Talk:2023 Turkish presidential election

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2023 Turkish presidential election article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A news item involving 2023 Turkish presidential election was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 2 June 2023.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles Turkey High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: May 14 to 20, 2023

For several times now, my edits have been either deleted without any good reason except of biases, or rephrased to sound ambiguous and meaningless. I advise myself and all other users editing this page to keep neutrality while editing, we know elections are always a heated subject to write on, but at the end of the day there's no benefit of writing on side of the story and leaving other out. @Beshogur: Please don't delete an entire edit just because it criticizes "your guy", and think beforehand how long it took someone to write an edit and look for the references. Bouaro G (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "your guy"?

that the group of 150-200 who attended where from the CHP party. doesn't appear in the source and is badly written.

The mayor further mentioned, that they detected stones from the CHP group being thrown to the opposite side. stated as if this is a fact. Not npov.

added that Erzurum has been a stronghold of the ruling AKP for several elections, and showed great support for the president during his rallies in the city irrelevant to the topic.

And I don't get how metro Istanbul thing is a controversy. "sondakika.com" is not a RS, and what's the source for "Erdoğan's supporters found difficulty getting to the massive People's Alliance rally"? I don't see any reliable source covering this. Beshogur (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you deleted my first edit mentioning the mayor of Erzurum's comments on the topic completely, without looking for the story, and commented on the edit "this makes Ekrem Imamoglu responsible", which clearly shows you're defending "the guy". How did you come to the conclusion that sondakika.com is not a reliable source?

According to Wikipedia, no source is always unreliable or always reliable, it depends on the support a statement has.

Regarding the badly written number of the group, I cited trthaber next to sondakik, which mentions the same number 150-200, and you still deleted both of them.

And regarding Erzurum being a stronghold of AKP ruling party, this has direct link to the general opinion of voters there, and their reaction towards a rival party rallying in their city and giving aggravating speech denouncing the party that the city have been voting for in many elections. With all respect, but you're not the one who decides whether it's relevant to the topic or it isn't, since it's part of the comment the mayor gave. The source for "Erdoğan's supporters found difficulty getting to the massive People's Alliance rally" is sondakika, the same one you have deleted. Bouaro G (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bouaro G I agree with Beshogur here, beyond that though, I would invite you to read WP:AGF. Please do not accuse people of vandalism this liberally, and do not assume that people reverting your edits are biased without at least a talk page discussion. Uness232 (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I would like to hear your thoughts on merging 2023 Turkish general election into 2023 Turkish parliamentary election see relevant discussion on the talk page Talk:2023_Turkish_general_election#Delete_this_page. Beshogur (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'm being referred to here, if so, thank you for finding enough value in my thoughts to invite me to the discussion. However, I find the merger quite inconsequential and based on a semantic difference. Whatever the result, people would be able to find all of these articles quite easily. I'd give a tacit support if not for the fact that I'm embroiled in the mess of an article that is Free Cause Party, but right now I'm not in a situation to sustain that many conversations. Uness232 (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we shall start removing some sections including: Declared (replaced to be with Presidential candidates section) and Declined to be candidates section as well. So the definitive candidates could be listed here only. Beshogur (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Betseg: I see you removed not nominated for Erbakan and added withdrawn. This is incorrect since Erbakan did not withdrew officially. He just stopped voting process. You see that he still get some 10 votes after he decided to stop. So he is still officially a candidate (until he doesn't get 100,000). Beshogur (talk) 07:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did the same thing. I think withdrawn is more suitable since he could but he didn't. BurakD53 (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't mind, ur right, I removed my edit. BurakD53 (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gadir: Did you even read here? Are you going to stop edit warring? He did not withdraw officially, he could not. See vote differences every day he "withdrew". Beshogur (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also there is no consistency with other candidates. Why don't they have red? See 2018 election page as well. Beshogur (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of randomly deleting endorsements, let's discuss them here. I believe endorsements by foreign presidents, Turkish politicians and international organizations should definitely be included. I also believe endorsements by public figures such as artists are very important but some users object to it. CLLBDK (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop bringing random people. Endorsements are done by political parties, not individuals. I don't care what Fazıl Say says or what Necdet Sezer thinks, or a random artist. Most people reading here are not even Turkish. How relevant are they? We're trying to bring useful information, not some trivia. This whole addition of yours is irrelevant to the election. See Wikipedia:Relevance. And you are edit warring on such content. I am simply going to report this. Beshogur (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Report me all you want, please do.

You are saying "you" don't care about them, who are you to decide these things? Are you the YSK? Other users also added information to that section, that means people aside from you DO care about them. You are deleting stuff from political parties as well, Wikipedia is not your personal blog. CLLBDK (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personal blog? I think you're free to fill your sandbox with endorsements from random people. Have you read WP:Relevance? Neither Necdet Sezer, nor Mirziyoyev, or any other individual is relevant here. Endorsements are done by parties, not some individual. For PES, it should be removed as well. It's not even a Turkish political party. And OTS is not even a political party. And you're edit warring for a content that you're trying to add here. Beshogur (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although I was the user with the most edits on this election, I won't make another entry to this page. I'm tired of debating this stuff with you over and over again. CLLBDK (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a third party, I am trying to bring some calmness to the article. It doesn't really make sense to demand a semi-protection since Beshogur is an experienced editor, so I try to help to find a solution. I must agree that some endorsements like from a former president or a

prominent politician or major political international entity can be seen as relevant, but some random artist (sorry if I am not informed enough, but he doesn't seem notable enough) may not. Again this is just a personal point of view as a third party, but your additions and reverts suggest you disagree in some points. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for your thoughts, but can you give any reason how important Mirziyoyev and Sezer's endorsements are? This is simply silly. Why do we include party endorsements, it's because their voterbase will vote certain candidate. What's next, NGOs? Beshogur (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about this List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements and this News media endorsements in the 2020 United States presidential election? As for me endorsements can be included in the article. Also of NGO's if the media reports on their endorsements in relation to the elections. Why not report on what can be reported? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paradise Chronicle I appreciate your efforts but don't bother trying to reason with him or he might just erase your hardwork too :) He thinks that he absolutely controls the whole election page, but it ruins the enthusiasm for other users. CLLBDK (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hard work? This ain't hardwork. Plus, feel free to make a separate page for endorsements about presidential candidates, this irrelevant stuff should not fill the main article. Beshogur (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: hello can I hear your thoughts too? This is getting ridiculous imo. Beshogur (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it started to get complicated after the last edits. In Endorsements title, parties can remain but individuals and organizations should be removed. Actorpol (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "wishing luck" is kind of endorsement. Otherwise, as I told, I don't think any single person (Turkish or not) is slighest relevant to the election. Only party endorsements should be listed here. Beshogur (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd remove the international organisations, but I think the others are reasonable (although I agree "wishing luck" is not an endorsement). Number 57 21:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are individuals really that important? I think they should be removed as well. Beshogur (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also User:Faustino Sojo uses false reference for endorsements here. The source doesn't mention any endorsement at all. Beshogur (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Betseg: your last edit doesn't look good imo, disrupts the overview of the table. Beshogur (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better than the older one where parties were just randomly added by when they endorsed each candidate, not grouped by affiliation or sorted by size or anything else. Betseg (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, how does AKP endorse Erdogan? They're nominating it. Secondly, the empty bars doesn't look ok. Beshogur (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made these changes per your suggestions, do you think this is better? Betseg (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe can we put the alliances between candidate and endorsing parties? That could be better imo. Sorry for your time btw. Beshogur (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like 2022_Hungarian_parliamentary_election#Parties_and_coalitions? I think that could work. ^{also it's sunday and i literally have nothing better to do} Betseg (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

current version Betseg (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also see the latest version Betseg (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better to me. Beshogur (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it is good place for this page or parliamentary elections but new attack happened ^[1] Shadow4dark (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added, thank you CLLBDK (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added a section about vice presidential candidates. Thoughts? Beshogur (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Number 57 (talk · contribs) why shouldn't hatnote be useful? Readers can go to parliamentary elections from here and vice versa. Turkish wiki does the same. Beshogur (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes are for disambiguation. This article's title is not ambiguous.

Perhaps a better solution would be to amend the opening sentence to add the text in bold: "Presidential elections are scheduled to take place in Turkey on 14 May 2023, alongside parliamentary elections." Cheers, Number 57 21:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it right to use an updated image on such pages? There's one at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:3577756_810x458.jpg 2A02:C7E:3011:FC00:21C4:C33A:5BD7:8CD8 (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added wls to articles of the candidates campaign at least twice, every time the WL was removed. Where would you agree to place them?

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 2023 Türkiye cumhurbaşkanlığı seçimi birinci tur (takvim ilanı sonrası).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parties are already listed on #Endorsements section. Should we remove alliances and parties like how the ballot paper shows? Beshogur (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused. He's independent, should we leave him standard grey color or add Victory Party's color? Beshogur (talk) 07:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter, I don't think. VP is basically the only real party of the bunch, but technically it should be grey. Uness232 (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sforacle has insisted that Islamic extremism be added as an ideology for HÜDA-PAR. I have not seen HÜDA-PAR be described in this way, and the source cited also does not use the term for the party. The source does call the party İslamcı, basically a calque of the term Islamist, and şeriat yanlısı, 'Sharia-supporters'. Both of these are accurate. The term Islamic extremism, however, is generally not used (at least without much controversy) for political parties that participate in democratic institutions. Shoehorning that in does not serve encyclopedic purpose. Uness232 (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although the exact term of "Islamic extremism" may not be used often to describe the party, it is referred to as a "radical Islamist" party in many sources^[2][3][4]. Maybe its ideology could at least be listed as Radical Islamism since the party's legitimacy as a democratic Islamist party is highly disputed in Turkey. Sforacle

I don't think 'radical Islamist' is necessary, all Islamist parties are by definition 'radical' in Turkey. We already give every reason to dispute the party's democratic nature and talk about Hezbollah connections in the text, we call them far-right etc. I said this once before in the AKP page, and I'll say it again: no matter how much Wikipedia editors generally hate these parties, our job is to present a consensus as fact and point out differing views and potential non-consensus 'truths' in the text of the article. We're not an exposé, we are an encylopedia; we don't need to shoehorn every questionable thing about a party into every nook and cranny of an article. Uness232 (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do suggest this as a compromise though. If needed, sources using the term radical Islamist can be attributed to a newly-written part of the text. Uness232 (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Three nice diagrams for the Turkey presendential election opinion pollings have been created, and are used at different Wikipedia language versions.

The diagram File:2023_Türkiye_cumhurbaşkanlığı_seçimi_birinci_tur_(takvim_ilanı_sonrası).png (made by tr:user:Umtcnyd) starts from 15 March 2023 - why not earlier? It shows five president candidates, and that Kemal has been leading the whole time since before 15 March.

It shows similar content as File:2023_Turkish_Presidential_Election_Campaign_Polling.svg, made by CoaxAndBotany (talk · contribs), but that only shows four president candidates. WHich is correct?

The diagram File:2023_Turkish_Presidential_Polling.png, made by CoaxAndBotany (talk · contribs), ends in 15 March. Why? It shows that Erdogan was leading until after 15 March.

Which is true? Was Erdogan leading around 15 March or not? Tomastvivlaren (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Around the starting point of my plot, -or diagram, as you call it-, the electoral calendar has been declared and the campaign has started. Before that, there was another diagram made by me that was showing potential candidates' support. Around March, presidential candidacies started to finalize, and after the end of March, the final list of four candidates was declared by Supreme Election Council (Turkey). We couldn't continue with the old diagram because that would require renaming the candidates, such as CHP and HDP. After all, these parties' candidates weren't announced yet and had more than one name for possible candidacy before the campaign period. If I just renamed CHP to Kılıçdaroğlu in the diagram that would lead to a wrong outcome because he, İmamoğlu, Yavaş, and İnce (before he left CHP) was also asked by polling companies for almost every survey. There were four people under CHP, not just Kılıçdaroğlu.

Also, some of the mentioned possible candidates like Akşener didn't run for the presidency and HDP didn't have any candidate for this election in the end. Some candidates like Oğan weren't even mentioned before at all. If I was to add Oğan to the old diagram, his line of support would be too small because of the short time left for the election. Looking at all of this, creating another diagram that showed the period between the declaration of the electoral calendar and the voting day was most likely the best option.

The vertical dashed line in my diagram shows that the percentage of "other" candidates (or Diğerleri, which is mentioned like that in the graph) have completely dropped to zero, but that's because their candidacy has been rejected for some reason, or they couldn't reach the required number of signatures. So there aren't 5 candidates, but 4.

For your last question, Kılıçdaroğlu started leading after his candidacy became official on 6 March. So Erdoğan lost the lead to Kılıçdaroğlu since the beginning of the electoral campaign, thus the beginning point of the diagram.

@CoaxAndBotany's plots most likely have the same logic. Umtcnyd (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I made 2 graphs to sort of make it easier to follow the polling. One from before the deadline to submit candidacy, and one for after (election campaign polling). The graph for after only shows the polling for all those officially standing to be president and who will be on the ballot. If you have any more questions please don't hesitate to ask :) CoaxAndBotany (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a clarifying explanation! And for great plots. I added some of the explanation to the Swedish version of the article.Tomastvivlaren (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove him from the infobox or add "withdrawn" to the ballot paper. You can not withdraw from the election. It should be mentioned in the article though. Beshogur (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can withdraw, but if you vote for him your vote is invalid. Devrim0805 (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is theresome source clearing up whether they will be counted separatly ? Some countries do that.--Aréat (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No there is no source. He's mading up. Beshogur (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

add { { current election } } 31.223.43.198 (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Betseg (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I would like to hear your thoughts on merging 2023 Turkish general election into 2023 Turkish parliamentary election see relevant discussion on the talk page Talk:2023_Turkish_general_election#Delete_this_page. Beshogur (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With polling closed and partial vote counts ready, there should be results section now. Partial vote counts updated live here:

https://www.haberturk.com/ JasonMacker (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, feel free to add it. Vacant0 (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Recep tayeb urdugan has 51.23% votes and klijtan uglu has 42.85% votes 37.210.172.84 (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done 25stargeneral (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Recep tayeb urdugan has 51.23% votes and klijtan uglu has 42.85% votes oghan has 5.31% votes and inja has0.51% votes 37.210.172.84 (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 25stargeneral (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This election is only reported from Turkey’s state news agency, other reporting should be brought in as well. 81.103.179.43 (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there currently seems to be a lot of disagreement from both sides over the current vote tally, and the state news agency Anadolu cited here is considered close to Erdogan. The controversy should be at least noted or all preliminary results removed until there is some reliability behind those numbers. (its in german but this live blog has a good summary of various statements made regarding the election results and claims by both groups) --jonas (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source you provided is showing the same numbers as Andalou. Claims from both sides can be put in of course, but as far as raw numbers, well, they're going to come from the state since the state counts the votes. We can switch to another source for the vote tally if that makes people feel more comfortable, but the numbers are ultimately going to be coming from the same place. Case in point, CNN is citing Andalou for the numbers. 25stargeneral (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you are right. I added some info on the reputation of Anadolu. The Electoral authority just reported the less the 50% have been counted while Anadolu shows 92%. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

92% is the number of boxes opened, not the number of votes counted. But thanks for adding the info on Anadolu. 25stargeneral (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, you are correct. My mistake as I didn't believe that would be notable news. As for me in elections the votes are important, not the boxes. But good to know that they can also open boxes. How about a section on the ballot box openers and a subsection on the chief ballot opener? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

YSK official results source should be added https://www.ysk.gov.tr/doc/karar/dosya/39645318/2023-1091.pdf 2002:7987:844E:0:0:0:7987:844E (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the 1st round results should be located in the infobox, however User:Number 57 disputes this. Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for this being that people looking for information of the Election prior to the 2nd round, will want to be able to see the results of the first round in the info box. Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't standard practice; in two round elections only the first round go in the infobox. See, for example, the Brazilian or French election articles shortly before the second round was due to take place. The first round results weren't included. Cheers, Number 57 09:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yes, however the 2nd round hasn't occurred yet, so we should use the 1st round results, at least until 2nd round results are available. People visiting the article will want to be able to see the results of it, and the 2nd round results are the more important results once the election is concluded, however the second round is yet to take place, so we should provide the results that is available. Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've shown you above that we don't put first round results in the infobox in between the two rounds. Number 57 09:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how Wikipedia works, just because previously people have done it that way doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done, to determine whether it should be done or not is to be determined through civil discussion on why it should or why it should not be included in the infobox, it is not simply the status quo of what has been done in previous instances. The reasons for why I believe it should be included I have stated already, and the purpose of this discussion is to outline why or why not we think it should or should not be included so we can come to a consensus. This is not established in the Manuel of Style, and what has been done previously is irrelevant, if not backed up with reasoning for its exclusion. Kind Regards- Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 09:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if a consensus emerges through this discussion to include the first round results, then we will. However, until that consensus exists, we stick with the status quo. IMO it's misleading to have first round results in the infobox because readers could (at a glance) assume they are the final results and Erdogan has won. Number 57 09:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point, so; Alternatively, we could also write "first round" instead of "electoral vote" to eliminate any confusion over if the results are final or first round. And also we could write "second round" and write that it hasn't occurred yet, to eliminate this confusion further. Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And additionally, by including the results of the first round in the infobox, it gives readers with up to date information and a clearer understanding of the ongoing electoral process and it allows them to gauge the support garnered by various candidates and track the progression of the election. Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect WP:BRD and undo your latest attempt to add the first round results to the infobox. Your edit to add them was reverted, so the onus is on you to gain consensus, not repeatedly try and force your edits back into the article. Number 57 12:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I don't see any reason to not include the first round results until the second round occurs on 28 May. I would say that readers would be confused as to what the results of the election were when none are displayed in the infobox. Yeoutie (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As is the case with pretty much all presidential elections using a two-round system, the end result of this post-May-28th should be that only the final two candidates and the final round results are shown in the infobox. However, as many users here point out, it would be informative to keep the initial round results in the infobox for these next 1.5 weeks just so people get easy context and don't have to scroll down. I don't see a need for such a passionate argument about this as it will change in just over a week anyway. That being said, Number 57 does have a point about it potentially being misleading, so maybe removing them fully might be a good-ish idea. Nub Cake (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serious expansion needed regarding positions of Ogan and Ince. Beshogur (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about adding polling aggregations or recent polling data below the graph on the opinion polls section? 2002:7987:844E:0:0:0:7987:844E (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...and then a absolutely massive paragraph that would be much easier to read in a bullet-point list or, better, a map. Current form takes away from readability hugely - what do people think about the best way to display this? Couruu (talk) 10:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A map solution looks great if not possible it should be renoved. Shadow4dark (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Couruu, @Shadow4dark.  Done, and just in time as the block of text has been removed! Johnson524 (Talk!) 00:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]