Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

@ZackCarns, Putitonamap98, CrookCoMaps61, CrookCoMaps61, Gordfather69, Incognito melon, AveryTheComrade, Elli, LeonEpik, OutlawRun, Dashing24, Thomascampbell123, and Aesurias:

I propose that the following be standardized for referendum Wikipedia articles:

• Very beginning of articles: some start off with the entire name, (e.g. 1967 Pennsylvania Amendment 1-A), others list the state name and amendment number followed by the year (e.g. 2006 South Carolina Amendment 1), others list just the amendment number (e.g. 2012 Wyoming Amendment A) while others include alternate names for the amendment (e.g. 2002 Massachusetts Question 2).

I propose it be the state name and amendment number. This shall mean the following: "[State] Amendment _ appeared on the Month Day, Year, ballot in the state of _ as a _ (what type of amendment/referendum. e.g. legislatively referred constitutional amendment.)"

• Short descriptions: some describe the amendment itself, (e.g. 1987 Mississippi Amendment 3), others also describe the amendment but do so in a different tense (e.g. 1998 South Carolina Amendment 4), while others describe what is being amended (e.g. 2024 Colorado Amendment 80)

I propose it describe the amendment itself. This shall mean, in the case of 1987 Mississippi Amendment 3, for example, "Referendum to repeal interracial marriage ban".

• Percentage in keys: some use one percentage symbol per number interval (e.g. 2004 Alabama Amendment 2), while others use two (e.g. 1972 Denver Winter Olympics referendum)

I propose that it be one. This shall mean, for example, 50–60%. Two percentage symbols, such as 50%–60%, shall NOT be used.

• Order in keys: some list percentages going from high to low (e.g. 1998 Alaska Measure 2), while others list percentages going from low to high (e.g. 2024 Arizona Proposition 139)

I propose that it go from high to low. This shall mean:

• Key shape: some are vertical (e.g. 2020 Utah Constitutional Amendment A) while others are horizontal (e.g. 2023 Ohio Issue 2)

I propose that it be vertical, in the same fashion as displayed above for the high-to-low proposal.

• Key color boxes: some include grey boxes around the colors (e.g. 2024 Ohio Issue 1), others use black (e.g. 1918 Massachusetts Question 1), while others do not use any boxes (I can't find an example right now but I have definitely seen it before).

I propose it be black, as displayed above.

• Above 90%: For colors above 90%, some articles say "90–100%" (e.g. 2021 Pennsylvania Amendment 3) while others say "<90%" (e.g. 2025 Texas Proposition 15)

I propose that it be "90–100%".

• Tie color: the vast majority use white, though I have seen ones that use different colors, such as pink (2022 Montana Legislative Referendum 131)

I propose that it be white, specifically:      #EBEEED (from Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/USA legend colors#Proposal support levels). Delcoan (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't have any objections to these proposals, though I do have a question while we're on this topic: Would it be good to have links in the infoboxes to previous/future referenda on the same topic, such as a repealing? Relevant groupings this could apply to include 2008 California Proposition 8 with 2024 California Proposition 3 (which are not currently linked) and 2020 Alaska Measure 2 with 2024 Alaska Ballot Measure 2 and the upcoming 2026 repeal attempt (which are currently linked). I think it would be useful and helpful to quickly have these links, as it communicates that the referendum in question was not the first/last say on the matter, and that it may have been superseded. OutlawRun (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I’d support making this a policy. I added this to the 2026 Virginia redistricting referendum and 2020 Virginia Question 1 pages a few weeks ago. Delcoan (talk) 04:22, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Most of these sound reasonable except, to me, making the key be verticle as opposed to horizontal, I think the vertical keys can make the infobox too large and unwieldy and a horizontal key can prevent that. Talthiel (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@ZackCarns, Putitonamap98, CrookCoMaps61, CrookCoMaps61, Gordfather69, Incognito melon, AveryTheComrade, Elli, LeonEpik, OutlawRun, Dashing24, Thomascampbell123, and Aesurias:

I propose that:

Articles on congressional districts, such as Missouri’s 3rd congressional district, show recent election results before they show recent election results from statewide races. Delcoan (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't want to codify this because "recent election results" is only because of incomplete information. Ideally, we list all the election results, and because that's going to be a very large block, it should be near the end of the page. However, prose about recent results could definitely go before the recent statewide races information (which honestly is a bit of a statdump and very often OR). Elli (talk | contribs) 02:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Seconding this. I think we also need to establish some form of guidelines as to which statewide races we include in the "recent statewide races" section, since it so often gets overloaded by 6 or so races from the same year, almost all of which have similar results and which most users will not know the significance of the differences between. Maybe trim it down to just President, Senate, and Governor, and maybe some other outlier races if they exist? OutlawRun (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I think it should be something like that, or at least the core constitutional offices of a state (the California AG is more important to show the results for for a specific district than, say, the Labor Commissioner or Insurance Commissioner). Talthiel (talk) 13:49,

There is a discussion regarding policy on Election-related articles at Wikipedia talk:Notability (events)#Discussion on Elections, and I would appreciate it if any of you who are interested chimed in. Thank you! Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

Tagging the same people as the previous discussions: @ZackCarns @Putitonamap98 @CrookCoMaps61 @Gordfather69 @Incognito melon @AveryTheComrade @Elli @LeonEpik @Dashing24 @Thomascampbell123 @Aesurias and @Decloan

Too often in lead sections, I see so much of them are filled by "This is the first/last time X thing happened since Y" sentences. In some cases, this can be enlightening, such as in 1988 United States Senate election in Texas saying "As of 2026, this was the last time a Democrat won a U.S. Senate election in Texas," but others just feel either trivial or like it's being said far too soon. I would argue an example of this includes 2016 United States Senate election in Georgia saying " It also remains the last time that any statewide candidate has won an election in Georgia by double digits, and the last time that any U.S. Senate candidate in Georgia has won without a runoff." It also had a third clause that was so trivial I removed it while writing this post.

First of all, a lot of these sentences are unsourced, and while they are almost all probably true, the lack of citation means a lot likely don't meet WP:NOTABLE. I don't want to be obnoxious, though, and put "citation needed" next to every single one of these, so I think it would be good to just establish some general guidelines for what kinds of these sentences we should allow and which should be discarded as trivia.

I think the true purpose of these sentences should be communicating something that either:
1. Has not/did not happen for an extremely long time (like controlling a state legislative chamber for 100 years)
2. Is strange that it has not happened for a shorter period of time (like Republicans not winning Minnesota for president since 1972 despite it being a rather purple state)

In general, I think we should have a 10-20 year buffer of time between something happening and the present day for it to be mentioned like this, or at least 20-30 years for it to be mentioned between two dates in the past, unless there is a good source backing up its notability. We should also avoid mentioning things that don't actually matter, like runoff triggers or winning a majority of counties. It can be tricky for things like "X party winning without Y county," since that can sometimes be notable because they hold major population centers, but it is too often used for random rural counties that don't have much statewide sway.

Is there anything else y'all want to chime in on for what kinds of guidelines we can have for these? I'm tired of seeing so many election pages filled to the brim with this kind of trivia instead of being filled with actual, substantive writing. OutlawRun (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTABLE isn't the right guideline to apply here as article content does not need to meet notability. However I agree most of these are not particularly relevant and veer into WP:OR. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:52, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:V would be the policy of application here. And I agree that some of these sentences may fall under WP:TRIVIA. Only those that are reported by sources should be commented. Impru20^talk 15:30, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I would be happy to see these sort of statements used more sparingly. Many of them feel like that one xkcd comic where the precedents get so incredibly specific as to be meaningless trivia. I agree with the proposal that it should be essentially obvious-on-the-face-of-it facts that are practically WP:CALC: first time the party has won in a long time, or a massive landslide victory, or other things along those lines. Anything about "winning without state/country/riding/district/etc Y" should be left out, unless that aspect is covered in secondary sources that indicate it's actually politically noteworthy and not just pub trivia. For example, the 1964 United States presidential election should definitely mention that the Republicans won the Deep South for the first time since the civil war, because that is widely discussed by historians; on the other hand, I'm less sure that This was the last election in which the Democratic nominee carried Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, or Oklahoma, and the only election ever in which the Democrats carried Alaska. is worth highlighting. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I do agree with OutlawRun's general sentiment but I think the last sentence you noted is quite relevant. The election signified the beginning of a complete upheaval of the Democratic voting base. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

In the lead, though? A breakdown makes sense for the dedicated Results sub-section, but I don't se how eight-point list is the most pertinent info for the lead. In general, I think a lot of the issues here could be avoided if people would contextualize the information, rather than rattling off a bunch of facts. Instead of saying "this is the last time the Democrats won the white vote, last time they won ABC states, first time they won XYZ states, first time the Republicans won DEF…" (all from the article), just say what we're getting at: "This election marked a significant change in each party's electoral base" (with some elaboration as necessary). — Kawnhr (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I would say verifiability should be the general guideline here. If you can't find a reliable source stating that fact, then it should not be on Wikipedia. Any fact notable enough to be mentioned will have been referenced by reliable sources. As a very general rule, I would say that trivia about county results in statewide elections should usually never be mentioned, because it simply is irrelevant trivia. The only exception would be if the fact nevertheless is widely covered. Like e.g. Maricopa County in 2020. Gust Justice (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this. There is one editor who I regularly see adding dubious claims like "was the first free election since 1930"; this sort of thing should only be allowed with a source. Number 57 23:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Is there somewhere where policies that have been established are written? Delcoan (talk) 12:01, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@ZackCarns, Putitonamap98, CrookCoMaps61, Gordfather69, Incognito melon, AveryTheComrade, Elli, LeonEpik, OutlawRun, Dashing24, Thomascampbell123, and Aesurias:

I propose that:

Within infoboxes on referendum articles:

• If the referendum question is used, as it appeared on the ballot, it must be in italics, and it must not be in bold. (Example: 2021 Pennsylvania Amendment 3).

• If the ballot statement is used, as it appeared on the ballot, it must be in bold, and it must not be in italics. (Example: 2005 Texas Proposition 2).

• If an official ballot title, legislatively editorialized ballot description or title, or an editorialized description or title is used, as they are defined below, it must be in bold, and it must not be in italics.

• Referendum questions and ballot statements shall be given primacy to be part of an infobox; if neither a question nor a statement is available, the order thereafter shall be 1.) official ballot titles, 2.) legislatively editorialized ballot descriptions or titles (e.g. how the legislature referred to the measure), and 3.) editorialized descriptions or titles (e.g. how the general public and media referred to the measure). If both a question and statement appeared on the ballot, the question must be used.

Delcoan (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Here is my hub where I have all these tables in case anybody wants to put them to use: User talk:CrazedElectron27/CaliforniaPresElectionCityResults CrazedElectron27 (talk) 10:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2026 Labour Party leadership election (UK)#Requested move 25 June 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2007 Labour Party leadership election (UK)#Requested move 26 June 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 08:16, 26 June 2026 (UTC)