Since the LS constituencies are all created, i assume that we can remove that list from the "Collab opportunities". Can we replace that with Vidhan Sabha constituencies? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Manas bose is an interesting user. He is removing the controversy related reliably sourced information on Dilip Ghosh (politician)diff while adding similar kind of stuff on Mamata Banerjeediffdiff ? The edit reeks of political bias, to me. They are clearly double standards for the 2 leaders of rival political parties? He has been edit warring and has now summoned a gang of editors to support him in his edit war and bowdlerize the reliably sourced content.
This is primarily a two-editor "pissing match" that has now turned into an RfC, with presently very low input, so it's turning into the same two-editor pissing match again. This needs to be settled, by uninvolved editors. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I think it necessary to have a standardised set of criteria for inclusion in infoboxes. There does not seem to be any consistent rules with regards to which parties are included in infoboxes. I'd like to propose a system where parties are included in infoboxes for national elections if their performance would qualify them for national party status, and where they are included in infoboxes for state Vidhan Sabha elections if their performance would qualify them for state party status. Your thoughts? If I receive no responses within a week I will implement this system for state elections. YttriumShrew (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
"if their performance would qualify them for state/national party status." -please clarify what you mean by that. Also, give an example of an election article where you plan to change the parties in the infobox along with the change are you proposing. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I think it's ok to include upto 3 parties which have won seats, in the infobox. Beyond that, it would be on a case to case basis. I don't think we want the state election page infoboxes to look like the national election one.-MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
@MPGuy2824, are the bye elections notable for stand alone articles? What is the usual way to cover the bye elections? In a separate page or in a separate section in the Assembly election article. Venkat TL (talk) 09:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
@Venkat TL: Sometimes many seats of an assembly go in for by-elections at the same time, in which case it might deserve a stand-alone article. Otherwise, I'd think that only the rare single-constituency by-election deserves its own page. Usually just a sentence or two in the by-election section of that constituency should do. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. What is the threshold for "many seats" > 2 seats? Agree, that the constituency article 'must' have this info in a section. Consider this example, For stand alone bye election of 1 seat, (in addition to updating the constituency) would it make sense to cover the bye election as a section in the "2017 state Assembly election" page? or would that be inappropriate (due to year difference)? Venkat TL (talk) 10:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Threshold: I wouldn't create the article if there were < 10 seats. If you find enough good references though, then its up to you. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Adding to the previous 'full' election page: It seems kind of appropriate, given that for one (or more) constituencies there would be more than one MLA during that assembly term. I guess you could just copy (with attribution) the table that is used in relevant section of 2021 elections in India. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, some of the newer folk here may not have seen this. It is a weekly-updated cleanup listing of the articles in this project. Some of these issues are simple to solve, others might take a bit more time. To start with, newer editors can look into tackling the following issue:
Coordinates needed (just replace the coord-missing template with a coord template example diff) Suggestion: don't add too much precision; 2 or 3 digits after the decimal point should be enough for most constituencies (Parliamentary or Assembly).
Regarding Bhadaur Assembly Constituency, the data in the table under the "Previous results" section needs to be moved to the "Members of the Legislative Assembly" section and the "Election results" section. That should make it consistent with other articles. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
@MPGuy2824, thanks for the reply and creating the Article structure page. So it seems the layout used in Mehal Kalan Assembly Constituency is more commonly used and probably standard. If so then this type of layout should be mentioned at The article structure page. A decent constituency article should also be added as an example for others to follow. Venkat TL (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
has been created just as a standard template like the one created after the discussion at #Indian Assembly Constituency article above.
@MPGuy2824, @YttriumShrew, Diptyajit please take a look and help to improve. The idea is to make all the election articles streamline with standard section headings. If possible also take a look at the US and UK election articles to improve the standard template. Venkat TL (talk) 08:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
@DaxServer Looking at the page history, the former was created when the latter did not exist. The latter is clearly standardized. Please proceed with the merge. There would be no objections from anyone. Venkat TL (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@Venkat TL I haven't looked at the category naming in other states yet, perhaps a petscan would do, to discover if others follow a convention? Do we simply recategorise the articles, removing the former and adding the latter, or do we go to CfD? — DaxServer (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: I think they need a manual processing, instead of, say, Cat-a-lot. Some of them might be a Legislative Council member instead of Assembly member. — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 17:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I need some help with these. Others, I've nominated for WP:CFDS, hopefully I've got the years correct.
Thanks for the links @Venkat TL. I should've phrased my questions with more specificity.
Do we name the first three as "Tamil Nadu MLAs..." or "Madras State MLAs..."?
The 4th has overlap with Madras State and Tamil Nadu. What do we do?
The 7th Assembly was (from 1980) in place still 9 February 1985, but the election was in 1984 [December]. Do we say 1980-1984 or 1980-1985?
The 8th one was dissolved with President's rule from 30 January 1988 to 26 January 1989, with elections in 1989. Do we say start: 1984 or 1985 (corresponding to 7th end) and end: 1988 or 1989.
@DaxServer, please follow the same nomenclature as Assembly election names. First four are named Madras and thereafter Tamil Nadu. I am assuming there is an existing consensus for that name. Lets follow the official duration, as that is what the readers will be looking for. The official tenures are 1980-84, 85-89. Venkat TL (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't see Predictions in MOS:INDELECT, but only see Surveys and polls, Opinion polls, and Exit polls. While the US uses "Predictions", we use "Opinion polls" (among other variants), just like in 2019 Indian general election and Opinion polling for the 2019 Indian general election. I would say changing what we use (probably on all election articles) from Surveys/Opinion/Exit polls to Predictions would need a consensus. Either way, what is the MOS that recommends to use internationally recognised language. I have read it in the past but can't recall. I've also read to use the local language but can't recall either. — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 14:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@DaxServer Good catch. @Dhruv editschanged it from "Predictions" to "Surveys and Polls", without discussion. Let's have the discussion now and here. US pollster sites also use the word poll, yet the Wiki article uses Predictions. I am against using "Polls" because it means Elections. We do not want the reader to confuse the Predictions with actual results. In that sense the word predictions is most suitable. Probably that is why US site also uses it. MOS recommendation to use "internationally recognised language" would demand that even folks all over the world could decipher its meaning without getting confused. Predictions, tick all the boxes. @MPGuy2824 @YttriumShrew. What do you think? Venkat TL (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Predictions is something we categorically do not use. I am against it. Rather surveys, opinion polls and exit polls are the terms we use. — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 17:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I'd probably prefer that we have one section called "polls", split into two tables named "voting intention" and "seat predictions". However, I don't have a strong preference. YttriumShrew (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not fond of the name Predictions for this section. I can imagine an editor thinking that it is kosher to add an astrologer's predictions to this section, if it was named such. I don't have a strong preference among the other names. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@MPGuy2824 come on, no serious reader or editor is going to confuse it with astrology etc. All these Pollsters take sample polling and then extrapolate their results to predict the seats each party will get. Everyone knows how this work. This section is supposed to contain, Opinion Poll and Exit Polls. Using Poll is risky due to the meaning of the word Poll. @YttriumShrew I have never seen "Voting intentions" in any wikipedia article. Lets focus on what we have in Indian articles. I have asked on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics#Seaction_header_"Predictions"_for_pre-election_surveys_in_election_articles, so that we do not reinvent the wheel. Pretty sure there should be some existing consensus over this. Venkat TL (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Election Results section of Constituency articles
While mentioning the votes received by the candidates in an election, how many names should be mentioned in the list of the the Candidates and their votes? Generally the ECI data can go upto 10- 20 - even more . If there is an existing standard, it should be mentioned at MOS:INDCONST. Based on the discussion in this thread, I intend to update the page. I saw Chandni Chowk (Vidhan_Sabha_constituency)#1993_results and I was wondering that it is probably too much and unnecessary. In my opinion no candidate getting less than NOTA should be added. Venkat TL (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I was about to say all the major parties in the context of the election, but NOTA limit would be unambiguous. What about those before NOTA? Let's say only above 1%? Here in the link you shared, the major/recognized parties have less than 1% — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 16:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
@DaxServer If we are going to use the wording "Major party" than we would also need to define in concrete terms what that is. Any good definition you have in mind? ECI Status? . Taking the example I gave above, candidate getting less than 1% have almost no encyclopedic value. I have 3 criterias in mind, sharing to discuss and streamline it with other editors.
To be listed into Results section:
Candidates should get more votes than NOTA
Candidates should get more than 1% of the total votes polled.
Candidates should be in the top 6 candidates in terms of votes polled. (This will keep the list at 7 (6+1 NOTA)
The results section will be manageable and would be relevant to the reader. if these rules are followed. In case of star candidates, there will be some scope to go beyond these, but these should be the guiding rules. Thoughts? Venkat TL (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Another set of criteria could be: either 1. did not lose deposit (more than 1/6th cast votes per ECI) or 2. has an article already (i.e notable for WP). But it isn't as bright-line as yours and requires a bit of calculation to verify. hemantha (brief) 17:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
@Hemantha Thanks, your suggestion will be included among the exceptions. ECI rule of 1/6 corresponds to 16% of the votes, a much stricter criteria than 1%. Notable parties routinely loose deposits. I guess 1% should be fine, the fact that a notable party is performing badly is encyclopedic but if it is getting less than 1% then it is inconsequential, and can be ignored. If no other concerns, then I will include all the 3 criteria with AND Operator (i.e. all 3 should be satisfied to be listed. ) Waiting to hear opinions from @MPGuy2824 @Dhruv edits and @Diptyajit. Venkat TL (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
My views:
"Minimum of 1% of the total votes": Seems ok, as long as the runner-up and NOTA, are included at minimum.
Candidates who already have an article (but who get less than 1%): This information can be mentioned, if the editor chooses, in a sentence just before the election box templates.
More votes than NOTA: I don't think this should be relevant, if they are passing the 1% criteria.
Top 6 candidates only (+ NOTA): I'm against this. In the rare case that this condition is reached, i think it should be ok to add more than 6 candidates. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
MPGuy2824 thanks for sharing your opinion. (1) Yes I agree runner up and NOTA will be included. Cant think of any situation where a runner up will get less than 1%. NOTA even if less than 1% will be included. (2) I am ok with mentioning candidates with articles, as an exception. (3) More votes than NOTA will come into picture if NOTA gets 2 or 3%. (4) see below section--Venkat TL (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I have drafted the criteria in a new subsection. Please add your name among the supporters. If you have comments please discuss in this subsection, (not in draft subsection). --Venkat TL (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
@Hemantha thanks for the copy edit, they are acceptable to me. @MPGuy2824 if you join the supporter list, this will be a unanimous consensus. I think this is a good start. They can be revisited in future to further improve the criteria. Venkat TL (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Top Six candidate criteria
Candidates should be in the top 6 candidates in terms of votes polled. (This will keep the list at 7 (6+1 NOTA)
Top 6 candidates only (+ NOTA): I'm against this. In the rare case that this condition is reached, i think it should be ok to add more than 6 candidates. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
MPGuy, I believe more discussion is needed to streamline this criteria. The number 6 is not completely arbitrary. It is based on the ECI rule of 1/6 for security deposit. In any case there cannot be more than 6 candidate who will save their deposit. Based on my experience in reviewing the results of alliance politics, normally 3-4 candidates are the only major ones. Candidates beyond the top 6 are very rarely notable and encyclopedic. I request you to consider WP:NOTDIRECTORY and Wikipedia:Ten year test The reader will not care about who came on 7th position in election 10 years back, who lost his deposit. In rare case if they care, they can follow the reference to the ECI page to see the full result sheet of the AC. I believe the 1% and NOTA rule will be used more frequently than this, as you also noted that this condition will be reached in rare case. Of course in rare circumstances, if for some reason it may become necessary to report 8 or 10 candidates, it can be reported, but as a general rule I think 6 is a good number. If you have any better number and reasoning feel free to share. Venkat TL (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I was wondering where the number 6 came in from and if it's arbitrary. Your reasoning is very logical. Surely, many times it might not reach to that number pertaining to alliances among others. — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 13:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Your choice of the number 6 does makes more sense now. My thought was that the less conditions that we have, the less edit warring.
"Of course in rare circumstances, if for some reason it may become necessary to report 8 or 10 candidates, it can be reported" Leaving that statement in our guidelines is problematic as its interpretation is subjective. Maybe we can add something along the lines of "6 (+NOTA) is the limit but if you feel that adding more is important, then discuss with the IndianPolitics WikiProject before adding." -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Agree, with this suggestion. Since we have broad consensus. I will draft the rules in a new subsection. Feel free to directly edit the draft, for minor aesthetic edits. --Venkat TL (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Constraint
Loksabha (till 2009)
States (till 2013)
Total Names
74,930
398,702
Top 6
39,547
253,324
1%
33,224
242,748
Top6 and 1%
31,639
220,593
I ran a quick check (so mistakes possible) on data till 2013 from here. It seems adding both rules doesn't reduce the number of names too much. Top 6 (or 1%) alone should be enough. NOTA data isn't in there (since SC judgement on it came only in 2013), but I suspect it too wouldn't reduce much. I've added support, but reducing the number of rules has clear benefits in terms of less overhead and lower conflict. --hemantha (brief) 03:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
@Hemantha thanks for sharing the data about these. This is inline with what we had estimated, that 6 candidate rule might not kick in, most of the time. We should still keep this rule, as it will help in situations where the first two pass and the editor needs to seek consensus on the talk page. The consensus discussion then will always use this criteria, so to save time it makes sense to mention it. It also signals that Wikipedia is tolerant of keeping upto 6 names in the list. The goal of this rule and excercise is not to go around and start reducing the number of candidates from 5 to 3 but to avoid situations like Chandni Chowk (Vidhan Sabha constituency)#1993_results, where in the absence of any existing standards, editors ended up adding 37 candidates, when only top four candidates had encyclopedic relevance. The time saved could then be used to update other years, other constituencies. Another benefit of keeping these guidelines is to make sure that editors dont skip relevant information in the result. Instead of individuals making their own decisions on what to add and what to skip, this standardizes on what is useful and what will be excessive. It also helps to avoid bias in favour of established parties and bias against independents/smaller parties. As long as they get enough votes, they ought to be reported on results page. Venkat TL (talk) 06:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
A random example I came across today is Tanda_(Assembly_constituency)#2017, in this article the editor has used his discretion to cut off at 1000 vote (0.5%) mark. Even though there is no such rule written anywhere. On another page you may see the cutoff at 100 vote or 500 vote. By using these rules, we are standardizing this cutoff. The editors could refer to MOS:INDCONST in case there is minor dispute over cutoff. Venkat TL (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
In the "Election results", list only candidates
who are in the top 6
or already have wikipedia articles
To clarify, my point was that just two rules like in the box will get approximately the same results as the four rule draft. Top 6 rule can be replaced with 1% rule, it doesn't matter too much. In other words, there are relatively few constituency-election pairs where candidates below top 6 got more than 1% votes and similarly few cases where somebody in the top 6 got less than 1%. hemantha (brief) 11:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Constituency X and Y
X: A: 40%, B:12%, C:6%, D:5%, E:4%, F:3%, G:2%
Y: H: 40%, I:12%, J:0.4% K:0.3% L:0.3% M:0.2%
List with Rule 1% + top-6 =
X: A: 40%, B:12%, C:6%, D:5%, E:4%, F:3%, G:2%
Y: H: 40%, I:12% J:0.4%, K:0.3%, L:0.3%, M:0.2%
List with Rule "top-6 only"
X: A: 40%, B:12%, C:6%, D:5%, E:4%, F:3%, G:2%
Y: H: 40%, I:12%, J:0.4%, K:0.3%, L:0.3%, M:0.2%
hemantha I understand your point about skipping the 1% criteria, but I am inclined to keep it. The 1% rule and top6 rule are compliments to each other and not redundant. To understand this more clearly, consider the example on the right, The Candidate G is getting left out despite getting 2%, on the other hand Candidate M finds a mention despite getting only 0.2% which is both inconsequential and un-encyclopedic. In this illustration, it is hard to defend the position that Candidate M with 0.2% vote deserves to be mentioned on Wikipedia but Candidate G getting 2% does not find a mention. When both rules are applied, such a situation does not arise. Venkat TL (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. But with NOTA rule, this kind of 'unfairness' will happen anyway. For eg, for 2019, Bastar would see people with 4%+ excluded, while in Madhubani, two under 1.5% will be included. In 2019 LS, 164 names who had 1%+ and in top 6, would be excluded by NOTA rule hemantha (brief) 05:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
@Hemantha, The Bastar example is a good one. The article as it stands is fine. It only mentions candidates with more than 1%. Nota got 4%, which is not normal. So in my opinion, we should consider Bastar an exception due to High NOTA and allow upto 1% candidates, even though below NOTA. Do you have a better suggestion? If we start tweaking due to outliers, the rules will become too complicated. Venkat TL (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
14 LS constituencies in 2019 had 2%+ NOTA (and 104 had 1.5%+). If that same proportion holds for assemblies, there's a lot of potential for conflicts about the 'unfairness'.
Other than that, perhaps "1% plus" and "already have a page" are enough (if I'm reading MPGuy2824's views above correctly, this is what he had outlined as well). But 1% on its own seems like a random number. Top 6 follows the logic of ECI rule and isn't arbitrary; but has the issues you pointed out if used alone. So I think my only suggestion now is to remove "more than NOTA" rule; since 1% and top 6 generally make it unnecessary (the other way - keep NOTA, but rm top6 and/or 1% - also sounds great, but NOTA starts only in 2013)
"14 LS constituencies in 2019 had 2%+ NOTA (and 104 had 1.5%+)." ok, but I dont believe that all of them are running into problems with this rule. awkward situation only comes when NOTA is on Second (Very rare) or third place (rare). If NOTA gets 2% and NOTA is on 4th or 5th or 6th. That is acceptable as the Election results page covers the Winner, Runner up and Third position candidate. Beyond the third candidate the relevance to the reader becomes subjective and can vary. Removing NOTA rule is not required since it will only come applicable in elections after 2013. In vast majority of the constituencies NOTA is beyond 4th candidate and safer. Every suggestion we can think of will have some downsides. So lets use this version for now and propose amendments in future, if there are too many problems. Venkat TL (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
hemantha, I think I started the 1% thing. As you said, it is completely random and has no basis, but some place to start with. — DaxServer (t · c) 09:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Match between total votes and sum
If we eliminate some candidates, then the total votes will not match the sum of each displayed candidate's votes. How is an editor supposed to take care of this? Maybe add a row for "Others"? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
We are reporting the Vote totals and Vote % as published by the ECI. Since there is no script related addition to calculate the total, why does it matter if the sum of individual votes does not add up to the reported total. One can include a redundant row named others but in my opinion it is totally useless. The reader of the article would not start summing up the totals to check. --Venkat TL (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Why does this specify "Section each election separately in reverse chronological order" instead of chronological order like most other things? (This is in the "Election results" section.) RJFJR (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I too have previously tried to search the archives on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums but found nothing which had consensus. As I said in the prev discussion I've kept to this ordering, mostly in the name of consistency. That said, the results of the latest election would be more important to a reader, I think. This logic also applies to the MLA table, but that table is (or can be made) sortable. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
So basically, @RJFJR, @DaxServer and @MPGuy2824 (and for the record, myself) are all against this incorrect order which except of being written, seems to have no back up of any consensus. At one point can we call this abusred? Gonnym (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Could I beg one last favour? At the moment the "title" fields match the "trans-title" fields, but "title" should be in the original language (again I'm assuming it's Hindi). Could you put the Hindi titles into "title"? Parading my ignorance here, but I don't even have access to a Devanagari keyboard. Many thanks in advance. Storchy (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
@Storchy, I consider that to be pointless extra effort. I wont stop someone from doing it, but I don't see the benefit of doing it. After your comment above, I have added |language=hi so that readers are aware of what to expect from the ref.
How should we list the affiliation of MPs and MLAs in Indian legislatures who were elected for a different party than the one they are now associated with?
YttriumShrew (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Background for unfamiliar editors
Since 1985, India has had an anti-defection law, which was intended to curtail the frequent defections and changes of allegiance that had been ubiquitous in Indian politics in the previous decades. The law prohibited any elected representative from changing parties, and made doing so grounds for disqualification from the legislature; such legislators would be able to contest a by-election to return to the legislature. It did exempt group defections of over 2/3rds of a caucus.
Defections, however, are still relatively common. In some cases, such as Etela Rajender and Phanidhar Talukdar, the legislator in question chooses to resign and force a by-election, bypassing a potential disqualification. However, others choose to stay in the legislature, and such legislators often aren't disqualified. This leads to a rather strange situation, which is the subject for this RfC.
In all official capacity, such legislators are affiliated with the party they were elected for, and are listed as such on government websites and documents. In unofficial capacity, such as on news sites, they are listed as belonging to the party they defected to, despite said defections being in breach of the law. The question at hand is how to list them. It's a question that has come up repeatedly in recent months, in large part due to a string of defections to the All India Trinamool Congress. A number of options have been proposed
Option A is to go with the official party totals, which list the representatives as belonging to the party they are legally bound to.
Option B is to list them by the party they affiliate with in practice.
Option C is to list their seats as vacant, as they should be disqualified, despite not having been disqualified.
Which option should we use? If you would like to propose another, please do so.
Option D: list both I'm not sure why it has to be one or the other. Just list someone like Etela Rajender as TRS (unofficially BJP) or BJP (officially TRS). (No preference between the two versions.) Loki (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Option A The graphs, tables and infobox should all represent the official party status and figures and should not be be changed until the party switch is officially approved and applicable. The switch in party if any should be mentioned along with reliable source in the Political career section of the biography of the politician. Changes in infobox and Legislative assembly tables should wait for formal notification or update before showing the switch in the party. --Venkat TL (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Discussion
I will like to go with Option B. MLAs who are not disqualified, even if they are supposed to be disqualified under the anti-defection law, should be represented by the party they affiliate to. Recently 12 Congress MLAs of Meghalaya switched to AITC and AITC became the principal opposition party in Meghalaya Legislative Assembly. Since the anti-defection law permits merger of 2/3 members of a legislature group with another party, the 12 MLAs will not attract disqualification. But still the official website of Meghalaya Govt. shows them as INC MLAs which is incorrect. So a state government's official website cannot always be a reliable source in this case at least. - Diptyajit (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
@Diptyajit, @YttriumShrew The official sources may be outdated. The RfC is pointless. We should follow what reliable sources are saying. If reliable source exists that MLA X has switched allegiance, use that ref and tag the member as the new party with the source. The article body will clarify this switch in detail to avoid any confusion. I dont understand the dispute here. Option A is asking Wikipedia to stick to outdated primary sources. Not appropriate. Option C is asking Wikipedia to do WP:OR. Not appropriate. So clearly there is one option left to choose. Venkat TL (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
@Venkat TL: I've created this RfC for the purposes of creating a lasting consensus. Multiple editors have argued for option A, and I've seen option C advocated for as well. We would do well to have a lasting consensus on this, given it's an issue that has come up repeatedly. Just because this seems obvious to you doesn't mean it doesn't also seem obvious to someone who is on a different side. YttriumShrew (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
All three options would list the total in Meghalaya (not Manipur, by the way) as 12, as that defection was compliant with the law. Options A and C would list the Tripura count as 0, while Option B would list it as 1. YttriumShrew (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Option B is common sense. Option C is silly; we shouldn't show seats as vacant when they are filled. Option A seems somewhat reasonable, but given that reliable sources usually regard them as defections we should list them as such. Per Venkat TL, I do think it necessary to have a policy that we do not include defections without a reference. YttriumShrew (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
@Venkat TL and YttriumShrew: In the case of Tripura Assembly it is Option A. Currently, there are no Elected representative nor any Sitting MLA of AITMC at the Tripura Legislative Assembly. Regarding Mr. Ashish Das of Constituency 46 elected under the banner of BJP, He is an Elected Representative from BJP & the provision is "a lone elected MLA cannot switch his party officially". Either he has to resign from his MLA post or His party the BJP disqualifying him showing legal reasons. But this didn't happened for which TMC claims Mr. Ashish Das as their MLA which is a false propaganda. There is a provision for official & legal matters. If any MLA has to switch his party, a single Elected Representative (MLA) cannot but a group of 2/3rd of the total no. of Elected Representatives can.
For example, Bjp has 36 MLAs from Tripura. Now, keep in mind without any by-election only a group of 2/3rd MLAs i.e (2/3rd of 36) is 24. Therefore, 24 MLAs can switch parties which is legal.
A single Elected representative cannot switch his party except resigning for a by-election thereby getting re-elected from the desired party of his choice. In this case, MLA Ashish Das who recently joined TMC though elected under the banner of BJP didn't resigned for a by-election nor he got disqualified from his party BJP. So, therefore, he remains a BJP MLA. Even the Official website of the Government of Tripura say so. Now, regarding the activities of MLA Ashish Das, He got Elected from one party now working under the banner of another party. This is called "Anti-Party Activities. Option A makes sense & I firmly stand with Option A.
ChongPong (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
@Venkat TL and YttriumShrew: Few Wikipedia editors are misinterpreting the Anti-defection law though being aware of the flaws of the law has therefore, playing games of words. Now, for reference, If I add citation from Tripura Govt. Portal it will not get digested & it will labelled as biased as claimed by some editor. Since Wikipedia set its rules based on unbiasedness. But can anybody cite a single reliable source? Which source is reliable?
Someone may wrote an article citing "Lone Mla Ashish Das shaved head & joined TMC leaving BJP" which becomes headline and few wiki editors provided fallacious inadequacies whenever possible in the Wikipedia articles & when questioned will misinterprete the Anti-Defection law.
Now, In case of Ashish Das, he didn't faced charges of Anti-defection law & right here, few Wikipedia editors are copy-pasting web links citing it as reference to mislead the masses labelling it as a reliable source & readers will believe Ashish Das is a sitting MLA of Tripura Assembly. which is not the truth.
Except Govt. Portal. no sources can be treated as reliable. But Wikipedia's rules speaks of unbiasedness cannot rely on Govt. Information department, after all govt. is formed by political parties. So, therefore... Then what is the solution?
I believe Wikipedia pages should be based on "Truth" & should have Legal acceptance. This is my viewpoint & Wikipedia should not tolerate fallacies & biasedness.
ChongPong (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Important point to remember, "By voting on a bill along with another party Y, a member of party X does not become a part of the other party Y." Around the world it is common for members to vote across the party lines for whatever reasons. If the member has changed his allegiance, there will be some sort of statement and confirmation in reliable media. Nothing should be assumed per WP:SYNTH. @YttriumShrew the policy you are looking for, to enforce option B is WP:V. I think it is sufficient. As for the example of Meghalaya and Tripura, I am not fully aware of what happened. Such examples should be discussed on the respective article talk page. Not here. If new editors are adding poorly referenced content, then the seek page protection. Add sufficient clarification on the article and the talk page. Venkat TL (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
@Venkat TLA I firmly supports Option A. I believe a single elected representative Ashish Das of Tripura Assembly elected under the banner of BJP, didn't faced any by-election, now claimed by TMC that he switched sides & now, he is a sitting MLA of TMC at the Tripura Legislative assembly which I believe to be a false propaganda.
Since, Ashish Das is an Elected Representative from BJP and not from TMC. I believe Ashish Das can hold the flag of AITMC or any another regional party, can join whereever he want, can do whatever he want but still he will be tagged as Bjp MLA until he resigns from his said MLA post. This is why I am in favour of Option A.
Ashish Das being a Bjp MLA & now functioning under the banner of AITMC. He can indulge into anti party activities but being a lone MLA can he switch his party officially except resigning for a by-election? The Tripura govt. portal says he is a BJP MLA. So, therefore he is a BJP MLA & this can be regarded as truth. Ashish Das can claim himself that he joined AITMC but he did not resigned officially from his MLA post elected under the banner of Bjp. In Legal terms he hold the flag of AITMC but not elected from this party "Officially". Also, 2/3rd MLAs from the BJP are not gonna switch sides. Though, Ashish Das is claiming he did joined AITMC, Ashish Das still remains Bjp MLA officially & I repeated this a 100 times at the AITC talk page.
Now, few users claims Government portal cannot be considered as a reference in this case. What is this? This is not how it works. I believe to Provide proof from the State government portal which can be regarded as the official declaration for reaching conclusion.
I provided the official link of the government of Tripura. For queries regarding Ashish Das look for Constituency no. 46 & the party from which that MLA got elected. This is the proof from my side on behalf of the Tripura Govt. & it cannot be neglected. Users can check here the current Status of Mr. Ashish Das & which party he is in right now.
Now, Regarding his disqualification which is now a matter of discussion. Few Months ago, Tripura BJP Spokesperson Sri Suvendu Bhattacharjee urged if any MLA is indulged inAnti-party activities, they can resign if they wish thereby conducting a by-election so that they can represent themselves from the party of their choice LEGALLY. But, no Tripura Assembly MLA's came forward to resign. All have faith in the BJP. Except a lone MLA Ashish Das.
Neither Ashish Das resigned from his party (BJP), nor he faced any by-election therefore getting re-elected from his desired party (AITMC) & entering the Tripura assembly which is an issue from my side.
There are instances where I saw Lone MLA's of opposition parties after getting elected switched to the ruling party. Instances like a lone Bsp MLA after 2020 Bihar election switched to the JDU which is the Ruling NDA govt. Similarly, a lone LJP Mla of Manipur assembly switched to the Bjp which is in Govt. But can a lone MLA join Opposition parties. Are there are instances? I remember an instance of 2002 Uttar pradesh assembly election. The BSP who won 98 seats in the 2002 elections, Later 33 MLAs defected to the Samajwadi Party in 2003, in a move that may have been ILLEGAL but was permitted by the then speaker Kesri Nath Tripathi. But in case of Tripura assembly, Ashish Das didn't submitted his resignation to the Speaker so, therefore, he didn't get disqualified. He is labelled to be indulge in Anti-Party Activities.
ChongPong (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Option B makes the most sense. If there are credible sources reporting defection, then the new party must be mentioned with the name of MLA or MP along with proper citation.
Once the politician defects, he/she factually is no longer the member of the previous party, wouldn't take part in that parties activities. So it makes no sense to keep the name of the old party. Putting the name of the new party alongside their name makes much more sense and gives correct and updated view of the assembly. Plus, Lok Sabha/state assembly websites are not a good source for list of MPs/MLA's since they are not updated for months.
For those who are talking about the legalities, I would like to say that Wikipedia's purpose is to provide factual information with credible sources, which is not the same as legally correct information.
I would also like to propose the similar option in case of resignations. Acceptance of resignations by speaker usually takes months. Once the member submits his/her resignation, their seat should be marked Vacant. Dhruv edits (talk) 11:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@Dhruv edits No, I am against using option B for resignation. Option A makes more sense in this resignation case. Many times, the leaders throw tantrum and threaten to resign, and submit resignation, to put political pressure. Most of these cases the resignation does not actually come into force. Unless it is not formally accepted the constituency should not be marked vacant. It is a legal process and Wikipedia should not overreach in updating things before they actually happen. This incident of resignation should be discussed in the prose section, but the numbers should be kept as it is till it becomes formal. Venkat TL (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@ChongPong @Dhruv edits @Diptyajit @YttriumShrew, I have seen quite a few examples recently in Goa and West Bengal. I am finally inclined to go with Option A. The graphs, tables and infobox should all represent the official party status and figures and should not be be changed until the party switch is officially approved and applicable. The switch in party should be mentioned along with reliable source in the Political career section of the biography of the politician. Venkat TL (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
@MPGuy2824, while conforming the MLA tables in accordance with MOS:INDCONST I have accidentally found out that these tables can be simplified quickly and efficiently in the visual edit mode using the move and delete options. Do try it out. Makes edits a breeze. Venkat TL (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@MPGuy2824 The visual mode allows the editor to select an entire column and move it around or delete it. Another point is about the MLA PIC column. Also please spare the pic column. If it is there in the constituency article, then the new editors can include the pic. I have added many pics myself. If the column is deleted, then it is a pain to include the entire column. Venkat TL (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
Would some members of this WikiProject mind taking a look at Satyanarayan Sharma? A lot of the content is unsourced and some of the writing needs to be cleaned up. There're also two different dates given for the subject's birth and some of the names of those mentioned in the article may be using Indian honorfics. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
The Wikipedia page is also in crisis, Some more eyes on the article and talk page will help improve the article.--Venkat TL (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Is this specifically for India? for India in 2020? Are you planning on creating this template for every year and every country? Gonnym (talk) 09:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
@Gonnym I made this to be used in Indian constituencies for every year, but there is nothing stopping this to be used for other countries, if the user wishes to. He just needs to update some of the links depending upon the country of the constituency. The template is country neutral and should not be renamed. Venkat TL (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Gonnym Look again, I just added the parameters for the State and year, instead of hardcoding. This is used from AWB because lets say I want to update for 2022 Gujarat election, I will need to substitute this on 200-300 pages using AWB. Deleting this useful template is pointless as it will have to be again recreated everytime I wish to update election data in a set of constituencies. substitution cannot be done from he target location you have suggested. substitution templates are kept if they are useful. --Venkat TL (talk) 09:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
