Talk:2014 Brazilian general election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Need to put up a run-off polling section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottbp (talk • contribs) 05:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

>> Brazil Real Rallies With Stocks as Rousseff Drops in Voter Poll>> Brazil Real Gains on Bets Bank Will Let Currency Rise (Lihaas (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Where are the parliamentary results?[edit]

Were are the parliamentary results? --TIAYN (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Trust Is All You Need: They don't appear to be available yet - the TSE website is only displaying presidential results. Number 57 12:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At least a compiled version doesn't appear to be available. If anyone has the time, they could compile all the individual state results from O Globo. Number 57 12:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57:  Fixed --TIAYN (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seperate pages?=[edit]

Why not seperate pages for the presidential, gubernatorial, etc. elections? The page is overly cluttered.--Varavour (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the gubernatorial elections should be separated off, and this just contain info on the national elections, like (e.g. Brazilian general election, 2002). Number 57 22:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Narrow margin[edit]

President Rousseff's reelection is described as "being re-elected by a narrow margin, 51.6% to Neves' 48.4%."

Curiously, President Obama's reelection in 2012 is described as "a decisive victory over Romney, winning both the popular vote and the electoral college, with 332 electoral votes to Romney's 206". But Obama's "decisive victory" gave him 51.1% of the vote, against 47.2% to Romney.

It seems that either, or both, descriptions, are quite subjective... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.9.37.10 (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brazilian general election, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Just FYI, it is standard to use an image close to the election. There is no requirement to use an official portrait. Number 57 11:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know that is your personal standard, basically all pages of the sort use official portraits. 138.28.148.150 (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See this discussion for example. Number 57 07:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or this intervention. Number 57 16:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are totally misrepresenting the Lula 2022 discussion. That is a different scenario since Lula's last term was 2006-2010 and using a portrait from 15 years prior to the event isn't relevant as Lula wasn't running for reelection but election after a long period away. Here it is absolutely relevant, as the portrait is from Rouseff's current term at the time. Obviously the central issue is using a relevant photo, but relevance isn't so strict as the most recent photo. Countless pages with politicians running for reelection show that. Regardless of intent your photo isn't a professional one and to put it next to a glowing photo of her then opponent doesn't really make Wikipedia look neutral. An official portrait is professional and relevant since she held the office at time of election and shows no bias towards anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:93A6:7400:BDC9:C4F9:CB2F:F52F (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not misrepresenting it at all. The options presented were (1) The candidate's page image (2) The candidate's photo closest to the election date (3) Any photo. All three participants said (2). You're also ignoring the other link. Number 57 19:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See, thats still misrepresenting right there. You didn't address the different scenario, a photo closer to the election date was chosen because Lula was NOT the incumbent and hadn't been for 13 years, so the official portrait from then wasn't relevant. Had he been the incumbent, there would have been no issue as there hasn't been on many other pages. The other link is referencing the same thing. That discussion existed because of that unique scenario. 2600:4040:93A6:7400:BDC9:C4F9:CB2F:F52F (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the photo of Lula picked was still a good quality, professional photo. Could you imagine if we went by your made up rule and had to find the absolute most recent photo? What would that even entail? Would we think about quality, or whether they are in the background? How would we know that the photo found was actually the absolute most recent? This was not the reason for discussion in the 2022 page. They were just looking to use a more recent professional photo since the official portraits were very old.
There's no misrepresentation and the scenario you mention is irrelevant. The main consideration is how close to the election it was (quality of course does matter, but the photo you keep removing is not poor quality). Unless you can show there is a site-wide consensus to use official portraits, I will be restoring the original image in line with WP:BRD. Number 57 17:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean the scenario is irrelevant you brought it up?! You are trying to insert your own rule, a rule that is unenforceable (you didn't address that) and goes against the vast majority of pages that feature an incumbent running for reelection (you haven't proven otherwise, this 2022 Lula situation is clearly different). So no, your opinion is not the rule. And this is subjective (but I think you know it when you see it) but the photo is of poor quality, the lighting is bad, she's not looking at the camera and clearly wasn't intending to be photographed at that moment. It looks like a sneak shot you'd see in a tabloid. 167.98.127.74 (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is not my rule. It is a well-established principle on election articles to use photos as close as possible to the election date (within reason in terms of quality) – see other examples here or here. Number 57 19:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The two examples you gave, the Finnish one seems to have been reverted and the Japanese one used a photo that is clearly a high quality portrait that I would guess is official. Not much proven here. 167.98.127.74 (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In both cases the current photos used are of a much different caliber than yours here. 167.98.127.74 (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've given you multiple examples of other editors implementing the consensus as well as a link to a discussion that was unanimously in favour of the standard. I'm sorry you're unwilling to accept it. You're welcome to raise it at WT:E&R if you want, but in the absence of any counterevidence, I'm restoring the original. Number 57 19:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You refuse to even discuss the points I brought up:
1. Going for absolute most recent is unenforceable and not the intent behind the discussion.
2. This photo is a bad photo, you know it when you see it. You keep referring me to examples with clearly professional photos.
There's your counterevidence. You are not listening and giving off bad faith. Not to mention you asked for a protection where only you could edit despite the fact that WE ARE BOTH DOING THE SAME THING. Bad. Faith. 167.98.127.74 (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained at least ten times now that standard practice is to use the image closest to the election (within reason) and provided multiple bits of evidence this is the case, whereas you have not provided any counterevidence whatsoever. As for bad faith, you have refused to adhere to standard Wikipedia behavioural practice (WP:BRD). Again, if you're so convinced you're right, raise the matter at WT:E&R. Number 57 20:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2020 United States presidential election - Trump is one of the most photographed people and yet they used his 2017 portrait. Same was true in 2012 of Obama and also basically every congressional election.
2021 Canadian federal election
2019 Australian federal election
Not to mention the fact that every world leader is photographed frequently how do we even know which is the most recent before an election? That means we have to review literally every page.
And once again every single page we have talked about, whether Lula or these examples or Finland or Japan, has used photos that are of MUCH higher quality, usually with the person intending to be photographed and them looking at the camera. You refuse to address that. You also refuse to address how this rule of yours is even plausible to enforce. 167.98.127.74 (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stop referring to this as my rule – I've shown you multiple examples of other editors applying this standard. And from the talk page archives of the Canadian election: "The 2021 image should be used. It's much closer to Blanchet's age (and appearance) at the time of the election." And seeing as you won't, I've invited input from the Elections WikiProject. Number 57 20:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about Trudeau's image in that one. Should have specified. Since he like Dilma was the incumbent running for reelection I thought that was given.

I referred to it as "your rule" because you have taken discussions that were not intended to create a one size fits all standard and made it so. But it is clear that there are other factors at play that I've brought up and you've simply ignored or dismissed.167.98.127.74 (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing this discussion brought up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums‎, I'm going to offer my view. Please understand before I state anything, I'm not "siding" with any individual already involved in this discussion, I'm offering my personal view from how I would approach things.
I feel that when choosing an image for an infobox that both the year of the photograph and the quality of the photograph should be considered, although with more weight given to the image quality. Whether the photo is "official" or not should not have any bearing as such in the decision; "official" photos are often used because they are of the best quality rather than because they are "sanctioned". In an ideal world, editors should add an excellent photograph of the candidate from the same year as the election. However, as I'm well aware, getting freely licensed images of good quality and the right year is often difficult. If forced to pick between giving more weight to the year or the quality of the image, I would give more weight to the quality of the image. For example, if there were only terrible 2023 images of a candidate, but several excellent ones from 2022, in an 2023 infobox I would use one of the excellent ones from 2022 instead of a terrible one from 2023.
In this particular, specific case of the 2014 Brazilian general election, I would suggest the image quality of File:Dilma Rousseff - foto oficial 2011-01-09 (cropped2).jpg is much better than that of File:Dilma Rousseff em 2014.jpg. File:Dilma Rousseff em 2014.jpg is low resolution and with an odd, dour expression on a subject who is not looking towards camera, while File:Dilma Rousseff - foto oficial 2011-01-09 (cropped2).jpg is professionally shot portrait with good resolution and lighting. I understand the rationale for using File:Dilma Rousseff em 2014.jpg (I myself try and use the "correct year" when I can, subject to quality) but I personally would favour File:Dilma Rousseff - foto oficial 2011-01-09 (cropped2).jpg if forced to pick between the two.
18 June 2012
22 June 2012
May 2013
April 2015
March 2015
May 2015
November 2015
Alternative options for Rousseff's image that are closer to the date of the election but of higher quality than File:Dilma Rousseff em 2014.jpg
Alternatively, a comprise image could be used. Here are some decent to good quality images of Rousseff from closer to the date of the 2014 election. I believe all of them to be superior in quality to File:Dilma Rousseff em 2014.jpg. CeltBrowne (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think either the May 2013 or May 2015 photos look fine, though I still would prefer the official portrait. Thank you for compiling this! 167.98.127.74 (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of advancing the discussion, I'll second May 2013. CeltBrowne (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Brazilian_general_election&oldid=1212496995"