you want. Sorry again. Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I've Done.) 19:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Page Numbers

Hi Number57, I have noticed you reverted my edit. I don't care but I would like to understand why? If I check the articles I edit the page-numbers are usually provided with a point. And at WP:PAGENR and WP:PAGENUM there is no option to provide the page number without a point between the p. One option exists where only the number without the point is added, but I personally don't find this helpful compared to the other options. So why do you prefer to do it like you do? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Number 57:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1800 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Election Templates

Hey, I'm back at it again. I've nominated the last of the African election templates and most of the North American election templates for deletion. The noms are under July 5. I'll do the Caribbean templates likely for July 6 and maybe South America. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I've nominated the South American templates for July 6 and the Caribbean election templates for July 7. Two-thirds of the work is done. Also, the Central American templates that I said were unused, I did check to see where they were linked, I meant that they were unused for their specific purpose, which is for the election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Oceania election templates are nominated for July 8. I'll in steps try to tackle the European and Asian templates. We're almost there. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

2010 Kosovan parliamentary election

Hey, I noticed that 2010 Kosovan parliamentary election has two tables for the election results, one in the infobox and one in the article and both are different instances of it. Is this standard to have 2 tables duplicating the data? Gonnym (talk) 07:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes – the infobox one only shows parties that won seats and doesn't show the vote figures. This form of infobox tends to be used for countries that have a large number of parties winning seats. Cheers, Number 57 14:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I see. From an outsider's perspective, this seems a very strange design choice as not only it duplicates part of the data, you now need to make sure those data sync. As a small example, The infobox shows that the second party has "24.7%" while the larger table has "24.69%", this of course is because of rounding up, but it still looks like we don't know what the actual value is. Gonnym (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't really see the issue; infoboxes are meant to duplicate what's in the article, being a summary of it (in this case, being a summary of the results for the parties that won seats). The percentages not being consistent in terms of decimal points is more an issue of editors being inconsistent in adding the info to it than the infobox being the problem – exactly the same happens with the other election infobox. Number 57 23:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Mossley A.F.C.

 Done - let me know if he re-appears - although I'd argue WP:3RRNO applies if that is what you are worried about... GiantSnowman 16:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeffed... GiantSnowman 17:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Turnout Moldova

Hey Number54,

The report's date is 4 months after the election(the election was held in February, the conclusion by Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, observation team was published in April).

As stated by the introduction: 1. On 24 August 2018, the Chair of the Central Election Commission (CEC) of the Republic of Moldova sent the Parliamentary Assembly a letter of invitation to observe the parliamentary elections to be held on 24 February 2019. At its meeting on 3 September 2018, the Bureau of the Assembly decided to set up an ad hoc committee comprising 30 members and the two co-rapporteurs of the Monitoring Committee, which was given the task of observing the parliamentary elections of 24 February 2019. The Bureau also authorised a pre-electoral mission made up of six members – one from each political group who was also a member of the ad hoc committee and both of the Monitoring Committee’s co-rapporteurs. The Bureau approved the composition of the ad hoc committee (Appendix 1) and appointed Mr Claude Kern (France, ALDE) as its Chair.

2. In accordance with the co-operation agreement signed between the Parliamentary Assembly and the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), on 4 October 2004, representatives of the Venice Commission were invited to join the ad hoc committee as legal advisors.

3. In order to assess the organisation of the election campaign and the political climate that prevailed in the run-up to the election, the Bureau sent a pre-electoral delegation to the Republic of Moldova from 28 to 31 January 2019. The election observation mission wishes to thank Mr William Massolin, Head of the Council of Europe Office in the Republic of Moldova, and his staff, and the secretariat of the Moldovan delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly for their contribution to the preparation and organisation of the pre-election visit.


Let's move on to turnout: Under 5. Polling day, 56,

It states, Turnout was 49.22%, or 1 453 013 voters. Over 37 000 voters from Transnistria took part in the elections, as did 76 601 voters in foreign countries.

https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=27492&lang=en

You say it is 49.24 and your method might be right but why does every observer team contradict your statement?


Here are other sources:

https://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/iri_moldova_eom_final_report.pdf

Election results could be seen in real time via the CEC’s website, which showed the tabulation of the party list votes as well as reported voter turnout. Final voter turnout as announced by the CEC was 49.22 percent, which was down from the 2014 parliamentary election (55.8 percent) and the second round of the 2016 presidential election (53.45 percent). (International Republican Institute, International Election Observation Mission Final Report)

https://ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis/moldovan-parliamentary-election.html

Turnout was registered at 49.22%, versus 55.85% in the previous election in November 2014.

http://www.infotag.md/politics-en/273061/

The Central Election Commission has officially presented the final results of the February 24 parliamentary election. The Commission finalized the results and the entire election work at its working meeting held on Sunday, and on Monday the results are to be submitted to the Constitutional Court for approval. "The February 24 election was attended by 1,453,013 voters or 49.22% total registered number of citizens eligible to vote. This is the lowest voter turnout indicator in all the Republic of Moldova independence years."

https://www.moldpres.md/en/news/2019/02/25/19001608

A number of 1,453,013 citizens of Moldova participated in the parliamentary elections on 24 February, representing 49.22% of the total number of voters included in the electoral rolls. The head of the Central Electoral Commission, Alina Russu, made the statement today.

https://www.pabsec.org/news-details.asp?id=516&hl=en (Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation, another observer team)

49.22% of voters cast their ballots.

https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/65047/ssoar-jdanubsr-2019-1-cornea_et_al-The_Parliamentary_Elections_of_24th.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y&lnkname=ssoar-jdanubsr-2019-1-cornea_et_al-The_Parliamentary_Elections_of_24th.pdf

2019:49.22%


So what are your thoughts about this? BastianMAT (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Two potential reasons: The sources appear to be quoting preliminary results, as the COE, Infotag and Moldpres sources all say only 1,453,013 voted, not the final total of 1,457,220 as detailed by the CEC. The other is that the 49.22 figure is for the uninominal constituencies, not the national proportional vote: The final source states "(49,22% of total number of voters) (Minute, 2019)" and following this through to the sources section, "Minute, 2019" appears to be "Circumscripții uninominale (Scanned minutes: Uninominal constituencies)".
Another one is that the 'final results' we have in the table are not final. However, sources elsewhere suggest they probably are. Number 57 21:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Subcategories of Category:Members of the Knesset by term

I think we don't need both the year range and the sequential number of the Knesset in question. Seeing how it's done in other subcategories of Category:Legislators by term, I didn't see both in any one category collection. What's your opinion about this? Animal lover 666 (talk) 06:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I would definitely prefer the year range – "6th Knesset" will meaningless to almost all readers. Even having created most of the articles on MKs, I struggle to place the Knesset terms time-wise. Number 57 08:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2021 Moldovan parliamentary election

On 14 July 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 Moldovan parliamentary election, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to a RfC on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums

Hi Number 57, I would like to invite you to a RfC started by me on RfC: Convention for House of Representatives special elections in the United States. Please leave your suggestions if you're inclined to. (You are receiving this message because CX Zoom spotted you on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums and thinks that you'll be interested to participate in the RfC.) Thanks! ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 16:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for July 2021 Bulgarian parliamentary election

On 17 July 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article July 2021 Bulgarian parliamentary election, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Sor party definitely far-left: super-centralized style of governing, promoting ideas of "colhozes" in villages, etc. They are social-conservative, but in Moldova this is a thing of left parties. Rest of my changes are correct too.

1951 Surinamese general election

At the article 1951 Surinamese general election I did this modification to add information of elected members who were succeeded after by-elections. I'm not sure what is the standard way to mention this kind information. Please let me know how this is usually done in similar situations. - Robotje (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Robotje: There's no real standard way of presenting that kind of info as far as I'm aware. However, if you know who they replaced, you could add their names in brackets after that person, e.g.
  • John Smith (resigned on 1 April 1952 and replaced by Tom Brown)
Cheers, Number 57 21:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
@Number 57:, thanks for your feedback. In this case what you suggested would certainly work out. Sometimes however, several elected members of parliament become simultaneously a government minister and then it is not always that obvious. If five people leave and five others come in, it is not always clear who is a replacement for whom. I will see if I can find some examples for how that is done in other articles. - Robotje (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Europe Elections

Hey, 57, notifying you about the European election templates. You missed the Bulgarian templates on July 10. The Crimean and Ukrainian local elections at the top of July 11. The other nominations are for July 12, 13, and 16. I'm almost done nominating the rest. For today, July 17, I'll try to nominate the remaining 11 countries left. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I've nominated under nine sections the templates for July 16. From top to down, it starts with the 2006 Manx template to Croatian templates. For July 17, the rest of Europe will be finished before I move to the Asian and the remaining EU templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey, 57, sending this out as you might have missed the templates I've nominated for deletion. There are six sections for July 13. For July 15 from down to the top, it is from Template:Swedish general election, 2006 to Turkish Elections. And for July 17 I've nominated dozens under 18 sections. You can ping me if you need help finding them as there are a lot of these. We are very close to the end. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan: Thanks – I am going through them bit-by-bit – just a lot to check in one go. Thanks for all your work on this, it's much appreciated. Cheers, Number 57 22:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
No problem. Glad to help. I've nominated all the French templates for July 18. In the coming days, I'll nominate the EU templates and the Asian templates. I'll let you know. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I've nominated the EU templates that were categorized under the specific countries and one Slovenian template I missed for July 19. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Alright, all the European templates have been nominated for deletion, at least the ones from the categories. I've nominated the ones from the EU subcategory for both July 20 and 21. One more category left. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

1948 Rural West by-election

Hi there, I am wondering how would you define the table as superior? I can understand if the page is for a general election's results, for example 1948 Singaporean general election#Results. But for a single constituency by-election, would it not be better if it follows the Rural West Constituency's format? --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 09:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

A few reasons:
  • The template automatically calculates the percentages (which are wrong in the election box version, presumably an error by whoever added it – this kind of thing doesn't happen with the template)
  • It doesn't have unnecessarily wide columns and is more compact
  • It doesn't abbreviate the party name to something that might be meaningless to many readers
  • The candidate is listed first, which is more logical for a candidate-based election IMO
  • Text is all left-aligned.
In general I think election box is pretty awful aesthetically. Cheers, Number 57 09:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Number 57, noted on your reasons and acknowledge the merits. Can I assume that the choice of election table, aka using either template election box or election results, to be used is subjected to perhaps its Wikiproject, in this case Wikiproject Singapore? Is there a general preferred choice among the community?
Personally, aesthetically, I prefer election box. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Sure, it will be easy to make the case for this. Number 57 11:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Your reversions to abbreviated year ranges

Hi Number 57.

I saw that you reverted a number of article moves from 2-digit to 4-digit year ranges back to abbreviated years (in articles such as 2008–2009 Turkmen parliamentary election, 2019–2020 Uzbek parliamentary election, or 1992–1993 Montenegrin general election) and wanted to let you know that I am not happy with these actions.

MOS:YEARRANGE is very clear about that 4-digit years are our preferred format for year ranges - and for very good reasons: 2-digit year ranges are difficult to parse, sometimes ambiguous and can cause confusion (in particular in locales where the form "yyyy-mm" normally represents a single date rather than a year range). The international date format per ISO 8601 and the Extended Date Time Format (EDTF) Level 2 (where mm can be 01–12 to specify months or 21–41 to specify seasons) follow this format as well and are internationally established. So, in order to not create problems it is best to avoid dates in any of these conflictive forms. Most people have learnt from Y2K bugs and related problems.

It is true that 2-digit years are tolerated in a few cases, but this does not make them our preferred or even a required format in some areas. Since we aim to be a serious encyclopedia with the best-possible contents in a professionally-looking representation, your reversions to a non-preferred form hardly seem justified nor beneficial. There might be a few topic areas where 2-digit consecutive year ranges are still quite common, like, perhaps, in the names of sport seasons in the US and UK, but elections are not among them. Searching the web, you will find both, long and short forms being used for elections, so there is not a strong case to be made for 2-digit years in elections. Also, even if this could be tolerated for short article titles about US or UK elections (which do not require US or UK or other disambiguators to be added as part of the title) it certainly does not apply to election articles for other countries. Article titles such as "2019–20 Uzbek parliamentary elections" are not any kind of established proper names, but purely descriptive titles chosen by us to give the article some title, so forms such as "2019–2020 Uzbek parliamentary elections" are to be preferred per MOS.

Further, our MOS generally advises us against using abbreviations unless they do not cause problems and are universally understood (WP:ABBR) - which is not the case for 2-digit year ranges. Also, our MOS asks us to be consistent (WP:CONSISTENT), so, if there are other year ranges within an article or in the scope of related articles, for which our MOS mandantes the use of 4-digit ranges (because the years are not consecutive etc.), this format must be used also for all other year ranges. Finally, Wikipedia is not WP:NOTPAPER and we have plenty of storage space, so there is no point in saving two bytes in year ranges - it is counter-productive.

You mentioned that you have an interest in sports articles and are very active in this area. Therefore, I assume, that you are transferring your preference for 2-digit years there into the topic field of elections. Well, we all have our personal preferences, but I would appreciate if you could reevaluate your preferences in this area and join the majority of editors trying to achieve consistency using the preferred 4-digit form. I hope that I could provide you with some convincing arguments for using 4-digit year ranges, making such a move easier for you in the best interest of the project. Thanks for your consideration, and, except for this nit, keep up the good work. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Using two-year ranges is standard practice for election articles and in some cases are the result of RMs like this. And apologies, but I am personally not convinced by any of the above that moving to four-year ranges is preferable to the current situation. Cheers, Number 57 13:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict...please fill out my survey?

Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.

Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas I'm researching Wikipedia Questions? 16:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

would you like to expand this article Sonia Peres?

would you like to expand this article Sonia Peres?--Midrashah (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Asian Elections

I've nominated a whole bunch of templates for July 24. The seven country subcats are going to take a while. But if not for today then for July 25. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I've nominated a bunch more for today July 25. The last one that remains is India which would require another day given how many there are. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan: A word of warning – in multiple cases you have said that templates are 'all single-use' but this is not the case. For example, Template:2016 Philippine presidential election results is used on four articles and many of the other Philippine templates are used on multiple articles. You are risking the TfDs failing as editors will be able to respond and point out the rationale is untrue. This is one of the reasons I have not commented on several of the nominations. Are you actually checking this before nominating? I would recommend that you should state that they should be substituted on the main election article and transcluded elsewhere using the #section-h function. Cheers, Number 57 19:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I have checked. I'll update the nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
@WikiCleanerMan: I think you need to change the rationale much more than that. In the case of the Philippine presidential elections, only one of them is single-use. Starting the deletion rationale with "All are single-use" when you know this not to be the case doesn't look good. Number 57 19:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't deliberate. Given how many of these are, it was just a mistake. I've changed them by being accurate particularly with the Philippine templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The first batch of the India election templates have been nominated for July 26. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The rest have been nominated for July 27. Also, are you planning on removing the template red links from your sandbox? I think it's about time. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Named accounts?

Hey Number 57. Regarding your block notice for Dustyveil, do you think he is using any named accounts in addition to the IPs? If so this might justify some further research. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Another one I blocked is GiofaniRahman (talk · contribs). I couldn't find the original SPI or noticeboard report that led to the IPs all being blocked though. Cheers, Number 57 18:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2021 Saint Lucian general election

On 29 July 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 Saint Lucian general election, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 01:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Templates

I've nominated another large amount of election templates for August 5. By the way, all the Asian election templates on your sandbox have been deleted now. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Colour code template

I see you edited some of my political party creations to make them meta in terms of colour coding.

Nuestro Tiempo (El Salvador) this one needs doing too.

Thanks boss 😊 Lankyant (talk) 02:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Lankyant: Done. But you can create them yourself at (e.g.) Template:Nuestro Tiempo (El Salvador)/meta/color. Note that you need to use a nowiki either side of a hex colour code, but it's not needed if you used a word like 'red'. Cheers, Number 57 09:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Netherlands Antilles elections

Hello Number 57, with this edit you added 1937 and 1940 as years of elections for the Netherlands Antilles. According to the newspaper 'Amigoe di Curacao', 17 November 1941 elections for the Estates of Curaçao (national parliament of what was later called Netherlands Antilles) were held on 20 December 1937 and 17 November 1941. So 1940 seems to be incorrect. I think the template should be changed. Do you still know why you mentioned 1940? - Robotje (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Robotje: It was around the time I wrote the articles on Angela Altagracia de Lannoy-Willems and Maria Irausquin-Wajcberg, so I presume I had come across a source stating those years. If you're certain 1941 is correct, by all means change it. Cheers, Number 57 19:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. Around 5 November 1945 there were also elections held. I will change 1940 in 1941 and add 1945. - Robotje (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Help

Sir, i need your help. there is a user, User:Aakash Singh India – he is continuouly doing Vandalism on Expressways of India, i have already reported this issue here Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, but no response came.i am a new user sir, i know little about WP policies, i saw that you are Administrator and according to this policy Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, we all must report these issues to administrator for urgent response, so i came here sir, please helpZindahtohpyalabharde (talk) 10:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Sir Please reply. just now i have seen that my request has been automatically deleted from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism page, no explanation is given to me neither on my talk page nor on that page, please guide me sir, and please replyZindahtohpyalabharde (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

1RR

Please self revert your 1RR. I have opened a talk page discussion and would prefer to discuss there. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I have only made one edit to the article, and it was not a revert. A move is not a revert and restoring a previous title after a controversial move is standard practice; in these cases, editors wishing to make the move need to file an RM. Number 57 21:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
A move is definitely a revert, in fact your edit summaries described them as such. You reverted twice in 40 minutes. I respect you as an editor which is why I came here first. Shall I take this to AE and ask them to confirm whether a move is a revert? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
WP:3RR: "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action)". The list of administrative actions includes "Move a page to any desired title". Onceinawhile (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Happy to go to AE, but if we do I'll be requesting a boomerang sanction for restoring an undiscussed move after it was reverted and then wasting everyone's time for Wikilawyering about it. Number 57 21:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Good luck with explaining why you didn't ask for reversion of an undiscussed move but decided to go ahead and make a POV edit all by your lonesome, and then tried to wikilawyer your way out of that.Selfstudier (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll just point to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions, where it says "One Revert Restriction (1RR): Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content". Cheers, Number 57 21:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Content is in namespace, where articles reside. No go with that one and you are trying to wikilawyer again, that will go down well.Selfstudier (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Number_57. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

TFD's

From August 8 to 12, I've nominated more of these election templates. A lot of the templates I've started nominating under August 12 are these Hamilton, Canada templates which there are way too many of. There will be more for August 13. Letting you know since the main category will be cleared up soon. Some on August 5 are still open including templates from your homeland. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Move-warring

Are you really claiming that move-warring should be permitted in situations where edit-warring is not? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, under the actual ARBPIA restrictions, this is the reality of the rules – it clearly states that it applies to edits of content.
However, if we were to consider applying some kind of 1RR to moves, there would also need to be exemptions, just as there are for edits (e.g. when the other editor has not met the 30/500 criteria). I would suggest that given the nature of the move process, if any RR restrictions were placed on moves, it would be reaonable to make an exemption for moving articles back to a previous title following an undiscussed move, because this is what should happen in the vast majority of circumstances (and you are saving everyone the hassle of a WP:RM#TR, which would almost always result in a move back).
Ideally, as I mentioned at AE, any RR restrictions on page moves would be a 0RR on the original mover, which would prevent them from attempting to reinstate an undiscussed move, nipping any issues in the bud. Cheers, Number 57 00:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Thank for your work on various Wikipedia articles relating to African politics.

Thank you so much! 

John Chibona (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Curaçao

Hello Number 57, I noticed you renamed this article and mentioned in the summary 'Usual format'. Also here you explained a little more. That's OK with me. With the new article title the opening sentence should also have the expression 'general election' or not? - Robotje (talk) 06:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Robotje: Ideally it should, yes. Cheers, Number 57 07:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Done. - Robotje (talk) 09:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Loksabha 2019

Even the ECI in several files has included it in the totals [1] and you have also put that a seat is vacant, which is not true as DMK won it and now it's tally is 24. Also ECI has released an atlas comprising of statistics of general election 2019, where every final figures are available like voters and turnout etc.,[2]make a look of them and change the numbers accordingly with reference to Election Commission of India.

References

  1. ^ "Party wise seat won & valid votes polled in each state".
  2. ^ "ECI releases an Atlas on General Elections 2019".

Nahtrav (talk) 10:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

It was vacant at the end of the main general election process, and this is how we usually display results in the table. See, for example, 2021 Ivorian parliamentary election, where we show one seat as vacant as a candidate died during the campaign and the vote in that seat was delayed. Number 57 10:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Then what about the number, the final updated number are very important and even I have references and proof by offical government sources but you citing foreign election.In India delayed elections seat are updated and revised by ECI.Government evidence is above of all other evidences, and please update the recent numbers given by the ECI updates. Nahtrav (talk) 11:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The results in the article are cited to the ECI, which produced all the regular reports without the Vellore constituency. Number 57 11:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The same ECI is now showing the updated figure which is the last and foremost information about General election, even ECI included the seat with all and calculated poll percentage turnout and registered electors. In Wikipedia updated info should be there not an intermediate ongone poll information.Nahtrav (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK for 2021 Slovenian Waters Act referendum

On 17 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2021 Slovenian Waters Act referendum, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the union of taxi drivers offered the residents of retirement homes free transport to the voting stations in the Slovenian Waters Act referendum? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2021 Slovenian Waters Act referendum. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2021 Slovenian Waters Act referendum), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Approval

I hope you are satisfied by my evidences from ECI website.I hope our misunderstanding are due to the number differences and there is no vandalism like edits in those. kindly allow me to do edit Nahtrav (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nahtrav: No, not at all, because you're ignoring the point above that we don't usually count delayed elections in the totals. Your edits were also reverted by DaxServer, who asked you to start a talk page discussion about this. Why did you then attempt to restore them again?
Quite aside from the results table, you're making a mess of the article, because your changes are altering the overall percentages, creating inconsistencies with the infobox, introduction and various charts (which all use the original figures). This was also noted in an edit summary of an edit you reverted – do you actually read them? As DaxServer asked, if you think the delayed election should be included in the totals, please start a talk page discussion to gain consensus for your changes, not repeatedly attempt to force them into the article (in a way that makes a mess). Number 57 09:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia relies on sources and references but you are ignoring the government recent updated evidences and saying we don't add so makes no sense to me. News articles and Govt evidences are the prime source to Wikipedia's contribution, ignoring the sources also come under hiding the evidences, please open a discuss page about it and come to a conclusionNahtrav (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
No-one is ignoring sources; the results are sourced to the ECI and there are multiple sources that describe the results omitting the delayed seat even after voting was held for it (e.g. this, this, this or this). Number 57 09:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
You citing private sources (mo st of them are left articles, which usually ignore ECI data partially) against official government sources, then what about the sources which includes all 543 seats , if you wish to not add in the main table atleast create a new table for delayed seat and add the delayed data before reverting my official government sourcesNahtrav (talk) 10:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Secondary sources are usually preferred to primary sources; trying to downplay them as "private" or politically biased is not good. I would be ok with adding a results table for the Vellore result though (see below for a mock-up, although I couldn't find the invalid and electorate). Number 57 10:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
PartyVotes%Seats
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam485,34047.301
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam477,19946.510
Naam Tamilar Katchi26,9952.630
Tamil Nadu Ilangyar Katchi3,1230.300
Pragatishil Samajwadi Party (Lohia)2,4800.240
Republican Sena9010.090
Dhesiya Makkal Kazhagam7190.070
Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi7080.070
All Pensioner's Party4760.050
Marumalarchi Janatha Katchi2650.030
Independents18,4321.800
None of the above9,4170.92–
Total1,026,055100.001
Source: ECI
three of your sources aren't matching your claim ,the fourth one is published in 2020, but ECI updated the numbers about the loksabha 2019 in 2021 only ,Nahtrav (talk) 10:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
They do, because they all have the BJP winning 37.36% or 37.4% of the vote. When you added the Vellore figures to the table, the BJP percentage changes to 37.30%. Number 57 10:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Those news articles came before the updation of ECI, primary sources of election related articles are election commission of respective countries then comes the private news articleNahtrav (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
The Vellore vote happened in 2019; I don't think the ECI delaying their publication of the results for two years is a valid reason to dispute this. People could have easily calculated it themselves if they thought it should be included in the overall figures. Anyway, can you find the invalid/electorate figures for the Vellore result? Number 57 10:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
The election which you and I talking is conducted by ECI, it's results are publishing by ECI , files are created by ECI,so the ECI files are strongest of all the sourcesNahtrav (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Can you answer the question about the invalid and registered voters figure for Vellore? This is all I'm really interested in now, as the other stuff is just going round in circles. Number 57 10:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Even the ECI is including but you are saying you usually won't include. Is there any rule like delayed election should be omitted or election commission files are invalidNahtrav (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
OK, seeing as you're ignoring my question, and you're insisting on going round in circles, this will be the last thing I have to say here and I will not respond to further messages from you: By all means add the Vellore table above to the results section (but please add the invalid and registered voters figures to it). If you still think that the Vellore result should be included in the main table, start a discussion/WP:RfC on the article's talk page and see if you can get support for your proposal. Number 57 11:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
To get my edit I think no objection from users is enough rather than to gain supportNahtrav (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
You have two editors opposing your change. Number 57 13:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Only you opposing the change, DaxServer reverted because there was no discussion, now they are plenty of discussion, only you are left that too because you created the table and reverting my edits without having any solid reasons Nahtrav (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Unless you're a mind reader, let's wait for DaxServer to comment. In the meantime, please stop casting aspersions on my motivations. If you have any more comments, you can make them at the article talk page, not here. Number 57 14:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2024 in Afghanistan

A tag has been placed on Category:2024 in Afghanistan indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 15:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: It's fine to delete this. It was created for 2024 Afghan presidential election, but the article was deleted. Cheers, Number 57 16:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Memebers of parliament

How many members of parliament did HH win Daniel David Zulu (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Daniel David Zulu: I haven't seen any collated National Assembly results yet. Cheers, Number 57 20:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Wythenshawe Amateurs F.C.

I've left the IP a message, let me know if they pop back and I'll re-review. GiantSnowman 17:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

National League seasons

Good Afternoon, Can you please explain why "National League" is not a suitable league to have individual season articles. I have worked tirelessly to keep improving each article which most teams competing in that league are now fully professional clubs. I use reliable sources such as official club websites, BBC, National League. Personally I think it is a league which should have to notability. I have and am committed to keep it all updated. --Skyblueshaun (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Because they fail WP:NSEASONS. Working tirelessly is not a valid reason to have or keep an article (nor is a personal opinion). Spend your time on articles that do meet the notability criteria. Number 57 11:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Curaçao general election

I just finished 1945 Curaçao general election after writing 2 similar articles (1937 Curaçao general election & 1941 Curaçao general election). Before I continue with this series I would like some feedback from you about the layout, English language, etc concerning these articles. - Robotje (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Robotje: My comments:
  • It's "Valid" not "Valide"
  • Numbers should be right-aligned in tables
  • Numbers over 1,000 should have a comma in them (like 58,233)
  • I think it makes more sense for the list total to be placed before the candidate total?
  • Were there no invalid votes?
  • Ideally each table should have a source listed at the bottom
  • If you are accessing the Amigoe pages from an online archive, could you provide a hyperlink to it? It makes it much easier for other editors to double check.
  • I think the section you have titled 'General' should be 'Aftermath'
  • You could add {{Politics of the Netherlands Antilles}} at the top
  • All tables should be sorted with the candidate/list with the most votes/first preference at the top
  • I don't think you should pipe names; better to put Lodewijk Daniël Gerharts than L.D. Gerharts
  • For elections where there were party lists (1945 onwards), I'd suggest having an overall table, something like the below.
Cheers, Number 57 20:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
PartyIslandVotes%Seats
Democratic PartyCuraçao2,12239.723
Catholic PartyCuraçao1,20822.612
Eman ListAruba1,16721.852
Catholic UnionAruba5199.721
Curaçaoan Protestant PartyCuraçao1903.560
Gerharts ListBonaire440.821
Protestant ListAruba420.790
Catholic PartyBonaire380.710
Marchena ListBonaire120.220
Plantz ListSSS islands1
Total5,342100.0010
Registered voters/turnout5,945–

Template:Japanese elections/Total row

Hey, 57, I'm not sure this template should remain as is, but how does changing it work on the articles it's used on? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan: It's now unused, as I replaced the tables it was being used on with simpler ones. Cheers, Number 57 15:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

In case you're interested, there are a few open Tfd's going back to the 20th to the 25th. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Speedy upmerging

Please see my proposal to upmerge Category:2019 Nigeria senatorial elections to Category:2019 Nigerian Senate elections. Hugo999 (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Wythenshawe Amateurs F.C.

Blocked for 48 hours. GiantSnowman 15:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Importance assessments

Hey! There's a tag and assessment drive in WP:INDIA ongoing and I stumbled upon a few election articles, and wondering how you would assess the importance of the articles. Any suggestions? Thanks! — DaxServer (talk to me) 18:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Quick lookup: Category:Unassessed-Class India articles of Unknown-importance — DaxServer (talk to me) 18:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
@DaxServer: I'd generally class national elections as high importance. I'm not terribly familiar with the prominence of state politics in India, but I'd say perhaps medium for ones that caused some shift or ripples in national politics and low for others? Number 57 19:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. Thanks! — DaxServer (talk to me) 06:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

f.c. sez

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:F.C._Sez

please can you accept this page, it is needed so clubs have access to the png badge for their online media, link to the league which has pages for many clubs at the same level http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Nottinghamshire_Senior_League

many thanks,

No, the club is not notable. Some others are because they have played at a higher level in the past. Put the png badge on the club website. Wikipedia is not a hosting site. Number 57 20:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2021 Moroccan general election

On 10 September 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 Moroccan general election, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 06:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Redirection of the Bulgarian election

I can't seem to be able to redirect the election, can you do it?

Cheers, BastianMAT (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@BastianMAT: All you need to do is to replace the text of the article with #REDIRECT [[2021 Buglarian general election]] You should also leave an edit summary that makes it clear you are merging the text to the other article (e.g. 'Merging to 2021 Buglarian general election). Number 57 14:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
@BastianMAT: Don't include the nowiki when you do this (no idea how you managed to copy this). Number 57 15:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2021 São Toméan presidential election

On 11 September 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 São Toméan presidential election, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 19:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Lewes FC page

Hi

Not sure why the revisions were made to the Lewes FC page? All were correct and brought history of club up to date.

Hello. A few reasons:
  1. Much of the addition to the history section was recentism – i.e. giving more weight to recent events than historical ones. Details of the last few managerial changes imbalance the history section as no details are given of previous managerial changes.
  2. The bit about the stadium being featured in a book was not really noteworthy enough for inclusion – if it goes anywhere, it should be in the Dripping Pan article.
  3. I didn't really see the purpose/notability of the sponsorship/programme sections and the former was also only focussed on recent sponsors
  4. There were numerous inappropriate links to external websites in the prose (external links should not be included in the body text of an article).
Also, it appears you are a club director and should not be editing the article due to a conflict of interest. If you have any suggested improvements, you can raise them on the article talk page. Cheers, Number 57

On Headings

I agree with what you said the reason i changed it is because just having the word government felt worng what do you think i should put on other articles i have some suggestions please message me to know your opinion so i can change it on other article too here some proposals : status or role in the legislature , status in the government , or result


Before i go on need to ask you a question what do you think about changing it to result because i think it does cover all possibilities like extra parliamentary or opposition parties the reason i am asking is because i want to change all the election tables that i have edited

Thanks for the suggestion i will use outcome then

A problem with elections

I have to a problem with certain election results when i edit election tables and i would like your advice please message me when you can thanks in advance btw

Thanks for responding and sorry if i am bothering you .So problem is what should i put in the election table when the the election were done under one party states I used to use sole legal party but later changed it to one party state government and i would like it if you could give me some suggestions also i have another issue in some one party states like east Germany or communist poland there multiples parties do give the illusion of democracy what should i put in these election results and the ruling party in these cases ? Thanks in advance

Thanks also how do i sign my post do i leave my user name like this Friendlyhistorian

On election headings

Hi Number 57 i am Friendlyhistorian i would like to ask a question by they way thanks for the ideas you proposed me about the election tables for single party states. Sorry if i am borthering you but i would like you a question i was thinking remember when we talked about the election table i was thinking remember when you proposed using the outcome for legislative election results i was thinking why not use the word Result just like we do in presidential elections ?

Trinidad Election

Ello, thanks for telling me the protocol on my talk page. Really appreciate it, and actually never knew that xD, once again, thanks

Stop inserting your worse infobox everywhere

What the title says. There is zero consensus currently that allows you to insert your own, objectively worse, infobox on the Norwegian parliamentary election articles. Wait for a consensus before making further implementations. It's time for you to stop. Μαρκος Δ 22:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

No. (a) it's not my own, as anyone can see from it's history; (b) I'm not the one adding it to Norwegian articles, again as anyone can see from the articles' histories; and (c) consensus is not needed to add it anywhere in the first place (see WP:BEBOLD). Due to your unpleasantness, please do not post any further comments on my talkpage. Thanks, Number 57 08:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Bonaire 1954

Hello Number 57, I'm almost ready for creating the article 1954 Netherlands Antilles general election (my draft version is here). You once advised me to use the 'Election results' template for articles like I did at the article 1950 Netherlands Antilles general election. Unfortunately this time I cannot find anything about the result of the election on the island Aruba in 1954 other than the fact that Gerharts got elected. How he won that one seat for Aruba from Abraham, I don't know. How many valid votes there were on Aruba in 1954, I don't know. That also makes using the 'Election results' difficult. I was wondering, do you happen to have a source for that information? If not, then I will just create the article without any detailed information about Aruba. - Robotje (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Robotje: Do you mean Bonaire, not Aruba? The way around this for the results table is to use |ivotes instead of votes, as this means there is no total or percentage calculated. You can then add the Aruba parties at the bottom with no votes against them. See, for example, the first round results of the recent São Toméan election, where we don't know the numbers for every candidate (although we do have percentages for a few). Cheers, Number 57 20:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I started the topic 'Bonaire 1954' but later accidentally I used the word Aruba where I should have used the word Bonaire. So yes, you were right about my mistake. I will look into that ivotes option. Thanks for your reply. - Robotje (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
That worked out OK and the article is now created and ready. About one issue I'm still in doubt. The Catholic People's Party got on the island Curaçao 4,865 votes that resulted in 1 seat but the Aruban People's Party got on the island Aruba only 3,822 votes but that resulted in 2 seats. In the 'Election results' template I sorted based on the number of votes. Would you do that also or would you order on seats and if two or more parties have the same number of seats start ordering within that group on the number of votes? - Robotje (talk) 11:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
@Robotje: Results tables should always be sorted based on the number of votes, otherwise you end up having to have two sorting ranks (seats then votes). The tables are sortable anyway, so anyone wanting to sort by seats can do that if they wish. Cheers, Number 57 11:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Clear, so I can leave it like it is now. - Robotje (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Epsom and Ewell FC

I'm not sure who you think you are, but I take offence when you state that my website "appears to be a fan site" It is one of the largest and most informative club websites in the Country and clearly you haven't looked at it in any depth.

If you take the time to look at our club page on Wikipedia you will note a club history and a number of references to my site. You'll find none in respect of this latest "so called" website. This is because I have been the Club Historian for many years now and spend a vast amount of my time on keeping that website up to date. It is the home of the club and gets many thousand views a week and should be advertised there. Removing it costs our club money at a time when we can ill afford it.

If your profile is genuine and you actually want people to find out about the clubs themselves, then you will realise that this is the site they need to look at. This newly created and rarely updated "other" website does not cover the club whatsoever and is not fit for purpose on a Wikipedia site. It also stops people from finding out about our club, which is surely the contrary of what Wikipedia stands for.

As a donor to Wikipedia myself i have made a number of contributions and would be grateful if you could leave the rightful site; www.eefconline.co.uk where it is.

Richard

Epsomand (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Protection request for Philip "Brave" Davis

Hello! Can you please autoconfirm protect, Philip "Brave" Davis? The article has been vandalized several times just today, and from what I'm seeing, it has been in the past. If you could protect the article, it would be good for the sake of keeping a credible page. Thanks! P.S - I am asking because I noticed you're an administrator 

--Aryan Persaud (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Aryan Persaud: Erm, you seem to be the one reverting inappropriate content back into the article. See this. "selling dreams"? Number 57 17:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
You also reinstated this. Are you actually reading what you're reverting? Number 57 17:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Ah shoot, I'm terribly sorry. I thought I was reverting vandalism, not realizing I was instating it. Sorry about that mate.. Aryan Persaud (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Zambian election

Hi @Number 57:, just to clarify: about Zambian eleciton, I computed manually the figures of each party from both the website and the PDF, and the total is then automatically computed by Wikipedia if I recall correctly how that template works. Since I could find both the constituencies missing from the website in the PDF and a reason for that one seat to be vacant I wanted to finally update the results. Anyway thanks for double checking, I had probably misplaced some digits while doing all that calculations and your way was for sure more efficient and precise.--Fm3dici97 (talk) 06:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Fm3dici97: Always best to build some checks into calculations if possible. Usually electoral commission reports total valid and/or total votes for each constituency, so these can be used to make sure the party totals and overall totals that you've added up match what they should do. Cheers, Number 57 11:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

German election 2021

@Number 57: It is less than one week to the 2021 German election. I'm glad that this article would finally be updated as the results are announced. I would probably wait until the Template:Current election got removed from the article before I made some minor edits. RyanW1995 (talk) 06:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Irausquin

At the edit summary of this edit you wrote "... who replaced Irausquin?" I really tried to find out, but so far I couldn't find anything about it. Is it better to mention in the article something like "It is not clear who replaced Irausquin." or not?

I noticed that after I did this edit the box a the bottom of the article is by default closed (you need to click on the 'show' link to see links to articles about elections in the Netherlands Antilles in other years). Is it on purpose that adding {{Politics of the Netherlands Antilles}} has that side effect on {{Netherlands Antilles elections}} or is that a bug? - Robotje (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Robotje: No problem re Irausquin; it just looked a bit odd that you referred to the first two people but then the following comment was about the replacement for Pieters Kwiers not Irausquin, and I wondered whether it was a mistake as the way it's put together makes it appear related. Perhaps you could put the bit about Kwiers on the next paragraph and explain why he needed replacing?
Regarding the templates, there is a feature that when you have multiple collapsible templates (which both of these are) on a page, they are set to collapse (close). You should be able to override this by adding |state=expanded to the elections one (as I just have), but for some reason it's not working. I've asked for some technical help. Cheers, Number 57 10:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
@Robotje: The footer template is now expanded as default (thanks Redrose64!). Cheers, Number 57 09:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
So this was fixing the problem. Thanks to both of you. - Robotje (talk) 09:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Election in Albania

Yes there is. In fact the nje parliament is already established and the new government tooBes-ARTTalk 09:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

here is the statement from CEC. Bes-ARTTalk 09:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
@Bes-ART: I meant a copy of the final confirmed result figures. The link doesn't have that as far as I can see. Number 57 09:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I am working in some other articles right now, when I have time i will provide a final result for that article. Bes-ARTTalk 10:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

My edit

Hi

It is the sole solution to have the previous color in the article People's Democratic Party of Uzbekistan. The party have changed the colors like Austrian People's Party. Please provide a solution. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Panam2014: It's not the sole solution – it's a mess. The usual way to do this is to manually add the colour in Infobox legislative election and results tables using either |color1 = #FFFFFF or |color1 = {{party color|People's Democratic Party of Uzbekistan (1991)}} In Infobox election you'll have to use |color1 = #FFFFFF Number 57 16:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
And Template:People’s Democratic Party of Uzbekistan/meta/color should be moved to Template:People's Democratic Party of Uzbekistan/meta/color like Template:People's Democratic Party of Uzbekistan (1991)/meta/color.--Panam2014 (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
@Panam2014: I have already moved them all to the correct titles (i.e. with the correct apostrophes). Number 57 16:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Now could you apply the green template to the previous elections? --Panam2014 (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Done, but you could have easily done it too... Number 57 19:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1988 Venezuelan general election, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Vladimir Gessen and Eduardo Fernández.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Election in Albania

Hi again, here is the final OSCE / ODIHR report on the elections and at the end the final results are mentioned. The difference between the total number of ballot boxes and the final one occurs because in one of the constituencies several ballot boxes were damaged and the votes there were declared invalid and since it would not make a difference in the result, the electoral court decided not to repeat them. The report can also be used as a reference for a sentence here and there. Bes-ARTTalk 09:57g, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bes-ART: Thanks! Do you have a source for the info about the ballot boxes? Cheers, Number 57 09:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Honestly not, or better say, not explicitly. I know that there are two boxes in Vlora County and I have a source for it here, I know that KAS (court) has officially recognized the result there and a source can be found for this too. Bes-ARTTalk 10:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
If you go here and select Vlora, you'll see that it is for the same ballot boxes that we are speaking Bes-ARTTalk 10:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Mexican 1982 election

Hi there, I saw that you reverted my edit on the Mexican general election, 1982 article in which I had added the results by state. Understandably, you did it because you couldn't find any other source online with those numbers and also because they didn't match with the national total provided in the table.

So I decided to do my own research and I found out that results by State, which I initially had found on the CEDE website which I added as a source, are taken from the "Diario de Debates de la Cámara de Diputados" (it translates to something like "Journal of Debates of the Chamber of Deputies"). Specifically, they come from the 9 September 1982 session, during which the LII Legislature of the Mexican Chamber of Deputies validated the election (all Presidential elections had to be validated by the Deputies until 1994 if I'm not mistaken). You can find a transcript of the entire session here.

Now, the interesting thing is, if you look at the transcript, that during the session the first results to be introduced (if you search "Madrid" in the page using Ctrl+f you can find it in the fourth instance) are the total national results, which are the same that Nohlen provides. Then, almost immediately after the national results, if you scroll down just a little bit you can see that the results for each State are provided, and they are indeed the same that were in the CEDE webpage that I had sourced. Now, indeed, if you add up the numbers of the results by state they won't match up with the national totals provided previously in the same session for some reason (remember that elections during the PRI era were marred with irregularities and numbers that wouldn't match etc). However, since the results by State do come from the Chamber of Deputies itself, I think they are at least worth preserving in the Wikipedia article; we could just add a note explaining that for some reason the totals don't match with the National total.

I hope I made myself clear in this message, as you can see English is not my first language hahaha. I look forward to your reply, cheers!--CHUI372 (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@CHUI372: Thanks for the explanation. By all means readd them with a statement at the top saying that the figures did not match the national figures. Cheers, Number 57 11:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Capitalization of the names

Hi. You moved this article to one with capitalized letter. As far as I know, at the time there was a dispute over the name of the assembly and here 'constitutional assembly' should be regarded a common noun (in contrast to a proper name). We use federal election (not 'Federal' election) or presidential (not 'Presidential') in naming conventions. Am I right? Pahlevun (talk) 10:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: in terms of federal/presidential elections, they are adjectives rather than nouns. When a specific body is mentioned, the article title are always capitalised (e.g. 1919 Austrian Constituent Assembly election, 1919 Estonian Constituent Assembly election, 1990 Bulgarian Constitutional Assembly election, 1957 Argentine Constitutional Assembly election, 2006 Bolivian Constitutional Assembly election, 1948 South Korean Constitutional Assembly election). Cheers, Number 57 11:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. Pahlevun (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Help

Hi Number57. It is a pleasure to be able to collaborate on electoral articles :) I have a problem; Slov Bruh is systematically reverting my edits to Slovenian election articles and accusing me of vandalism. However, reviewing his edit history, he also made arbitrary edits and accused Aréat of committing vandalism. Can you help me report it? Thank you. --Stalin990 (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

This is simply untrue and spreading misinformation about edits again. First of all, these are Slovenian election articles not Slovakian. Secondly, you have repeatedly vandalised these articles by removing photos of party leaders from infoboxes and replacing texts with false information. On two occasions you wrongly changed the abbreviation of the party SAB to ZaAB, showing that either you lack information on the subject or you are willingly changing the abbreviations into false ones. --Slov Bruh (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
This is not vandalism; false claims like this do you no favours. If the abbreviation is incorrect, change it. However, given a certain other user made exactly the same arguments when edit warring recently, I wonder whether a trip to WP:SPI might be required here... Number 57 18:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Also, the abbreviation ZaAB was the correct one for elections before 2016, as the party was then called Alliance of Alenka Bratušek (Zavezništvo Alenke Bratušek, ZaAB). Number 57 18:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Please explain me why you reversed all of the correction edits, despite the norm on all election articles being that party leaders have their photos displayed in the wikipedia infobox. Furthermore, user Stalin990 changed the SAB name to ZaAB in the articles of the legislative elections of 2018 and 2022, after the party changed its name. That was corrected by me. --Slov Bruh (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
The edits were not 'corrections' and there was no vandalism. You seem to claim any edit you disagree with is vandalism, which is concerning. It is also not 'the norm' to display images; some do, some don't; the fact that more do is simply because that style of infobox is older and was the only one used for a while.
Also, please could you confirm whether you are another account of Igec133? Your reverts claiming vandalism and arguments about abbreviations are exactly the same as used by that account. Number 57 18:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes it is the norm, why are you lying about this? The UK general elections has portraits, so does the German parliamentary elections, as do the Czech ones, same stands for Slovak elections. This is an arbitrary move with no justification. Also I don't need to prove anything to you as Sockpuppet investigations requirements have not been met. --Slov Bruh (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your help Number 57. Stalin990 (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
You're literally the same account. Thanks for ruining the Slovenian election pages, hope you're happy now. Please change the name to Slovakian as well while you're at it.--Slov Bruh (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm jumping into this issue because what I am seeing does not feel good. Firstly, Number 57 and Stalin990, while I commend you for your efforts at attempting to improve the Wikipedia (this is not vandalism, despite what Slov Bruh may say, neither are you the same user since I've been collaborating with you both for years here and can clearly say you are different people), I cannot but wonder how did you think these attempts to covertly change TIE to TILE all across Wikipedia (doing it through bold editing rather than seeking a wiki-wide consensus first) would not end up backfiring. One thing is to edit a page in an attempt to improve it, and a way different thing is to push an edit forward even once it is reverted. Basically, you are doing the contrary to what WP:BRD calls for. The onus is on the bold editors to justify and seek consensus for their edits, not the other way around. I've seen you both engaging in this behaviour for months in a large number of articles: first, Stalin990 (or, sometimes, another users) go on and select a string of election articles to change the infobox, then Number57 intervenes if such edit is reverted. Until now, I have sit back, refraining from intervening in the hopes that the issue would lead its natural course into a proper discussion at a larger scale, but instead this course of action is being kept, no discussion attempt is being made, and the users opposing the change are met with rather rude responses (though Slov Bruh was quite rude here as well, tbh). IMHO, given the scale and scope of your edits, I think you should both seek a consensus on when and how to implement TILE in election articles, since the non-so-subtle-way of making the replacements is encountering a lot of opposition and sparking numerous local conflicts and edit warring, and is obvious this will remain the tone in the future. Just my two cents here. Impru20talk 19:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The only reason I restored Stalin's edits in this case is because the edits by Slov Bruh were in bad faith (claiming vandalism). In cases where the change has been reverted in good faith (as has happened recently on 2017 Norway, 2021 Iceland, and 2018 and 2022 Sweden articles), I have not restored it because, as you say, BRD should be respected.
Regarding implementation of TILE, editors don't need to seek a consensus beforehand as WP:BEBOLD applies. However, if it's challenged (in good faith), there should be a discussion, but this should be for that country's article set only – we both agreed on this point in the last discussion on the subject at WT:E&R in May. Cheers, Number 57 19:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I am truly sorry for my behaviour, although you must understand my frustration as I frequently work with these articles for irl purposes and having all of them lose their portraits suddenly is quite shocking. Furthermore, I am still new to the wikipedia jargon, so excuse me for any missuses of specific terms. I have went through several articles for legislative elections in Europe and as far as I can see there are different consensus depending on the country. For example the UK general elections has the portraits of party leaders whose party reached over a million votes. I completely understand that due to Slovenian elections allowing up to 9 parties to enter, this can create somewhat chaotic infoboxes, so it would be perhaps better to find a compromise there. However, I do not think that removing portraits in such a fanatical way is a solution, especially since portraits help readers getting engaged into the article and help them better understand the different parties. --Slov Bruh (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Dear @Impru20: I appreciate your intervention, however, it is false that I have requested the intervention of Number on more than one occasion or that I am systematically changing several electoral articles with the new format. The only editions I have made have been in Slovenia, Iceland and Sweden. Regards. --Stalin990 (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Dear @Number 57: Thank you for your support in this situation. I'm sorry this has gotten out of hand.
In relation to my edition in the Guatemalan elections, in effect, Victoria won four seats; but two members of Congress were expelled from the party, remaining independent. Regards. --Stalin990 (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@Stalin990: Thanks, I've added the independents. Why is the UCN italicised? There is a footnote against them, but no explanation. Cheers, Number 57 20:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@Number 57: UCN was canceled by the Electoral Tribunal in 2019. Greetings. --Stalin990 (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@Stalin990: Thanks – are its members still sitting as UCN representatives, or are they also independents now? Number 57 20:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@Number 57: The status is actually ambiguous. Legally, UCN members of Congress should remain independent, but Congress continues to recognize UCN as a political party despite being canceled by the Electoral Tribunal. Stalin990 (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@Stalin990: Sorry, I may have explained myself incorrectly: I never said or hinted that you actively asked Number 57 to come up and back your edits; rather, he has done it on its own leisure at several times (not only on edits performed by you, but by others as well). Note that this is not bad by itself! Number 57's preference for TILE is well-known; I myself have come to see such infobox more sympathetically in recent times (though I still view it as displaying too little information as compared to TIE, it summarizes too much). However, I think some articles clearly benefit from TILE (Romanian elections are the best example I can think of). What I complain about is how some users seem to be unilaterally replacing TIE with TILE into a number of articles, with the most frequent outcome being edit warring over such edits. In your particular case, Stalin990, note how you did this edit a couple weeks ago at 2022 Swedish general election and 2018 Swedish general election, which were reverted by an user explicitly asking for a discussion on the issue ([2] [3]) and who went on to open such discussion themselves, without any response ([4]).
There was an attempt at securing a Wikipedia-wide consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 19#The TIE/TILE issue for the preferred use of either choice, but it foundered. It was suggested that it was to be done in a case-by-case basis attending to the circumstances of application in each place, but it's being conducted in a rather indiscriminate way at a slow pace, with conflicts frequently rising when such changes are opposed, and sometimes this has even led to a set of articles using both TIE or TILE depending on the election. I saw there was a discussion at Talk:2021_Norwegian_parliamentary_election#Infobox_map; as in each time this is discussed, many of the points proposed are left unproperly addressed (Stv59's proposal of a new, middle-ground version of the infobox was a solution I already made other times). TIE shows too much information and is too big; TILE, on the other hand, misses out a lot of data while also seemingly requiring to show all parties securing seats (considering the infobox is a summary, being required to include parties with 0.2% of the vote and 1 or 2 seats out of 170, 200, 300 or 500 maybe is not that balanced...). There should be a viable solution of this mess that does not come by generating endless conflicts on this issue. Cheers. Impru20talk 18:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Political parties of Guatemala

Hi Number 57. I realized that you reversed some edits on the ideologies of the Guatemalan political parties. I understand that I need references, but Guatemala is a strongly conservative state; the majority of political parties of the "center right" and right (even some parties of the center left and left) defend the same aspects as the Christian right (Vamos, National Change Union, Valor, National Convergence Front, Vision with Values, Todos, Victory, Unionist Party, National Advancement Party and Podemos). These political parties ignore the secular state, they are against homosexuality, abortion and euthanasia; they are in favor of the death penalty, the armed forces and they support Israel, they have a deep contempt for socialism or communism, the typical discourse of "defending sovereignty and independence against foreign interference", they deny the Guatemalan genocide and exalt military dictators like Efraín Ríos Montt or Jorge Ubico Castañeda. Its main base is Evangelical Protestants. For example, Congress banned Marduk from entering Guatemala, considering that the gang is "satanic". The media do not delve much into the ideology of these political parties, which makes it even more difficult to reference these ideological trends. Greetings. Jakob990 (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jakob990: Unfortunately there are many dubious edits to these infobox fields (often by opponents of parties) that IMO sources are required for all claims made. You're more than welcome to readd them with sources. Cheers, Number 57 08:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@Number 57: Well, actually there are references such as videos or parliamentary transcripts where they make explicit references to this ideology (example: the president-elect of Congress said in her first speech: "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended"), but I don't know if they can be "enough" to categorize the parties as "Christian right".
Look at the "opinion columns" of the candidate for Vice President of National Convergence Front in 2019 ("Only a traitorous and stupid chairo does not know or does not want to understand that the people of Guatemala are mostly pro Israel..." 1; "It is those moguls who finance Antifa and Black Lives Matter. It is these tycoons who finance Planned Parenthood (the kings of abortion), those who finance Foundations like Ford, Gates and Soros, among many others, to spread globalism and progressivism." 2). Her speech is rather in line with the far-right.
What do you suggest? Greetings. Jakob990 (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@Jakob990: Unfortunately using their opinions to classify them is WP:OR – you'll need a secondary and reliable source. I appreciate it's annoying – there are things I would like to add to certain articles, but I can't because I can't find a reference for it, so it fails WP:V. Cheers, Number 57 15:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

July 1891 Chilean presidential election

I'm not really sure it took place in July. In fact I was unable to find any online source confirming any date, other than it happened before August (the month Balmaceda was ousted). --Bedivere (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bedivere: I was in the middle of editing it, including adding a source for the date (22 July). Cheers, Number 57 21:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Whoops, I just moved it to June as I found a source claiming such month [1] but I believe yours is better so I'm reverting myself. Thanks --Bedivere (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
@Bedivere: I've moved it back. Cheers, Number 57 21:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi again. I'm unsure now about the date. This 22 June 1891 newspaper claims Vicuña was already elected as the president by then. --Bedivere (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
@Bedivere: Does it say he is president, or has been selected as candidate by his party?
However, I did a bit more searching and I stumbled across multiple sources giving 25 July as the date ([5][6][7][8][9]), so perhaps this is the correct one? Cheers, Number 57 08:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I think that'd be the correct one. I've had to read some legislation regarding the elections in the final XIX century years, and it seems that some elections were held in June to elect electors (as redundant as it sounds) and they got together on 25 July to proclaim the President-elect. Kind of similar to the electoral system of the US. --Bedivere (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ Del Atlantico al Pacifico: gran guia ilustrada de turismo argentino-chilena
@Bedivere: I've corrected the article to 25 July. Cheers, Number 57 22:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Torez -> Chystiakove

I have seen that you have closed the RM and moved the article. You probably did not have much choice, however, the RM clearly violates WP:COMMONNAME (the participants did not even try to prove that the common English name is Chistiakove) and earlier consensus achieved at Talk:Myrnohrad#Requested move 24 May 2016 that localities not under control of Ukrainian government should not be moved unless it cal be demonstrated that COMMONNAME applies. All four users who voted I recognize as strongly pro-Ukrainian users who would always vote the same way and would not be succeptible to any arguments which contradict their political position. I am not sure - do you think there is any way I can proceed to restore the name? If I just open a RM they would come back, vote it down, and the outcome is going to be at best no consensus. And in this way they can proceed with RMs at low visibility pages, moving them one by one.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: If you don't think another RM will work, then I don't think there's much you can really do other than try WP:MR or possibly AN and note the POV-pushing records of the editors in question. I feel your pain on this, as I have had the same experience with Estonian nationalist editors (who were the only ones to show up at a certain discussion, and as you say, no rational argument will move them from their pre-defined position), and historically it is something Wikipedia has been very bad at dealing with (there's also a similar problem in the Israeli/Palestinian topic sphere as those on one side now massively outnumber those on the other, and they all vote in entirely predictable ways). A long, long time ago, I suggested that topic areas with known issues should have outside-only input to certain types of discussions (so only neutral, uninvolved editors could !vote).
If you want to pick up RMs like this, I would recommend watchlisting Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine/Article alerts. Cheers, Number 57 08:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. I will think what is the best way to proceed.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: If you are looking for a wider solution to this issue (as opposed to this specific RM), I would be interested in being involved. There are a couple of topic areas I edit on the fringes of and am quite disturbed by the domination of them by a small group of determined POV pushers. Cheers, Number 57 13:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I am thinking about a broad RfC concerning the naming of localities in this area, which, if successful, would invalidate the RM and set some guidelines for the future RMs. In the ideal world, I would exclude editors in Russian and Ukrainian topics from this RfC, but I am afraid in our real world it is not realistic. (Or would require an even broader scope RfC).--Ymblanter (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Next Scottish Parliament election

Hi, did you get the ping notification I sent you regarding this - Talk:Next Scottish Parliament election? Apologies if you have not got around to it or don't want to take part, I'm just not sure if anyone got the notification as I haven't received any responses as yet. Helper201 (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Helper201: No, I didn't. Pings don't work if you do them without signing at the same time. Number 57 20:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Real Madrid vs Sheriff Tiraspol

Hello there. Could you please let me know what should I fix to get the Real Madrid vs Sheriff Tiraspol Wikipedia page granted approval? I'm not sure what I have to fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HalogenNation (talk • contribs) 07:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

You need to show evidence of long-term significance – i.e. is the match still being referred to long after it happened. You'll probably have to wait six months to a year after the game to show this. Cheers, Number 57 11:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Elections, parties, and the whole nine yards

Hey there, first of all: thanks for adding a reflist twice; I almost always add those myself but somehow I wasn't paying much attention today. xD

Secondly, as you noticed before, I've been meaning to add reasonably in-depth info on every Japanese general and House of Councillors election (still a work in progress since some of those elections are harder to track down sources for, but I will definitely get it done over time). I've also thought about doing it for South Korea and Taiwan as well if I can find information about them, but aside from those sort of places, I've just been aimlessly adding info wherever my interest strikes, and today's foray into Israel came after I saw yer page again. So, my question is: do you have any particular countries or other topics that come in a series that you've been sitting on and could use some help with completing? (e.g. all the elections in X, all the prime ministers of X, etc.)

Cheers LaunchOctopus (talk) 02:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Presidents of Fiji

Howdy. Is there a way to remove the numbering column from the presidents in the List of heads of state of Fiji article? @Mewulwe: doesn't want them to be numbered. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

History - Chippenham Town formation date.

Why have you removed all my content? Also you have made an incorrect edit as Chippenham did not enter the Wiltshire League in 1894 as the league was not formed until 1896. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ct1844 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ct1844: I haven't removed all your additions. I just cut down what you added a bit as it was quite excessive for one point (the foundation date) and wasn't formatted/writt. You can see here what the overall changes were after I'd edited your additions.
The Wiltshire League was actually founded in 1894, as detailed here. Cheers, Number 57 23:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I'm a bit new to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ct1844 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ct1844: No problem. Let me know if you have any questions about editing, formatting etc. One tip – when you comment on talk pages (like here), you should sign your posts using four tildes (i.e. ~~~~). Cheers, Number 57 23:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Olivia Bowie

Hello, Number 57,

I noticed that they made some large edits that haven't been reverted. I just wanted to ask if you had checked them out...if you had, I'd let them be. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 02:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: Some of their edits (e.g. this or this) were reverts of themselves editing as an IP. I think I've got all the others. Cheers, Number 57 09:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Unfriendly

"09:11, 23 November 2021‎ Number 57 ‎ 1,344 bytes −120‎ Why revert something that is no longer needed? Unless it's just blindly hitting the undo button?" is NOT a comment that I can accept.--Arorae (talk) 10:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

If you don't want comments like that, stop hitting the undo button as a knee-jerk reaction. Number 57 10:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't misunderstood what the infobox is for.

Hello, Number 57! I didn't misunderstood what the infobox is from, I have readed in 1953 Yugsolavian parliamentary election that there are 2 candidates: Milovan Djilas and Josip Broz Tito. They belonged to the same party and it said "it was allowed for multiple candidates in the election". Milovan Djilas won, and there can be multiple candidates belonging to the same party in an election. Aca1291 (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  • for Aca1291 (talk) 09:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    • @Aca1291: There were not just two candidates – this was a parliamentary election to fill nearly 300 seats. The text simply mentions the individual results of two prominent candidates. The way you formatted the infobox suggested they were competing against each other. This is an example of how the infobox should be laid out for elections such as the 1953 one. Number 57 09:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Number 57: I have already said that there were 2 candidates belonging to the same party and I guess it can be possible. It says on the page 1953 Yugoslavian parliamentary election "Milovan Djilas won 98.8% while Josip Broz Tito 97.7%" they belong to the same party (Party of Communists of Yugoslavia) and Milovan Djilas won. Aca1291 (talk) 09:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

"With multiple candidates allowed" this is what I am talking for. Aca1291 (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Aca1291: They were not competing against each other; the text refers to their results in their individual constituencies. And we don't put individual results for candidates in parliamentary infoboxes. This is what you got wrong. Cheers, Number 57 10:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Problem with election infobox?

Hi Number 57, there seems to be a problem with the Template:Infobox election, as shown in this article about the 2021 German election or this one about the 2005 election. It seems that there is a problem with the "Party" field when piped link was used in order to change the abbreviation. Cheers.RyanW1995 (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@RyanW1995: Yes, it's been caused by this edit to the infobox code. I've asked Primefac to resolve it, but have temporarily reverted the change given the widespread impact it's having. Cheers, Number 57 13:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

/* Bexhill United */ A one-sentence update to bring the entry more up-to-date.

Can you explain why you are removing my harmless, uncontroversial and entirely factual edit to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Bexhill_United_F.C.? If I have ignorantly broken a rule or a code, please link me to it. I am willing to learn & mend my ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boggins (talk • contribs) 13:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Because:
  1. It's out of kilter with the rest of the history section, which mentions no other managers or chairs.
  2. "The club has risen to its highest league placing for many years" is an ill-defined statement. What is 'many years'?
  3. "under the guidance of chairman Graham Cox, continuing and expanding on the work of the late Bill Harrison" is not really encyclopedic and is verging on promotional
It is not making the article 'more up-to-date"; the chair and manager are mentioned in the infobox. Number 57 14:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Algeria political party shortname templates

A tag has been placed on Category:Algeria political party shortname templates indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Gonnym (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Benin political party shortname templates

A tag has been placed on Category:Benin political party shortname templates indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Gonnym (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Burkina Faso political party shortname templates

A tag has been placed on Category:Burkina Faso political party shortname templates indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Gonnym (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Guyana political party shortname templates

A tag has been placed on Category:Guyana political party shortname templates indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Panama political party shortname templates

A tag has been placed on Category:Panama political party shortname templates indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

2021 Kyrgyz parliamentary election

Hi

Could you upload the article results? --Panam2014 (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Where are they? Number 57 12:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
In CEC website. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2021 Gambian presidential election

On 8 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 Gambian presidential election, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Stadium naming and sponsored names

Hi, thanks for your reply at Talk:NP3 Arena (Sundsvall). I've just reviewed the information at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Consensus.

I note that the edit to the page concerning sponsored stadium names was made by you, but it doesn't reference any community discussion. A search of the archives at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football didn't turn up any discussion specifically regarding sponsored stadium names for me, although I may have missed it. Could you show me where this discussion happened? Thanks. 162 etc. (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

It didn't come out of one specific discussion – it's something that has been repeatedly discussed over the years and I added it there for quick reference. You're welcome to ask at WT:FOOTY if you disbelieve its existence. Cheers, Number 57 19:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree that such a discussion should happen if this is to be included at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Consensus. Note that every other bullet point on the page references either a policy, or a community discussion that led to the consensus. 162 etc. (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Not everything needs a template

Hey, Number 57, I started a user essay called Not everything needs a template. I plan for it to be made into another essay that's cited like NEAN when discussing templates at Tfd's. There is a part that mentions election results and single-use templates and if you want to add your two cents in, by all means, you're welcome to improve that section or everything else that's included. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan: Good work. Perhaps worth mentioning alternatives to template use – i.e. section transclusion for results tables. Number 57 15:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Good call. I added it. If you want to add more to it, then you can. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
By the way, I added a bit on biographical articles and why it's not an appropriate use of templates or article content that in comparison to the overall biographical subject it's trivial information. I think that's the reasoning you give at Tfd's for election results templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Small request

Hi, I'm not sure where I should post this message so I've decided to contact you. Reconquête (political party) wasn't added to Module:Political party/R and since I don't have permission to edit that page, could you or someone else add it there? Color: #0B0B66, abbr: R. Thanks! --Vacant0 (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Vacant0: Done. Cheers, Number 57 15:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks again! --Vacant0 (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I also have a question just so that I would know in the future. As far as I can see, the only way to add colors, abbreviations etc. to parties is via this Module, and some of these module pages such as that one are template-protected, is there a way for me to edit through these pages or will I have to make requests on specific talk pages? Cheers, --Vacant0 (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
@Vacant0: I think the plan is to downgrade the protection to extended confirmed level – I will look at this later. Cheers, Number 57 17:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Tuia'ana T. Letuli

Hi. Please let me know here when you are finished editing this article because I was working on it and we are having edit conflicts. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@FieldMarine: I am not planning on making any more edits. Do you have a source for the birth date you added? Cheers, Number 57 14:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Venezuela

Hi

Like to Somalia now, the parliamentary elections were indirect in Venezuela until 1947. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

For parliamentary elections, we generally include indirect ones as they are often not completely indirect – early ones were often college systems or just had a very limited franchise. Number 57 21:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Zipper System Edits

Thank you for helping me to edit and revise the zipper system article. Until recently, it has been a stub, and any additions and edits to the article are greatly appreciated. I have added back some information that you removed citing that it was irrelevant to the topic. I hope I have reworded the additions to be more relevant, because I think they are vital to understanding the nature of the zipper system's importance. Please feel free to contact me if you disagree and we can discuss how to proceed. Thank you again! WhereIsGreen (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Next Kenyan general election Page

Thoughts on Renaming the page Next Kenyan general election to 2022 Kenyan general election? Not sure why it was created as "Next"? Sputink (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sputink: Happy for it to be renamed if the election is certain to be next year? Cheers, Number 57 22:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
At this point, its pretty certain its in 2022 https://www.theafricareport.com/135143/kenyas-elections-let-the-game-of-numbers-begin/ Sputink (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A t-shirt!
A token of thanks
Hi Number 57! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~
A snowflake!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Seat change in 1951-52 indian elections is helpful

Seat change in 1951-52 indian elections is helpful. Aca1291 (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It isn't, because what it compares to (the pre-independence legislature) is completely different to the new Indian parliament. You also messed up the shape of the infobox by having three parties on the first row and one on the second as opposed to having two on each row. Number 57 15:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

History doesn't matter in politics, the shape of infobox doesn't really matter. Aca1291 (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Suffolk places

I have produced a list of missing articles at User:Crouch, Swale/Suffolk but as you can see all the (current) parishes have articles which is good news, you created many of them over the years. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Presumed notability of members of subnational parliaments

Hi - I've noticed your contributions in a number of places regarding NPOL; given a number of comments I've seen over time regarding NPOL, I drafted the following table. If you have time, any thoughts, comments, reactions you have would be appreciated. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Problem with the Election results template

There seems to be a slight problem with the Election results template (Template:Election results) in this article about the 1949 election in West Germany. The table doesn't show the party color of the SPD. The SPD color also doesn't appear in this table about the 1920 election in the Weimar Republic. However, in this table the color seems to work normally. I don't know why this happens, since all of those articles use the same template. Cheers. RyanW1995 (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@RyanW1995: It was because there were invisible characters in the article that meant the name wasn't quite what it should be. Now fixed. Number 57 16:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Next Haitian general election

Hi

Next Haitian general election need page protection because false content added by an IP, probably NAPO12, a banned user in french Wikipedia, who made the same. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Thanks for the heads up – I've semi-protected it for six months. Cheers, Number 57 23:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

2001 South Ossetian presidential election

Hello, Number 57! Can you do something about the missing article 2001 South Ossetian presidential election, which is the only article on South Ossetian presidential elections not created so far? I suppose it could be something along the line of the 1996 South Ossetian presidential election article. —Sundostund (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sundostund: Done, although I couldn't find much detail about the results. Cheers, Number 57 17:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I realized now that that is a direct quote!

Thanks for your correction. That said, outside of a direct quote, the article on the Druze even uses the "Druze" spelling, no? Thanks again. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 20:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the question... Number 57 20:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Where do i request a range block?

Hi, Another editor (User:Dhruv edits) and I have been reverting vandalism from a range of IPs (Special:Contributions/2402:3A80:1C60:86F3:0:0:8244:BE66/44). I'm pretty sure there is more. How and where do i request a range block? See this thread on my user page for more IPs. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824: I'd suggest asking at WP:ANI. I have no idea how to do rangeblocks I'm afraid. Cheers, Number 57 12:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Israel populations 2013

Template:Israel populations 2013 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

German referendum

I'm the one who made the updates yesterday to the 1929 German Referendum, and I honestly don’t think that I did misunderstand the source (the German article).

The first column is "Eintragungen zum Volksbegehren in %", which I translated as "Participation in Initiative as %". I was careful throughout the article to always translate Volksbegehren as initiative, the first step in the process. In 2nd paragraph of intro: "With just over 10% of those eligible to vote signing, the minimum requirement to pass the initiative was narrowly met" – this matches the Reich number in the table.

Col 2 is "Ja I'm Volksentscheid in % der gültigen Stimmen" = "Yes in referendum as % of votes cast" (or more literally, "valid votes"). I always translated Volksentscheid as referendum, the 2nd step. This is the same number (94.5%) that's in the English language table.

Col 3 is "'Ja im Volksentscheid in % aller Berechtigten Stimmen" = "Yes in referendum as % of all eligible voters". The German table has 13.8% vs. 14.9% in the English, the difference being the invalid votes.

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GHStPaulMN (talk • contribs) 16:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess it was the way you worded and presented it that is the issue. 'Participation' suggests voter participation in the referendum itself, especially as you're putting it in the same table as the results. I'm also not sure why 'Yes as a percentage of registered voters' was included in the table? I could understand if it was a referendum where a majority of the electorate had to vote yes, but this was not the case here – just voter turnout needed to be over 50%.
Regarding your last point, you're confusing yes as a percentage of registered voters (13.8%) with voter turnout (14.9%)
Also, may I ask why you removed the main results table? This seems to be an incredibly unhelpful thing to do... Number 57 22:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Pune Municipal Corporation election

Hello sir,

Population and reservation increases seats every five year in pune municipal

  • Last election 144 seats (2007)

>Next election 152 seats 2012

  • Last election 152 seats (2012)

>Next election 162 seats 2017

  • Last election 162 seats (2017)

>Next election 173 seats 2022 Cinzia007 (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Phil Mullington

Hi. It did not appear to me on the Rochdale article, that the club was in either of the two leagues eligible to meeting WP:NFOOTY at the list: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. I know they are currently not in the league, but he played on the team in 1976-78. Is there a better source when looking at these articles that could tell us if a team was ever in the right level? Are you saying that they were in one of those two leagues back in 1976-78? I know it's a pipe dream, but it would be great in football team articles if they had a history of what league they were in when. Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 13:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Onel5969: I think you've been confused because the English Football League is not a single league – it has multiple divisions. Rochdale were in one of these at the time (and still are). The Football Club History Database is probably the best resource for finding out which league clubs were in at different times. Cheers, Number 57 17:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks for letting me know. Onel5969 TT me 18:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

  • AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
  • The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

1919 German Federal Election

You're right of course about the Christian People's Party (KVP) -- I missed the name change. I'd suggest though something like an addition to the explanatory note 'a' about the Centre's temporary use of the KVP name, especially since the electoral map next to the table shows Centre rather than KVP. Also, the the Centre Party article linked to from KVP doesn't mention the KVP name, and the separate article on the KVP refers only to a fringe party in the 1920 election (!). Some sort of clarification would be useful... Thanks for keeping me on my toes. GHStPaulMN (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The articles about the history & politics of the Dominican Republic

Hi Number 57, you're probably going to ignore this message, but I still ask you: why do you always undo all the edits I make in the articles about the politics of my country? I am Dominican and I know my country very well, is that not enough for you?.--Oli (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, I do not undo 'all the edits' you make. I undid this edit because the other photo of Abinader is much better – you can actually see his face properly. Number 57 08:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

1) "Firstly, I do not undo 'all the edits' you make."

If you do, it is not the first time nor the first article in the political history of my country that you do that, you did the same with my edits of the articles of the Dominican presidential elections of 1966, 1970, 1974, 1978, 1982, 1986, 1986, 1990, 1994, 1994, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2016, it is only a matter of reviewing the history of those articles and there is the proof.

2) "because the other photo of Abinader is much better – you can actually see his face properly."

Does it matter? Not at all, the photo I put is the correct one, for two reasons: 1) it is the most appropriate according to the context of the article, 2) Abinader was president after the 2020 elections, not before, it is a very important detail that you are completely ignoring by editing the article.--Oli (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit summaries like this are unacceptable; you do not have more right to edit an article because you are from that country.
Regarding your claim that I revert all your edits, let's take the 1966 election as an example then:
  • Here you add an infobox, but in the wrong place.
  • I fixed this for you by moving it to the right place, and removed a candidate per the WP:5% rule.
  • You add a colour code to the table
  • This I did actually revert, because the colour code is automatically picked up through the infobox table, but I explained to you how this works and why it was reverted.
  • You add some parliamentary diagrams.
  • I make them slightly smaller because they were stretching the results table
As for the Abinader photo, of course it matters if you can see the face properly. The photo you keep trying to force in is not "correct" – there is no "correct" photo; it's simply that one is better than the other for the reason I mentioned. Number 57 12:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Worsbrough Bridge Athletic F.C.

Sorry, have been away for a few days - seems to have died down, please let me know if it happens again. GiantSnowman 08:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Election 2024

Hello Sir, Have been two more years left to have an election. election commission too has not made an official statement regarding the next election yet. There are no reliable sources of this articles.

Nomination of Meir Talmi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Meir Talmi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meir Talmi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

MartinWilder (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Inserting incorrect numbers and percentages

Hello. Can you tell me where are you getting those figures from? The numbers and percentages I got are directly from the Supreme Electoral Court of El Salvador, the institution that organizes elections, counts the votes and keeps track of the voters registration. According to their own figures, the 1999 election had 3,171,224 registered voters. What I did in the articles where there was a second round, I put the turnout of the second round, because it was the round where the presidency was decided. I saw what your did, put both figures and I think that is a better way to do it, but again, I don't don't where you are getting your figures from because the 1994 election figures from both elections are completely wrong. You and everyone in Wikipedia can have direct access to these figures that are in the Supreme Electoral Court, the only problem may be is all in Spanish, but you can translate the page from your browser. I'm Salvadoran myself, so I know where to find those figures. I hope you can see the figures I added are the correct ones. Thank you. --Oscarter13 (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll add the source where I got them from the TSE which is the official source for electoral data. Clearly the data in the Nohlen book are wrong and the TSE has the official documents. --Oscarter13 (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
There is historical data, in voting registration by year and electoral results, they even published more data than the Nohlen book has, that according to the TSE website has been in 2022. So I'll add the information from there. --Oscarter13 (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
In the case of that particular election I was taking the information from the Spanish version of the article here in Wikipedia, which has the same figure (and you have shown me it was wrong), I took it from there to not be downloading so many pdf files but, now that you pointed that out I'll go the the TSE official web page and download the information and link it directly from the page that clearly states that those figures have been updated as recently as February 14th, 2022. I'll also fix the info in the Spanish version and give a direct link to the source. Thanks for pointing that out and showing concern for my country electoral data. --Oscarter13 (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 March 2022

  • Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Left a reply for you on my talk page

Thanks, Zanoni (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

  1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
  2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

2023 Nigerian elections name

Hello, a few days ago the 2023 Nigerian elections page name was changed without reason and when reverted, it was renamed to "general elections." Could you return it to 2023 Nigerian elections? Watercheetah99 (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I've restored the article's original title, which matches 2019 Nigerian general election. If either of you want to move it, by all means start a WP:RM. Cheers, Number 57 21:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Watercheetah99 (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Commonwealth Democratic Party for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Commonwealth Democratic Party is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commonwealth Democratic Party until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Curbon7 (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Commonwealth Labour Party (Bahamas) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Commonwealth Labour Party (Bahamas) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commonwealth Labour Party (Bahamas) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

AusLondonder (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tarkong Pedro.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tarkong Pedro.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

1991, 1992 Albanian parliamentary map

Hey it’s not my map however I just translated the Hungarian one the original creator was Pasztilla aka Attila Terbócs however I will fix it. He had given me the rights to translate. I just never saw the turnout seemed wrong but I can fix it. Thanks for telling me I had not seen that part. Gjondeda (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

1990 Slovenian parliamentary election

Some facts you need to know about Slovenian political parties. Sportomanokin (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Sportomanokin (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

"Liberal Democratic Party" (ex) and "Liberal Democracy of Slovenia" (still active) are two different parties. Sportomanokin (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

There have been founded many different parties in Slovenia in late 80s and early 90s, many of them with very similar names and often confusing to average reader. Especially with terms democratic, democracy, liberal, social which are often repeating or being in different order. Now, there is a big difference if party just got a new name, or being a legal successor of one or more different joined parties. Sportomanokin (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your most recent edit, the ZSMS / Alliance of Socialist Youth of Slovenia links actually pointed at Liberal Democratic Party (Slovenia) not Liberal Democracy of Slovenia and so did not need changing. Number 57 16:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Welsh Football League Third Division

Template:Welsh Football League Third Division has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zanoni (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Changing maps of Pakistan

Why you are constantly changing maps of Pakistan. I want to make and upload and contribute new maps of Pakistan and if you will keep bullying me than i will not upload more maps. stop interfering — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk • contribs) 14:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not "constantly changing" them. I resorted a clearly superior map when you tried to insert a worse version. Number 57 14:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
what do you mean by worse version. the so called superior maps are worse. My maps show exact constituency numbers and they are more helpful than your socalled superior ones. I belong from Pakistan and i created those maps for my country. who are you to change them Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
If you want a summary of why this map is better than this one, then just a few reasons are:
  • The second one has a huge amount of unnecessary whitespace around the edge of the map
  • The first one has a transparent background, whereas the second has a white background, which looks odd in the infobox
  • The second one appears slightly blurry compared to the first as it is png rather than svg
  • The first one includes the reserved seats for women and a breakdown of seats by party
  • The first one uses sentence case for city names rather than all caps
It doesn't matter where you're from. I have just as much right to change the maps as you. Cheers, Number 57 14:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
So you should have to tell me about that. I worked so hard on these maps and when you removed them i was shocked Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Number_57/Archive_15&oldid=1087385910"