Talk:2021 German federal election/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Table order

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello @RandomCanadian:, the election table isn't ordered on whether the parties "matter" or should be given "prominence". We simply present them ordered by descending votes on the national level, the only ordering which doesn't cause situation with parties being ranked the same, contrary to descending seats. Sometimes, parties win more seats while having less votes. It's a visualisation of the particularities of the voting system, and doesn't make the parties that benefits from it more "worthy" than the others. You can see such gaps in recent election such as 2021 Kosovan parliamentary election, 2020 Slovak parliamentary election or 2020 Taiwanese legislative election, for example.--Aréat (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Aréat: It makes no logical sense, both from a perspective of informing the reader (WP:Readers first), and from the perspective of putting the most important information first (parties which are actually represented in parliament), to blindly follow "parties by nationwide vote" as though it were some religious dogma. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, unlike most of those examples, putting the SSW according to nationwide vote would bury them rather too deep in the middle of the table (due to the large number of German parties), making this important information less easily visible (which is bad design). The fact is all of these other parties did not meet any threshold for inclusion, but the SSW are an exceptional [in the litteral sense] party (this is not my opinion: this is a fact of German electoral law, where national minority parties are in effect granted an exception to the threshold) and thus deserves to be treated as an exception. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The Kosovan election page above has minorities seats just as well, including some pretty low in the table. How would you order that without making it a mess? How would you order this one if all four recognised minority had got one seat as well? The SSW isn't "buried" by being several lines below. Showing above all else parties with seats isn't any less a "religious dogma", judging by the inconsistent table it result in. Also, the grey bar is used for "hard threshold", aka election system in which no party can get a seat without being above. Here in Germany, both the minorities as well as any party winning a FPTP seat can get one without reaching the threshold, so it shouldn't be used here
Paging @Davide King: and @Number 57: who thanked me for my earlier reverts.--Aréat (talk) 03:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The threshold being soft (it's actually at least 3 FPTP seats or 5% or minority party) does not mean it doesn't exist. The line is used here to provide visual emphasis. Selectively pinging editors who you suppose agree with you is WP:CANVASS. I don't see any formal guidelines about how to format these tables, so whatever conveys the information to the reader (WP:RF) in the clearest way (the purpose of a table - otherwise we should just write it out in prose if we don't care about the information being clear to the reader) should be used. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, results tables should be ordered by votes, not some double ranking system of seats then votes – having them out of order is what makes no logical sense to me. Number 57 08:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment Personally, I feel that arranging the parties based on the number of votes alone rather than seats (as stated by Number 57) is acceptable. However, this proposal should also be applied to the other articles about post-WW2 German federal elections. I saw that most other Wikipedia articles about federal elections in post-WW2 (West) Germany, except the 1949 West German federal election, use the grey threshold lines in the result table, with the parties that gained seats listed first above the threshold line.

A good example would be the 1990 German federal election (the first federal election after the German reunification). In this election, the Eastern Greens (Alliance 90) and the Western Greens were still two separate parties. The Alliance 90 won 8 seats, while the western Greens lost all of its 42 seats from the 1987 election. Therefore, the Alliance 90 was listed above the western Greens in the result table (above the threshold line). It should also be noted that in this election, the 5% threshold was not applied nationwide, hence two East German parties (the PDS and Alliance 90) managed to win 16 and 8 party list seats respectively, even though they both failed to pass the 5% electoral threshold.

Paging @Number 57:, @RandomCanadian:, and @Aréat: I hope my comments are understandable. Feel free to add your own comments and suggestions. If Number 57's suggestion is accepted, then I would be willing to help you make some necessary edits. Cheers. RyanW1995 (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree that the line should be removed from all articles. Cheers, Number 57 10:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the problem I'm talking about, shifting the ordering in the table from votes to seats then to votes again. Ordering by votes alone is consistent, and the 5% threshold being soft mean the line should be removed as parties can very well win seats without being above.--Aréat (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

For the reasons I stated previously (notably, that this would put the important information in the middle of the table, after some parties which are even more irrelevant than one which managed to gain a single seat); and now due to past similar usage which suggests this seems to have been the informal way to organise the information in the most logical sense, I obviously disagree that either the line should be removed or that we should list by votes when ultimately that is not how the result of the election are assessed (should we also go to US elections and put the winner of the popular vote first even if that doesn't matter? or go to recent Canadian elections and put the Conservatives on top because "they won the popular vote"? You might argue that these are FPTP elections and thus irrelevant; but since the actual result of an election that matters is the people being elected to parliament, and not the percentage of votes a party got - a fact which is true in both FPTP and in the German system, which is not purely proportional, it makes sense to follow that same order). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

In the US it's the college that does the actual election, so ordering by it make sense. As for Canada, I do think ordering by votes is better for all the reasons already stated above. The tables is there to show the result of the votes and how it is conveyed into seats, not to classify parties by the relevance you assign them. A party with 0,5% of the votes and two seats isn't more worthy than another with 4 % of the votes and zero seats.--Aréat (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

"isn't more worthy than another with 4 % of the votes and zero seats" : actually, yes, a party with representation in parliament gets more coverage, is guaranteed a seat at debates for the next election; and actually has a meaningful impact on legislation, unlike the party with zero seats, which is unlikely to get much coverage most of the time. In addition, ordering by seats won (which has implications for the real world) makes far more sense than ordering by vote percentage (something which is entirely irrelevant to the actual functioning of Parliament). That, and also the fact this is how it is consistently ordered in elections where there is a disproportionality between the votes and the seats (see for ex. 2004 Canadian federal elections). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

It isn't more worthy on the result tables. Your arguments are valid for the content of the analysis sections or the parliament's pages, not the table showing the votes of the population. As for the consistency, Canada is a distinct outlier, as well as its whole table system, in fact. Remember the different exemples above, out of many countries in which we've been showing voting results by votes and not by votes, seats, seats and votes if there's same number of seats, then votes.--Aréat (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

See also Hungary, Poland, Belarus, Colombia, Mauricia, Antigua, Salvador, Thailand, Guinea Bissau, Solomon Islands, Botswana, Tunisia, Malawi, Australia, Spain, Niger, Burkina Faso, Saint Vincent, Lithuania, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Slovakia and Croatia in recent years. --Aréat (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I obviously don't have time to check through that. How many of these A) use MMP B) have some form of a threshold C) have exceptions to said threshold? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure you will find the time. The point is that all of them sort by votes, not by seats, which is what we're talking about here.--Aréat (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The point is that none of them are the same circumstances as Germany. Some of these don't use MMP, some don't have a de iure threshold, and of those that do use MMP and have a threshold, how many have an exception allowing parties under the threshold to still get seats? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

All of them have the same circumstance of sorting by votes even though there is a disproportionality between the votes and the seats, which is what you're arguing against in this discussion. None of your arguments have been about MMP, and I've already provided you an example with minority seats and threshold in Kosovo, remember?--Aréat (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

In that case it might be better to start an RfC, because we're at an impasse and your only arguments so far are "this is how it's done at other articles" (an appeal to tradition, which is unsubstantiated with reasons as to why that is a good way to do things) and "but popular vote is more important" (which is subjective opinion and does not appear to scale with either coverage in reliable sources or the actually important metric, which, as in all parliamentary systems, is actual representation in parliament and not "number of votes on election day") RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Why did you ask for an example of an existing election table "with an exception allowing parties under the threshold to still get seats", then? Same with claiming that ordering by seats is "how it is consistently ordered in elections where there is a disproportionality between the votes and the seats". Seem dishonest to me to lead the discussion with arguments and then switch to saying it's actually not up to this same discussion to settle the matter when proved otherwise.--Aréat (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Because when I asked for such a list, you provided me with in effect a WP:CITEBOMB, many of which were entirley irrelevant. Additionally, because I was asking for similar examples, but not many of the examples are similar (the only one mildly similar was Kosovo, which has a far simpler table and far more parties which actually got seats so it is definitely not the same situation as Germany in terms of readability and conveying information that actually matters clearly). Due to the fact many of these tables are also far simpler, that makes them sortable, which alleviates many of the concerns one could have. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

None of the links I provided are irrelevant : they all links to a result table ordered by votes, and not seats, with parties ranked under others parties with less or zero seats, sometimes far below. This is what we're talking about here, and this is directly in opposition to your previous claim that an ordering by seat is the consistent use on election pages. It seem to me you're only saying it's irrelevant now because you didn't knew about them and it goes against your point. You weren't adding all these conditions when referring to the canadian elections, which have none of those. Many of these tables are far more complex than the current German one. Several have the minority seats, such as the Hungarian and polish ones (I had even put them on top of the list). Seem to me you've been provided with all the examples you asked for.--Aréat (talk) 05:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly, the german page also rank by votes. Not that it mean we should necessarily follow, but it do show it doesn't seem that complex to them to look at the table and see the one seat to SSW standing out a bit below, without having it pushed to the top.--Aréat (talk) 05:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think an RfC is needed – there isn't really an impasse here, as only one editor arguing against ranking by votes while three editors are in favour. Let's just do it and move on with other stuff. Cheers, Number 57 08:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

It's four; I have read the discussion and cannot see any compelling reason to deviate from current and well-established practice (which is: sort parties by seat count in the infobox and by vote count in the full table). If someone is really troubled that some party's seat can get lost among a myriad parties, I can advise to use the solution currently in place in many articles: bold seat totals for parties so that they are much more easily identifiable. Impru20^talk 08:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Number 57: @Aréat: I saw that RandomCanadian's objection is that the current sorting system (sorting the parties by seats) makes it easier to see the parties that gain seats in the Bundestag. Perhaps a good solution would be a sortable column using the "wikitable sortable", especially for the "Total seats" column? I hope that everyone could accept this solution. Cheers. RyanW1995 (talk) 09:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Seem good to me. I'm fine with all those solutions you two are proposing.--Aréat (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Happy with that. Cheers, Number 57 11:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@RyanW1995: This is the code required to make it work (the top row with the diagram has to be a header to allow the sorting to work, but it can be configured to be coloured as a normal cell), including adding sortbottom to the non-sortable rows at the bottom of the table. I'll sort out the other German election articles later – unless you fancy doing it first :) Cheers, Number 57 12:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Fine by me. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Number 57: @RandomCanadian: I'm glad that we can come to a good consensus. If there is no more objections, then perhaps it is time to close this discussion. Cheers. RyanW1995 (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unnecessary data in the infobox (2)

I brought this up a couple weeks before the election but it was automatically archived after less than a week, and so got little discussion. I'm bringing it up again because it's still relevant and I believe the issues have only gotten worse now that the election is over.

The election infobox is cluttered and complicated, with a lot of information, not all of which is of high importance. There are two particular data points that in my opinion are pretty much irrelevant and could be removed without issue.

Firstly, the "leader since" line is essentially useless. Since lead candidates are often not the actual leaders of the party, these dates usually correspond to the announcement or formal selection of the candidates for the election itself. To tell the average viewer that Olaf Scholz was selected as SPD lead candidate in August 2020 is essentially meaningless. It says nothing about his senior role within the SPD which stretches back years, and if anything serves to mislead by suggesting that he's a relative newcomer. The same can be said for Bartsch of the Left or even Weidel of the AfD. The distinction between leader and lead candidates also means that footnotes are required to clarify which in itself is a headache for readers, especially in the case of dual candidacies.

Secondly, the "leaders' seat" line. This is potentially even less useful than "leader since" as the lead candidates are always at the top of their respective state lists and thus all but guaranteed to enter the Bundestag. Their specific constituency or state is of very little consequence. This is also the most space-filling of any data point in the infobox thanks to the long names of the constituencies and state party lists combined with dual candidacies. At standard resolution, the current infobox dedicates six lines of text just to listing names of the leaders' various constituencies and states, wasting space and distracting from the more important data around it. There are also a copious number of footnotes throughout the infobox (eleven right now, of which only one is of any real importance) explaining highly specific details such as the constituencies each leader ran in unsuccessfully, which adds a great degree of visual clutter and provides very little relevant information - especially now that we have dedicated results pages with a section for leaders' races.

In my view there's very little reason to keep these two lines, and removing them would go a long way to slimming down what are already some of the lengthiest election infoboxes on the site, improving readability. Erinthecute (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I support this change, as per my comments above. I would also suggest reducing the image size to 130x130px, as well as removing the outgoing members and opinion poll links to make the infobox smaller and easier to parse. Cheers, Number 57 20:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

•  Done as initially suggested. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you. --Kathy262 (talk) 04:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Official results

Does anyone know when the official results will arrive, or otherwise, how long it usually takes for these to be published following the election? --Mrodowicz (talk) 07:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mrodowicz: According to the website of the body overseeing the election (Bundeswahlleiter), they are scheduled to meet on 15 October 2021 to certify the final results. Regards SoWhy 08:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Why Thank you.--Mrodowicz (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mrodowicz: Official results were published today.[1] Note that the number of seats has changed compared to the preliminary results. The article does not yet reflect these changes. Renerpho (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Renerpho Thank you for the update.--Mrodowicz (talk) 01:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Campaign subsection

If feel like the Campaign subsection is too much about the discussions around RRG/"red scare". These is nothing wrong with the content itself, but I feel like that was only an issue brought up the the CDU/CSU during the final stretches of the campaign and large parts were around other issues, namely the candidates and scandals surrounding them, the Hochwasser etc. KamikazeMatrix26Juni (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Infobox images

Croppped

Uncropped

@Number 57 and ValenciaThunderbolt:

Hi; you began a conversation involving me and German federal election infoboxes on User talk:Number 57, but I'd prefer to discuss this on an article talk page, not a user talk page.

My pronouns are he/him.

My position is this as far as the German Federal election infoboxs go:

• CSS cropping is becoming the norm on most election infoboxs that use images; for example 2021 Canadian federal election, 2020 New Zealand general election, 2019 United Kingdom general election. As Number57 knows from past interactions, while 160x120 is typically the standard I use (because that's what I widely saw employed before me), I'm willing to alter it and I have offered many times to change it if a comprise can be found if there's an objection. I am not a "difficult editor"; I have a strong view on infoboxes and so does Number57, those views just happen to clash. I'm happy to use other sizes if the width of the infobox is a concern, but I would prefer not to use a size so small that it results in gaps between the images. Number57, please take particular note of that last sentence; For me it has never been about enforcing 160x120 as the default size; I care far more about not leaving gaps between the images than I do about a standardised image size.
• However, as it happens, going by the edit history of articles such as 2013 German federal election and many others, the default size of German federal articles was always 160x in height. This only changed in December 2022 when Number57 "compacted" them. Therefore I consider what I did a return to the height on German federal election infoboxes that existed for years (decades?) until December 2022.

So, my reasons for my edits are:

• CSS cropping is becoming the standard for infoboxes when images are used
• I'm using the same height that was there before on German federal election infoboxes
• As visually demonstrated in the two images attached here, when CSS cropping is employed all the images become uniform in size/ratio. I believe it looks highly unprofessional when the images are not cropped and those gaps exist between them.
• As visually demonstrated in the two images attached here, when CSS cropping is employed all the images match the length of the party colour bar directly below them. I believe it looks highly unprofessional when these two elements do not match up.

ValenciaThunderbolt, could you offer some reason why you believe the uncropped version to be better? Your edits simply stated "better", which didn't give any view into your rationale. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Also Number57, you've mentioned the overall width of the infobox as a concern previously, however, if we look at the two attached images they are identical in width. Using CSS cropping does not seem increase to the overall width of the infobox, at least in this case. I think infobox width is more affected by map size than it is CSS cropping size. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not true to say CSS cropping is becoming the standard. I have thousands of election articles on my watchlist and you are pretty much the only person doing it. I use it very occasionally (when there is only a landscape photo of someone that needs cropping to fit the infobox), but other than that, it is not widely used.

Also, the comparison screenshots you are using are misleading as they don't show proper implementation of the uncropped images. In the uncropped version the infobox is being forced too wide by (incorrect) use of the leader's seat parameter (the infobox documentation says this should only be used when it is detailed in the article, which it isn't) and an oversized map (forced to 450px). If you remove the parameter and make the map default size, those gaps disappear (and the images are barely noticeably different in size). See this version of the article, where it has been done properly. Cheers, Number 57 17:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, the comparison screenshots you are using are misleading as they don't show proper implementation of the uncropped images.

The image captioned "Uncropped" is the version ValenciaThunderbolt implemented. If there's an issue with that version, you didn't mention that previously to ValenciaThunderbolt on User talk:Number 57; you indicated you were happy for them to restore that version, and you didn't mention anything about cutting leader's seats or altering the map size.

If I recall correctly from Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums, you opposed the existence of the Leader's Seat parameter entirely in a recent RFC. However, the community voted to retain it, and having done so, the practical fact of the matter is now that it is going to be used in election infoboxes. So while we could say "The uncropped version would work if all the election infoboxes stopped using the leader's seat parameter", that's not very practical or pragmatic because other users are going to fight to include it (just as they have done so in the past, and have currently done). CeltBrowne (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

You recall almost correctly – the outcome was to keep the parameter but to update the infobox documentation to say it shouldn't be used unless the information was actually in the article (which it isn't here).

Anyway, what are your views on the version currently being used? No gaps and I personally can't see any difference in sizes between the images. Cheers, Number 57 18:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Images at 130-pixel height and CSS cropped

Images at 130-pixel height and uncropped

What are your views on the version currently being used? No gaps and I personally can't see any difference in sizes between the images. Cheers

I'm happy to acknowledge that this version is a significant improvement on this previous version, however, I don't understand why the CSS cropping needs to be stripped out instead of altered. As demonstrated in these two attached images, we can still reduce the size of the images down to 130x in height like you want, but if we retain the CSS cropping we can achieve a perfect result instead of a close-enough one. As we can see in the comparison, both image2's and image4's ratios are not properly 4:3, they're thinner than the other images and this leaves gaps that are not uniform with the rest of the infobox. If we just leave the CSS cropping in and alter it to 130x98, instead of stripping it every time, this doesn't occur.

An additional bonus of leaving the CSS cropping in is that even if an image is replaced, and a new image is inserted, the CSS cropping will make sure the new image is perfectly sized regardless of its actual ratio. While I always use either a 4:3 or a 3:2 ratio when cropping portraits on the Commons, this is far from universally the case. Particularly for old images (which particularly affects old election infoboxes), ratios can vary wildly. However, if we leave CSS cropping in, this is never really an issue.

Can we meet halfway here so that you can have the size of images that you want while I get the uniformity of spacing I want via CSS cropping? I'm speaking in general; not just this article. I.E. in future, if you have an issue with the size of the images, you alter the CSS cropping to your preferred sizing of 130x98 rather than stripping it out entirely. CeltBrowne (talk) 09:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Re if an image is replaced, and a new image is inserted, the CSS cropping will make sure the new image is perfectly sized it doesn't work like that because the new image may be a significantly different size. I've seen IPs inserting new images into existing cropping code and it goes horribly wrong because the zoom is too much or too little. Anyway, if you do want to use css, can you just crop them to whatever the size already is (which will usually be the default x150)?

But what could be a better solution – why not recrop the image on Commons (which you have free reign to do)? That will be far more effective than using cropping code as it will apply to all the other articles where those images appear (and many images appear in multiple election infoboxes). It looks like the changes you are making here are only slight, so I can't see it being an issue to make these small adjustments on commons. Making the original images the right size on commons would save a lot of hassle. Number 57 11:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

why not recrop the image on Commons (which you have free reign to do)?

Well firstly that's a blade that cuts both ways, I can simply turn that question back on yourself and ask why don't you (re)crop images on the Commons to get this right. I'm already doing the work of cropping images using one technique, while as far as I'm aware you don't really adjust images on average, you use the image_size parameter and whatever result it generates, that's where you leave it, even if the images have incorrect ratios.

But to answer the question directly; It takes significantly more time to individually crop images on the Commons with the crop tool than it does using CSS cropping. Typically all I have to do to insert CSS cropping into an infobox is copy and paste the code down the line and then cut and copy the existing images into it.

Using CSS cropping, I could, on average, get an entire infobox done in 40 seconds. Individually (re)cropping multiple images manually can take several minutes. Doing it that way, particularly if I'm doing a number of infoboxes all at once, is multiplying the workload many times over.

I'll give an example of that; 2011 Slovenian parliamentary election's infobox right now is a mess of images of all differing ratios. I could fix that in literally 30 seconds using CSS cropping. If I have go down the line and crop every image, I could be 15 minutes. One of factors that makes manual cropping so much more work intensive is that I have to manually find the centre of the image visually, whereas with CSS cropping that process is reduced to simple mathematics.

Also, you brought up "noobs" getting things wrong using the CSS method, but 2011 Slovenian parliamentary election's infobox is all done the "traditional" and "accessible" method of setting the images to be 150x150 yet it's still extremely poorly executed. Both methods are susceptible to "noobs", I don't either can claim high ground there.

Additionally, it's not always possible to further crop some images in use, especially if they're low resolution. For example, let's take File:Natsuo Yamaguchi.jpg which is currently used in 2021 Japanese general election. It's actually already a 4:3 ratio image, but it's very low resolution, and there doesn't appear to be a higher resolution version of the image at source. So I can't really "hard" adjust that image. Nevertheless, it's in the 2021 Japanese general election right now, but it's too thin and is causing gaps. However, I could fix that with a "soft" adjust using CSS cropping (by simply increasing base) if people were not averse to the use of CSS cropping.

So I'll ask again; can we please each come halfway so that you can have the size of images that you want while I get the uniformity of spacing I want via CSS cropping? CeltBrowne (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't recrop them because (a) the current sizes genrally don't bother me and (b) I don't know what size is being aimed for. I'm also not really convinced that it takes so much longer to download the image, crop it in Paint and then reupload it? I regularly have do redo football club crests and it doesn't take long at all.

If you crop images and don't mess about with the size, then I'm not going to revert you, but I remain of the view it's a waste of code. The sooner we get rid of infobox images for parliamentary elections the better; it's bizarre that for parliamentary elections, the main thing in the infobox is photos of individuals. Cheers, Number 57 12:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

If you crop images and don't mess about with the size, then I'm not going to revert you

I don't want to have debate this issue so I'm going to finish on this question; earlier in this thread you said the default image size is 150 pixels in height. Mathematically, to get a 4:3 ratio from 150 pixels in height would mean 113 pixels in width. Yes or No; in future if I use CSS cropping and use 150x113 as the image size, is that getting reverted? CeltBrowne (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm asking you not to change the height size from what currently exists. If the article uses the default size (which is 150px), keep it at that. If the article has a smaller setting (like 130x130px), keep the height at 130px. Number 57 13:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm asking you not to change the height size from what currently exists.

I actually would be open to agreeing to do that except for the fact I know that you yourself have not kept to that piece of etiquette. Between 2013 and 2022, almost all the post-WW2 German Federal election image sizes were 160x and then you "compacted" them to 130x around mid to late 2022.

You can't ask people to observe an etiquette you yourself have bypassed.

If it would be "wrong" for me to change 130x to 150x, isn't wrong for you to have changed 160x to 130x? CeltBrowne (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

You were the one that proposed this arrangement ("you can have the size of images that you want while I get the uniformity of spacing I want via CSS cropping"), so I'm not sure why you're quibbling now I've agreed to it. Number 57 14:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright Alright Alright, as a rule of thumb I'll keep to the size that's already there if you don't strip out the CSS. Let's say we've put this to bed, at least for now.

Sin é. CeltBrowne (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I did so as other election pages don't use CSS. For reasons Number has explained before, it's better to use the legislative election template to express all the parties that have entered parliament, rather than the one widely used. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Voter demographics

Could someone add a second "sociology of the electorate" to the Analysis and aftermath section please? I'm not fluent in German, so I'm not able to. Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20211028120543/https://www.forschungsgruppe.de/Aktuelles/Wahlanalyse_Bundestagswahl/Newsl_Bund210927.pdf Jenkowelten (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Vandalized

There are several numbers of editors who vandalized 2009, 2013, 2017 and 2021 German federal election page at 3rd September 2024 with the same content. I found out at 06:35 and tried to fix it since then, but they know that and try to stop me. Can someone handle them to make it better? They are 2003:ee:9f0c:5400:f15a:2fdc:596a:b5b1, FerdinandKlemperer, 2003:ee:9f0c:5400:852b:f0a5:3994:98ed, 80.131.150.211, Crboyer, 80.131.150.231, 80.131.150.249, 80.131.149.9, 80.131.149.59, 80.131.149.77. Thanks. 2001:EE0:4A4C:1250:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 07:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Just to add to this comment, I (@FerdinandKlemperer) was attempting to correct the act of vandalism on the 2021 page by reverting the initial changes. FerdinandKlemperer (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)