Talk:2013 Delhi Legislative Assembly election

Opinion Poll should be included

Many previous wiki pages on elections have that. e.g. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Iran_election,_2009 I don't understand why that is NOTNEWS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.138.200 (talk) 04:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

See WP:OSE and note that the poll was conducted "with technical assistance from Yogendra Yadav". Who just happens to be a member of the AAP. - Sitush (talk) 10:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I have asked here for any consensus that might be available to us regarding how Wikipedia generally treats pre-election opinion polls. - Sitush (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I strongly believe that opinion polls should be included. But at the same time I must say that the CICERO opinion poll should not be the only one that needs inclusion. Other opinion polls with a good coverage should also be included. Though Yogendra Yadav was one of technical assistant, the results are completely open to the public which makes CICERO survey a contender for opinion polls to be included in the article.--ratastro (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

AAP as spoiler effect.

There is no controvercy that AAP is being regarded as a Spoiler effect party. - Tall.kanna (talk) 07:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but we're not going to believe a known AAP pov-pusher like yourself. Find some sources. - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of Candidate List of all parties

WP:POLITICIAN is a subcriteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people). This entirely is applied when you are trying to create biographies of people. Our aim here is to put forth candidate list per constituency by all political parties taking part in Delhi state assembly elections, 2013 & not to create candidate's biographies so I believe that inclusion of candidate's name in candidate lists is not against WP:POLITICIAN. Following is the list of existing wikipedia articles where an event is notable but person is not at present & yet this has not stopped editors from putting candidate lists that include non-notable people in it.

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Indonesian_presidential_election,_2014 https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Iowa,_2014 https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Nebraska,_2014 https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Next_New_Zealand_general_election https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Indian_general_election,_2014 & https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/North_West_England_(European_Parliament_constituency)

Moreover following is one of the ' best lists on Wikipedia' which contains few candidate's names in Candidate list even though there is no separate wikipedia article for then because of their lac of notability.

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_Maryland_House_of_Delegates

As to the sources of candidate lists are concerned, there are many secondary sources available. Thus anybody who wish to delete/revert this has to form not only a consensus but also put forth valid policies before proceeding with reverts/deletes.--ratastro (talk) 11:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

You have been told previously that what happens elsewhere is irrelevant. You have been told previously to stop pushing the AAP. You have been told previously that it is undue weight to list only information regarding to one party. I have amended a citation to link to the AAP's list of candidates. When. Will. You. Learn? - Sitush (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

@Sitush, I am not pushing Aam Aadmi Party. I have created table to include candidates from other parties whenever other parties declare their lists. So your claim is not reasonable. So far Aam Aadmi Pary appears to have declared maximum number of candidates hence their inclusion in the article. If you go through my previous comment properly, you will come across a link which is included in Wikipedia's featured lists (these are reviewed for usefulness, completeness, accuracy, neutrality, style and prose according to our featured list criteria, before being placed their). It also contains few candidates who do not have any Wikipedia article on them. So instead of asking questions, I would suggest you read thoroughly what I said earlier. So in my opinion the responsibility is on you to either cite correct policies or explain why the opinion of other editor weighs more than 'Wikipedia's featured lists'.--ratastro (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Ratastro's table of politician hopefuls should either have all the known cells filled in or it should be deleted. A complete list of AAP hopefuls without the other parties represented completely is too promotional for AAP. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

@Binksternet, Thanks for withdrawing the claim of 'notability' made on AAP talk page on 19:41, /21 September 2013 (UTC). @Sitush, Thanks for dropping the claim of 'WP:POLITICIAN' on dispute resolution noticeboard & many more thanks for sober language there. I sincerely think you & Binksternet's point of 'adding the list once every major party has declared candidates' can be adopted here. I withdraw my support the suggestion adding 'Candidate list' at this juncture.--ratastro (talk) 01:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent my arguments at another article, and do not make the mistake that they are relevant here, or that I formally withdrew them. I never said here that the AAP list was not notable; more importantly I never made that argument at the AAP talk page. There, I said the list was unimportant emphasis on ephemeral details, a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. This 2013 election article is different because it freezes the election in time, focusing forever on one single political contest. Here the list of candidates is perfectly apt, but it must include all known candidates or it is too promotional toward the ones listed. Binksternet (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

@Binskternet, Point noted & I apologize for my misinterpretation. Can you please let me know if we should wait for all political parties to declare their candidate list & then add it here or can we simple add them as & when parties declare their probable candidates?--ratastro (talk) 06:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather wait until an official list of all candidates is compiled by the electoral authorities. I am under the impression that until affidavits regarding financial status etc are filed with them, the proposed candidature is void. - Sitush (talk) 06:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Right to Reject option in the form of NOTA

@Sitush, Delhi Elections will be one of the 5 elections in November 2013, where Elections comission is going to implement the Right to Reject options. Sources listed mention two important things viz. 1) 'right away' or 'in all future elections' 2) including 5 elections in November. So the latest revert by you without asking for clarification in talkpage do not go well with any policy of wikipedia as well as editor's behavior.--ratastro (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

"Right away" was vague since there was no indication of how long it would take them to "seek to implement" etc and Delhi was not mentioned. Your newly-introduced ToI source is fine but you'd got the detail wrong - it specifically says that it is not "right to reject". I deal with excitable contributors from India every day so please excuse me if I treat a lot of what I see (not necessarily from you) with a large pinch of salt. It is like those people who were eager to change articles to show Warangal etc being in the state of Telangana even though that announcement was only saying "we've agreed that it will happen at some point in the future". I don't need to seek clarification when the burden is on you to provide verifiability, and you had not done so. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

@Sitush, Thanks for your reply. I think you might not have gone through the entire article earlier or you still seem to miss a point mentioned in it.In any case, I am giving my earlier citations to you for reference.http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/will-implement-voters-right-to-reject-candidates-straight-away-election-commission/articleshow/23171880.cms It clearly mentions 1) On all future elections 2) including all 5 elections in November. So your point of 'I don't need to seek clarification' is again unjustifiable unless you go through the citations properly, which you certainly have not done earlier.--ratastro (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, if I missed something then I apologise. One source is enough and we have that now. - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Infobox criteria

What are the criteria for inclusion of specific parties in the infobox for this article? The thing is already wider than we usually see but it only includes three of the contestants and one of those has never contested an election before. - Sitush (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I trimmed it. We cannot give undue prominence to selected contenders. - Sitush (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I am create this Infobox. If I remove AAP from infobox than it is OK? Then it is meet the criteria? I am ready to remove AAP.--Prateek Malviya^Talk 14:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Not really. The problem is that showing only some parties amounts to giving those few a prominence that is denied to the others. We cannot do that because we are supposed to present things in a neutral way. Equally, if we show them all using the format that I recently removed then the infobox is likely to be nearly as wide as the page. Can you find any other Indian election articles where this has been done? - Sitush (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Many Indian election articles use such infobox. Few of those use 2 or 3 party details too. Which and how many parties are to be included can be decided thus:
  • Add parties which are nominating maximum number of representatives. This way we will have 4 parties (70/69/70/70) for this article.
  • Add parties which currently hold majority in the house. That will give just 2 parties in here.
  • Add parties which are more in news or have popularity which can be proven through opinion polls. In this case AAP has got numbers in opinion polls.

I find those three parties, INC, BJP & AAP, okay in the infobox. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm considering taking this to WP:NPOVN. As you rightly point out, there are various possible criteria for inclusion and if it does go on at other Indian election articles then it probably needs wider input. - Sitush (talk) 10:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Singaporeans seems to be using 3 or even 4 entries. Americans are using 2 and even 3 at times. UK-England is using 3 too. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

After the elections, not before they have taken place. That is my point: we are giving undue prominence to certain parties during the election campaign itself - it cannot possibly be right. - Sitush (talk) 11:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Political_parties_.26_infoboxes_during_election_campaigns. - Sitush (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh i see! Won't those few days between the creation of article and results declaration just pass away in reverts and other edit wars? Even if you have a full strong consensus, by the time it is made understood to IPs and new editors, the results are out and you simply have created angry editors and messy article history. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought that there already would have been consensus - I first raised this in October and no-one objected. It is only recently that the box has reappeared in (arguably) non-neutral form. I think we'll have a clear consensus very quickly at NPOVN and that then can be rolled out to all other articles in future. It needs be, this article can be semi-protected for the remaining few days but I'd be surprised if that was necessary - an inline note + some vigilance should sort it out. - Sitush (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You donot own this article. AEcept for you the other 2 editors agree with at least the 2 big parties and compromise on taking out AAP.

Editing election articles across WP. tHIS IS standard practice. So until you get consensus refrain fromw arring.

It is clearly established here that you are the ONLY one insisting on your way!Lihaas (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. I think the infobox should not be the place for activism in favor of a third party. I think the infobox should have no images prior to the election, to make the playing field perfectly flat. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Lihaas, stop edit warring. You've done this a few times now despite me making it clear to you that discussions were in progress. Do it again without consensus and I'll take it to WP:AN3, which will result in a block. If you can explain why it is ok only to show some parties in that infobox then I am happy to consider it but I do suggest that you read WP:NPOV and the discussion at WP:NPOVN that is linked above because there really isn't any policy-compliant way that I can see. I've previously explained that it is irrelevant whether it happens on other articles or not - it shouldn't be happening there either unless perhaps you can fit all of the contesting parties into the box. - Sitush (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• You guys are still fighting? Now after the election is done, whats wrong with all three parties in infobox? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Same reason: it is undue weight - what criteria are you suggesting that we use? What criteria should we use when the results come out? - Sitush (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I gave my rationale above of how these three parties, and not all, can go in infobox. There won't be any change post results. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

And I gave a rationale of how it should be all or none in the NPOVN discussion that you participated in. - Sitush (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

But your rationale was for pre-voting period where POVyness was a problem. Whats it now? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

So was yours. I'm asking how we resolve it now. The more I think about it, the more I think that the same criteria applies, with the other possibility being just showing whoever wins (although that might be awkward if there is no outright winner). It would be easy to resolve this if there were only two parties to show but we've got far more than that & I'd guess that the same applies at most elections in India because of the number of state-level parties etc. - Sitush (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I think "pre-election" should be changed to "post-announcement-of-results". There's no need to change the infobox between the day of voting and the moment of announcement, when there is plainly nothing to report, and nothing has changed. Binksternet (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No! My rationale was based on number of candidates, previous assembly's strengths and in-news and opinion polls; none of which have to do anything with the actual voting results. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Sitush you do not OWN this. ALL editors here disagree with you, we have made accomodation. You cannot have your whim and and fancy becasue ILIKEIT.

Dharmadhyaksha, Prateek Malviya, Binksternet and me are in support of some form of an infobox. On the other side you and you alone are citing some policy claiming you see a bias and we should not have it on. That is a clear consensus. If you cannot see that you are on the other side and cannot graciously accept consensus then go ahead and complain. There is no war here as there is clear consensus.Lihaas (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

And btw, you clearly are blibndly reverting ad you have removed a lot more content.[1]Lihaas (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyhooo...now that its over...(Lihaas (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)).

Resolved

update results

I suggest to update results as Gujarat legislative assembly election, 2012 article as it has nicely formated tables. New ideas welcome. Nizil (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep, and think thats wahts happeninsg.

Also the other 3 places from today. And i take it Raje is back in RJ?(Lihaas (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)).

Reactions section

Okey then, if "reaction sections may be appropriate" why is this "not encyclopedic". It is the definition of reaction and exists on all such electiom pages (where available)(Lihaas (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)).

first party "reactions" to election results, whether they are self congratulatory, delusional misreadings, or heartfelt claims of self analysis and mea culpa are NOT encyclopedic. Third party reactions/analysis may be. Dixit's "reaction" falls in the first category, but not the second. A third party identifying Dixit's comments as one of the above would be appropriate.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Ummm, yes they are. they exp;lain the party's reaction and have been used across WP. You have not explained why it is not so, you just claim (repeatedly) it is not so.(Lihaas (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)).

if they are "used widely" across wikipedia without third party analysis, there are many articles that need to be cleaned up. We can start here and not add to the crap. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Lihaas, you have been repeatedly stating the "this is done in lots of Wikipedia articles" rationale across a lot of discussions. This seems to be continuing despite attempts to explain the spirit of WP:OSE and similar. The more you add this inappropriate stuff, the more your claim becomes self-fulfilling ... but it still does not make it right. - Sitush (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

"crap" is your reason to oppose? What is your reason? Its sourced to RS to a notable personLihaas (talk) 07:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Links

>> delhi assembly gets only 3 women members, all belong to aap>> Assembly election 2013: 'Bewakoof hain na', says upset Sheila Dikshit after losing Delhi>> Delhi polls: Anna Hazare happy with Aam Aadmi Party's performance>> Common Man's Party captures Indian imagination(Lihaas (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)).

Change of colours for AAP

Hi,

The current map being used is very aesthetically unpleasing and it's colours ought to be changed. To that effect, I have made File:2013 Delhi assembly election map recolour.svg which colours AAP in green while toning down the BJP colours in the map.

What do others think of this map, and would it be better to colour AAP in green rather than the current colour?

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

{{Aam Aadmi Party/meta/color}} doesn't use green and the BJP's color is saffron not amber. — Bill william compton^Talk 04:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• User:Bill william compton, yes I am aware that the particular page does not use green. And as far as I understand, there is no official AAP colour, (unlike BJP for example). I was suggesting green as a possible colour to be used for all pages related to AAP during elections, including the {{Aam Aadmi Party/meta/color}} page.

As for BJP, I had just chosen a more aesthetically pleasing colour than FF6600 being used. Hence my opting for FFA700. However, the actual BJP colour is FF9933 according to the relevant template, and I could make the adjustments in the image to see how that looks. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

•  Done. See the new BJP colour in the map I uploaded. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Use of Crore and Lakh

I find that when reading these election results I am confused with the terms Crore and Lakh. I don't feel linking to the terms is good enough. Are there any guidelines for what number systems should be used in Wikipedia? I understand that it is likely that the majority of readers of this page (Delhi election results) will natively understand crore and lakh, but isn't it good form to include the alternative representation of these numbers? I've pinpointed an this edit which removes the SI representations (e.g. millions). — Mogsie (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This gets into the "politically correct" arena and WP:MOSTIES etc. however, there have been various discussions at WT:INB, the outcome of which has tended to favour using the Western-style numbering system or showing both styles (one in parantheses) - depends which discussion you look at. What is certain is that crore and lakh alone cause a massive amount of confusion and often result in well-intentioned attempts to fix what appear to many people to be misplaced commas etc. FWIW, crore and lakh are not even the only non-Western numbering systems used in India, IIRC. - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Per ENGVAR to use the native system. But brackets for cpmparison and a wikilink should cover it.Lihaas (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)