Talk:2022 Japanese House of Councillors election

criterion of "new" party

why CDP is treated as "new" party, while DPP is not at this list of result.i think CDP is very rarely considered as newly-reformed party in Japanese media.what does writer think about the difference between two democrat's reform?(from japan, non-high level english sorry(;-人-)) C.Q.F.Ctna (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I think the DPFP should also get the 'New party' label. Either that or the CDP should be treated as a party that already existed before. Vladimir Budinski (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

We had a note explaining why CDP is considered new which had to be removed when infobox became a table as notes are apparently not supported in tables. It's basically the same note as exists in the 2021 general election infobox, but the reasoning is that the current CDP is legally speaking a new party which was founded in September 2020 after the big merger. I believe the DPP is still legally the same party, maybe I'm mistaken. As for the CDP's case, legally speaking the old CDP literally ceased to exist and the current CDP was a new party which adopted the same name and branding. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

OK,If we take a guiding principle of new party depending on legally renewed or not, then DPFP should be labeled new.It is legally different from same name party existed until sep.2020. C.Q.F.Ctna (talk) 05:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Looking at this issue more, I'm starting to think the "New" designations should be removed. Main reason being that the +/- numbers in the results table are based on the party standings in the chamber immediately prior to the election, not compared to the last election. In this case there is no reason to designate the parties as "new". Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The page should still get the Infobox instead of the Legislative table for constistency reasons.

While I understand the reason for the change (and it was made in good faith), I believe the page for this election should still use the old infobox for 2 main reasons:

a) It has more information, as it also lists:

-The popular vote (whereas the Legislative table only lists the Percentage of votes)

-It also shows the Swing in Percentages of Votes

-It gives more information about the leaders of the parties that partook in the election, such as when they assumed the position of leadership, their constituency (or other position if said leader is not a Diet member) and also their portrait.

Furthermore, the new Legislative table setup removed this infographic regarding the results of the election, which is not only incredibly well made, but helps a lot for people who find it easier to understand things with visualization and I thus see no reason to remove it.

b) The whole page would be made consistent again with the other House of Councillors election pages. Whilst I understand the reason for the change is that the Infobox cannot display more than 9 parties, it still destroys the consistency of the layout for these kinds of elections which has been used since the first House of Councillors election in 1947. Furthermore, it has happened before that more than 9 parties won seats, such as in the 2010 election, in which the 'People's New Party' and the 'Happiness Realization Party' also won seats but were not displayed in the Infobox for the aforementioned reason.

With all of that said, I believe it would be better to revert to the old Infobox layout for the reasons listed above. Vladimir Budinski (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to this argument and it pains me to lose all the extra info as well, but it feels to me fundamentally unfair to not include a party in the infobox if it won a seat. Additional info including the popular vote etc. can be listed in the results table in the article. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Much of the information mentioned (leader's seat, when they assumed leadership etc) violates MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE; the infobox is meant to summarise information in the article, whereas this information is not anywhere in the article. I would prefer all the other articles are changed to this format, which is much neater and compact. Cheers, Number 57 20:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Results - sorting of parties

First of all, thank you to @Number 57 for edits of the results, especially compiling the numbers for minor parties.

I'm a bit unsure, however, as to whether it was necessary to resort the parties' order in the results table. Perhaps I'm just very new to editing and am unsure of the guidelines, however, I've checked previous Japanese election articles, which seemed to follow the pattern of sorting parties first in the order of seats won at the election in question, then by number of votes received if seat numbers are equal or zero.

Japanese Wikipedia and various Japanese news websites seems to broadly agree with this assumption. That being said, the infobox over in the Japanese article sorts parties by total number of seats after the election, whereas the results table lists parties in order of seats won.

It's a little bit tricky to sort the results with all the quirks of FPTP, would anyone be able to elaborate on this please? Another suggestion is to sort in order of seats won, while also making that number of seats won bold, so that it's easier to comprehend for the readers.

I would also propose getting rid of some minor parties in the results table, as was done in the article about the 2019 election for example. Official results group them as 諸派 (though names are provided in each constituency's results); many of them are also fringe one-person parties. Perhaps it could be worth retaining e.g. First no Kai, Republican Party and the Free Republican Party (as parties with multiple candidates/some level of organisation), and combining others (fronts for fringe or independent candidates) under a "Minor parties" heading? Not trying to be critical here at all, I know other articles sometimes do include absolutely all of the parties but thought this could be worth discussing. Thank you! Dimon1408 (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I strongly agree that parties need to be sorted by seats won. My understanding is this is standard for parliamentary elections on the English Wikipedia. I plan to make this change soon unless there is substantial disagreement. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

It is certainly not standard for the results tables, in which parties are usually sorted by votes received (and for two-part elections like this, usually firstly by proportional votes and then by constituency). As far as I can see, this is done for previous articles in this series. Examples for sorting by votes first elsewhere include Spanish elections). Anyway, as the table is sortable, they can be resorted by seats if readers wish.

Also, all parties should be included if we have the results for them, which we do. The minor parties are also included in the 2019 article. Cheers, Number 57 11:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for checking this - I've looked over some previous articles, and indeed it seems that parties are usually sorted by votes received. I guess there's an argument for both methods, for me personally it feels a bit strange that the results here are sorted differently to Japanese Wikipedia and native news sites, but that's fair enough. Even Westminster election articles sort parties by votes, so this shouldn't be controversial.

Regarding the minor parties, this probably also makes sense. Having checked the source documents for previous years, it mostly seems as though back then most independents actually ran as independents, not as "political parties", and with Tokyo having a huge number of candidates this year you inevitably end up with more "parties"...

Thanks for your hard work @Number 57! Dimon1408 (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Burdock Party

Can someone create a page for the "Burdock Party" listed in the Results section please? It is the only party that stood a national candidate or candidates to not have a Wikipedia page. 213.205.200.17 (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

AFAICT, it doesn't deserve a page. One of the few references I can find is that it's just a fringe party that uses burdock roots in its logo. [1] Are you aware of more references? -- mikeblas (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

undefined explanatory footnote

Hello Faustino Sojo! One of your recent edits added {{efn|name=Election}}, which depends on "Election" being defined elsewhere in the article. But it is not. Are you able to supply the missing footnote and clear up this error? -- mikeblas (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes of course.  Done.--Faustino Sojo (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!!1! -- mikeblas (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)