Talk:2023 Thai general election

"Next Thai legislative election" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Next Thai legislative election. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 21#Next Thai legislative election until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Paul_012 (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Reference (CIA World Factbook) needs "Retrieved on ..."

The reference is not saying on which date it was retrieved. See "General elections are expected to be held in Thailand no later than 23 March 2023". Reference: "Thailand CIA World Factbook". 89.8.101.194 (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
The wiki article has been changed (and "Retrieved ..." has been added). 89.8.131.52 (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Number of seats required to override Senate

We should also include the number of seats required to override the Thai Senate alongside the number of seats required to achieve majority as the Thai Senate also play a role in choosing the next prime minister.--Hu753 (talk) 09:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Leader names and images

Are the images of party leaders and their names in the infobox really that necessary? Why don't we just wait for PM candidates to be officially announced first? -- ILikelargeFries (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The candidate images are standard in election pages.

But I see your point, I think we should withhold these until they are officially filed.

Also, this will become problematic as some parties like Pheu Thai will have multiple candidates and we should not editorialize by picking 1 "main" candidate baconbits (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Super Poll

Sociological research Super Poll does not look reliable. Previously, they were not given in the article; they are also not used in the Thai Wikipedia. A lot of questions arise from people to this organization (https://www.google.ru/search?ie=UTF-8&q=Super%20Poll#lrd=0x30e29f1f68a6170d:0xbab7911303330409,1). I think we should remove the survey of this service. — Пэйнчик (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree, Super Poll is not reliable. Many Thai political journalists, professors, or even people in general have been criticizing that this poll always has a bias towards the current governing parties. The company also holds more than 30 contracts with the government and recieved millions of the budget each year. https://www.bangkokbiznews.com/politics/979585 NELLA32 (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Seats needed

@Aréat: What are the needs to put "seats needed" and ridiculous green arrow notions since there is no way seats needed values go below zero? I search general election articles in UK, Australia and Canada and have not yet found any with seats needed anyway. Horus (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The majority needed is 251. A party which only had 10 seats in 2019 need 241 more seats, while a party which had 200 only need 51 more.--Aréat (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Still, there is no need to use the green arrows because even if a party already gets more than 251 seats does not mean it needs fewer than 0 seats so the whole arrow signs are ridiculous. Also, I see that you did not disagree that there are no "seats needed" in other articles. --Horus (talk) 10:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Election uncertainty

Hi all, I've just added a section about election uncertainty.

This section is important in this context because many Thai elections have been delayed or cancelled in the past. baconbits (talk) 10:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Seri 2019.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

PM candidates

Parties may submit up to 3 candidates, and some parties will definitely submit 3.

In the infobox, I suggest we include all 3 candidates, even if we can only use 1 portrait.

This is a unique situation not seen in other countries' elections since PM candidacy is separate from being an MP (see the PM candidacy section of the article) baconbits (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Even if some parties submit 3 candidates, in reality, many could still assume who is the "real" candidate for that party. Putting 3 names in the infobox is simply too long. --Horus (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

How can we assume which is the "real" candidate without editorializing? baconbits (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The first of each party’s list? The name that is actually put forward at the PM vote? These do not need interpretation. I would say it is the same thought process as in the 2019 election article. Horus (talk) 08:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I think your suggestion of using the #1 name in the PM candidates list makes sense.

We can also add a little [note] next to each name in the infobox with a link to the other 2 names if necessary. This also won't take up space. baconbits (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there precedence in any other article? I could not think of any and see no point in starting a new format here. --Horus (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I think Baconbits might be referring to the {{efn}} template, which already is used in the article. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm referring to the practice of putting multiple candidates in the infobox (even in footnote templates). Since the 2019 election article does not do that, I see no point in starting it here. --Horus (talk) 06:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

• Paethongtarn in Jan 2023.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• เสรีพิศุทธ์ เตมียเวส.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Paethongtarn Shinawatra (cropped).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Paethongtarn Shinawatra.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Parties in infobox

I suggest the last party in the infobox should be UTN. The other smaller parties could be grouped as the list is incomplete anyway. Horus (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Election turnout

Two sources cite the EC chairman saying the turnout was 75.22%.[1][2] It's twice been changed in the infobox to 75.20%. Is there a more reliable source for that? —Bagumba (talk) 09:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

75.20 has been changed to 75.22 by another editor as "rv unsourced number"—Bagumba (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Bar chart

@Number 57: The bar chart has precedence (as in 2019 United Kingdom general election). Hopefully you could propose the idea to make it less "awful" rather than just simply remove it. Horus (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Just because something awful is done elsewhere, doesn't mean it should be repeated. It's completely unnecessary and just gets in the way. Number 57 10:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

It conveys information, that's why I put it. There're a lot of charts (bar, pie, graph) out there and yet, from what I saw, this is the one you decided to get rid of. --Horus (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Most additions to the an article will convey information. However, I can't see what use this addition is (the seat image already showed the seat proportions), plus on top of that, it's highly disruptive to the article flow. And I can assure you this is nothing personal, I delete these types of graphs on a regular basis. Number 57 11:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

How about you point to one consensus that it should not be there? If there is none, let's start one without delay. Otherwise, it is still a personal preference. --Horus (talk) 05:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

There was this discussion that was 3–1 in favour of excluding them. Number 57 07:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Horus: I hadn't participated in the discussion linked above, but I sure agree those bar charts are the worst way to display election results. The lenght is distorted by the content below it, as it expand to at least fit the letters or numbers. Look for example how the 11 seats of "others" are nearly as big as the 41 seats for PPRP instead of one fourth of it, or how the 1.56% of PCC is half of 12.63% of UTN instead of one tenth of it. What's the point of a visual display if it is visually completely wrong ? --Aréat (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I've tried to remedy this exact problem by using abbreviations instead of full party names. Perhaps, smaller parties should be included in "Others" so they don't look superficially wide. I do see that there's some merits in adding this bar chart. (By the way, the discussion linked above is about the {{bar box}} template, which is different from this one.) It helps to easily visualise a majority for a combination of parties, especially in the absence of {{Parliament diagram}} working. Or maybe we could add the parliament hemicycle diagram to the article as an SVG file. —twotwofourtysix^{(talk || edits)} 13:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I do intend to eventually add the seat diagram, which is enough in my opinion to do this. --Aréat (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

"Next Thai general election" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Next Thai general election has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 29 § Next Thai general election until a consensus is reached. Paul_012 (talk) 10:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Vote percent in legislative infobox

Why is the percentage of the vote listed in the legislative infobox at the top of the page based on party-list votes? Since only 100 seats are elected by party-list vote, wouldn't it be better to list the constituency vote percentages? S maps (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

A nation wide constituency in which voters can choose among all parties and not just the ones fielding candidats in their local constituency, and without the bia of strategic voting, that's the more representative system of the vote.--Aréat (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

+1 to what Aréat said. Number 57 02:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Error in opinion poll citations

In the table found under this section, the penultimate row (18-20 December 2019) cites the Move Forward Party having the lead with 30.27%. It cites a NIDA PDF, however, upon viewing the PDF, it does not say the Move Forward Party had 30.27% - translated, it says the Future Forward Party did. Is this an error? Can someone check on this? I thought the Future Forward party had already dissolved by this point. Maximus Pinpoint (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Future Forward was dissolved in February 2020. Remember, it was what triggered the 2020 protests. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah. That makes more sense.

But, if the 30.27% belonged to Future Forward, why is it under the Move Forward column? Maximus Pinpoint (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Move Forward is regarded as the direct successor of Future Forward, so I think it's reasonable (as opposed to inserting a column for Future Forward that's blank but for the first row). Maybe adjust the column heading to mention Future Forward, or an explanatory footnote? --Paul_012 (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

A footnote sounds good to me! Thank you. Maximus Pinpoint (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Data on Infobox

The table is probably the worst I have ever seen. Imagine telling average wikipedia reader who only look at the box that Palang Pracharath receive just 1.41% of votes but won 40 seats (8% of the parliament). At least the old election infobox can be editted to show why Palang Pracharath won 40 seats, with both party-list votes and constituency votes. Stop simplifying things. BigCapt45 (talk) 07:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree, I don't believe TILE should be used in this context, as it doesn’t convey the message accurately and may lead to impression and misunderstandings Siglæ (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

It's alright, but it's better conveyed like this page. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Two keypoints worth noting: 1) The one you cite is a page specific to results breakdown, not the main election page (which uses normal TIE; also worth noting that this was restored recently back from an unilateral edit of yours in November); and 2) It was you who (also unilaterally) added TILE to the page you are citing as an example.

Nonetheless, this brings an interesting example in which TILE could be of use in results breakdown articles for conveying more precise information (which is the actual purpose of these articles), leaving TIE for summarizing the main election article (which is broader in content). Impru20^talk 11:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I know, I was using my own edits as a possible example of what could be. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

How is it all right if it doesn't clarify important things such as explaining why a party with less than 2% of the won 40 seats? It is the opposite of alright. Is either miseleading or not clear enough Siglæ (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Siglæ: My example would, as it separates constituency and party list seats, while having the total at the top. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

In addition, TIL don't have threshold in them. See previous edits of other Thai elections when they used TIL. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't get this point? Siglæ (talk) 12:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

"How is it all right if it doesn't clarify important things such as explaining why a party with less than 2% of the won 40 seats?" Those are you're words. TIL doesn't explain either, and neither does TILE. However, TILE can show constituency seats and party list seats separately, the constituency seats would show why a party with 40 seats would win 40 seats. The 2% relates to party list votes. I had an issue with 57 over this, but he said that the party list votes represented people more than constituency votes. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I was going to edit the thing you quoted as I realized I made the wrong point. This said, the second thing you said is a pretty strong assumption, why can’t we simply do as with the Scottish elections TIE infobox where both are shown? Siglæ (talk) 12:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

It simply takes up too much room on the page. Imagine implementing that for Thai elections. That would make the pages worse, as you're including parties that won seats in party list and constituencies. All 18 of them. I prefer the example I gave, as it clearly shows totals, constituencies and party list, in that order. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Or, you know, we can simply put the parties that won more than 5 seats (9 vs.18) in the introduction, as the precise results should be in the body. And we should implement this for many more than election, see the 2007 elections where 7 parties won seats but still for some reason you want to use TILE instead of TIE, which would be way more fitting Siglæ (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

And yet it can still make big mess, such as in [Philippine House of Representatives elections] where there's more than 73 parties in the list. At some point, it is just better to use old infobox to show major/medium-sized parties. We already have the full result within the article so one can look at smaller and minor parties that won seats. BigCapt45 (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, that is another egregious example of TILE failing Siglæ (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

But you example doesn’t really make sense to be the introductory info box for a page, it makes sense as a result info box. Siglæ (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

It does, as it shows constituency seats, party seats, and total seats. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

If you are going to say "it doesn't show pp from a previous election", the question is "what do people look at? seats, pp, or both?". ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe the repetition of slightly different information doesn’t make that much sense in the introduction as it doesn't quickly answer the question to how the main parties performed, which is want should be the aim of the introduction, but does provoke a lot of confusion instead. your proposal is ok for the body of the text, not the intro. Siglæ (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

If not that, then a mixture of TIL and TILE? Major parties in TIL, then other parties in TILE below? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Where do you mean below? You mean something like this 2023 Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol provincial elections? Siglæ (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a mistake. Yes, something like that. The main two parties in TIL, with third, minor and regionalist in TILE. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure I personally like it, but it doesn’t matter, it can be a valid option for sure, however how would you make sure that it is clear it refers to the same election and modality? The example I linked used this mixture because the two provinces use 2 different methods to elect a common regional council, so it makes sense for them to have different format info boxes, but here Siglæ (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll create an example on my sandbox soon. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's the example. The two main parties would have PL results and Const. results, but I haven't added them yet. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I've altered TIE, so that it marries up with TILE, in regards to percentages and seats. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I believe this may be another downgrade, it seems excessively inconsistent, not only between TIE and TILE but also between the two tables, which also omit the major party (and I understand the reasoning) but it simply adds up to more confusion.

IMO the best way to represent this election remains something along the line of 2021 Scottish Parliament election, where both constituency voted share and list voter share are shown. I would propose to put in the infobox only the relevant parties (so the first 6 that obtained at least 1% of the votes, or the 9 that gained 5+ MPs), whereas the remaining 9 parties to be put in the kore complete table in the body of the voice Siglæ (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but I think we should only put parties that receive "set percentage of seats" or "set percentage of votes" (I suggest 4%) in it, for example in 2005), only 4 parties can be effectively covered since it pass the threshold. BigCapt45 (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

That however may raise an issue with the party that got less than 2% of the votes, but also at the same time like 40 seats Siglæ (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The proposed tie up between the two would have the PR and Const. seats and votes for the two major parties. Why would the TILE temps. have the two major parties if they are represented above? They say "Third parties" above to denote what they are. Having nine parties seems excessive. If it were to only be TIE, I'd rather see the parties that got over 5% in the constituency votes represented. After all, more ppl voted for the constituency seats than the PR seats. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Nine parties is excessive, but six works well for the 2017 United Kingdom general election, what about that, but with the double data for constituency and list votes as in the Scottish one? Siglæ (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I could agree to that, as long as there is a 5% threshold for parties being represented when used (which usually excludes more than 4 or 5 parties)?. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, good thing then that there are exactly 6 parties which obtained 5%+ of the seats in the parliament. I believe that those are the ones worth to put in the infobox with both the results for constituency and list vote. Siglæ (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I feel this conversation is best placed being moved and turned into a RfC on this page, as at least users can see that it took place there, rather than an election page. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I also absolutely agree with Siglæ and BigCapt45 that only the TIE in its Scottish version should be used. TILE for mixed electoral systems is totally inadequate. The threshold of 5% of seats could be discussed. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Shall we move this discussion to this page? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@Impru20: What do you think about moving this discussion to the page linked in my message above? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Impru20: Reply back! ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Not Impru20, and I haven't followed the above discussion closely, but I'd point out that there's really not much to gain from hosting discussion on a different article talk page, and the page you suggested isn't on that many watchlists anyway. You could post at other talk pages to draw people's attention here, but existing comments should generally be left where they are. Since the issue seems to apply to many articles, though, you might want to consider starting a centralised discussion at the relevant wikiproject talk page. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)