Template talk:Infobox election/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Support for more parties

Currently, only 9 parties can be shown in this template. I would like to request that this is extended, as more is needed for the 2019 Danish general election. Currently 11 parties are running, and perhaps another one will become eligible. ― Heb the best (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I think {{infobox legislative election}} should typically used in those cases, but I would also echo support for increasing the number of candidates/parties the main template can handle if needed (as the legislative election template, though compact, can sometimes omit certain information that would otherwise be included in legislative election infoboxes). Mélencron (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it should be extended. If another row is added, the infobox will be ridiculously long – it's supposed to be a summary, but even with only nine parties, it's still too big to appear on a single screen view. The solution is to use {{Infobox legislative election}}, which should probably be used for any country where more than six parties regularly win seats in parliament. Number 57 09:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with the above: {{Infobox legislative election}} is good and should be used more often. Bondegezou (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Given that 13 parties won seats in the last Danish election, it appears Denmark might be a good candidate for using it. I'll put together an example of what it would look like later. Number 57 12:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you - i did not knew about that infobox. I have made an example here, but the other infobox is lackning in some features, that I think we should not lose. In particular, it is not very good for future elections. ― Heb the best (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I like your new template, which is something of a cross between the Infobox election template and Infobox legislative election template.

Have you seen what some other Wikipedias do, like this on the Spanish Wikipedia? Bondegezou (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Party registration label

I propose adding "Registration" as a label for elections where "Party" or "Alliance" doesn't apply. The 2017 Omaha mayoral election is an example where registration would be be more of a descriptive label than party; Omaha municipal elections are officially non-partisan, but the party registration of each candidate is well-publicized.--Mr.Election (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

add V • T • E buttons to the bottom

I propose we add "view" "talk" "edit" buttons to the bottom right corner of this template to make it easier for people to contribute to the template structure.

I had to view the page source to figure out what the template was even called. Mapmaker345 (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

People don't edit this template though. They edit the infobox code on the article itself. Number 57 16:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding another line for seat counts

I was wondering if it would be possible to add another set of seat count and results lines in addition to the current ones (i.e. one for lower house results/standings and one for upper house results/standings). Certain countries (e.g. Poland, Romania, etc) hold lower and upper house elections at the same time and many of these don't reach the threshold for having two articles. I would do it myself, but I wouldn't know where to start with this particular infobox. --NAT/HBA.YYZ/MA.WAW/PHDABD.CDG 05:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nat: You can do this using the header parameter. See 2018 Colombian parliamentary election as an example. Number 57 14:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

It provides substantially less info than this one does NAT/HBA.YYZ/MA.WAW/PHDABD.CDG 05:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem is, this infobox contains far too much information to be an effective summary of parliamentary elections when there are more than three parties, as you can't fit it on a single screen. The other infobox is far more suitable for summarising parliamentary election results, especially in the examples such as the ones you want. For a high-level summary, we don't need photos of the party leaders, which seat they ran in etc. Number 57 12:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that when there are too many parties, the infobox becomes unreadable, but up to six is fine. Like, I've had to jerry-rig the one for 2019 Polish parliamentary election and someone else had to do it for the 2016 Romanian legislative election and all previous Romanian elections. It would be nice for an option for a few more result lines to reflect the fact that there are countries that have elections for both upper and lower houses at the same time, and therefore are important for the political calculus and political future for those jurisdictions. --NAT/HBA.YYZ/MA.WAW/PHDABD.CDG 06:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

There are blank data lines in this one to do that sort of thing. But really we should just use the other infobox where the information can already be fitted easily and concisely. Number 57 07:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 November 2019

Change {{#ifeq:{{{type}}}|primary||Elected}} {{{title}}}}} to {{{title}}} {{#ifeq:{{{type}}}|primary||elected}}}} to follow capitalization formatting (will display as "Position elected" instead of "Elected Position")  Nixinova  T  C  04:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can see, all of the other pre-election/post-election phrase pairs appear to display as "XXX title", so this would be the only one that is different. Please make the change in the template's sandbox so that it displays as you intend on the Template:Infobox election/testcases page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Number of candidates?

Is there a technical reason why the number of candidates is limited to nine? Would it be possible to double that? I'm thinking of Irish elections, which are mostly multi-seat constituencies that may have in excess of 20 candidates. A recent by-election, for a single seat, had 12 candidates. While limiting the candidates to nine after the election is fine, including the candidates in the infobox in advance of the election is problematic - how do you decide which nine to include, and which to exclude? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Not a technical reason AFAIK, but the infobox would be far too large to be an effective summary if it went beyond nine (personally I think it the infobox is crap once you have more than one row of candidates as it generally means it's more than a screen high).

A non-technical solution for cases like this is to either not have the infobox, or to have it without the candidates (a la 2019 United Kingdom general election). Looking at the article I assume you're referring to, if you had another two rows of candidates, the infobox would go beyond the bottom of the article content, by which point readers would have scrolled past a far more succinct summary of the candidates and their parties in the list of candidates. Number 57 21:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Certainly in a UK perspective, consensus is that only those parties/candidates which met the 5% threshold in the equivalent previous election should be included to avoid bloat, bias, or unnecessary detail. Infoboxes are tricksy mistresses at the best of times, making them twice or three-times the size of the candidate box further down the article would be a waste of space. Literally. doktorb _words^deeds 22:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, it would have helped if I'd given examples, wouldn't it? :-) I came across this most recently in the four Irish by-elections held last Friday: 2019 Dublin Mid-West by-election‎, 2019 Dublin Fingal by-election‎, 2019 Wexford by-election and 2019 Cork North-Central by-election. These had 13, 12, 12 and 9 candidates, respectively. I take on board the point about space. My own preference, therefore, would be prior to an election to omit the candidates from the infobox either entirely or just where there are more than nine candidates; and to include the top 9 alongside their votes/percentage after the election has taken place. I believe there's a neutrality problem in only showing some of the candidates prior to an election - which ones get omitted, and on what basis? Cheers, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have long agreed on the neutrality point; a more compact infobox would help (hence why we developed {{Infobox legislative election}} for parliamentary votes. I guess a single candidate version of it could be created to allow a much shorter summary of candidate + party. Number 57 11:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree on all of that with what Number 57 has said. As per MOS:INFOBOX, the infobox should be a short, concise summary of the article. It's not meant to be a complete table of all candidates/parties. That can be done in the article text proper using a standard table. Bondegezou (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Flag

If you put a country name in the Country= field, you get a flag in the infobox. MOS:INFOBOXFLAG states, "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many." Can this field be removed or disabled or changed so that editors don't constantly stumble into inserting a flag where there shouldn't be one? Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I think removing the country field might create some issues with wikidata or related things that use that field to take data from articles (similarly, removing the country name entered to that field is possibly also problematic). TBH, I think it looks better with the flag due to the spacing it creates, and I've never been convinced that MOSFLAG is anything but the handiwork of a tiny set of editors who are simply opposed to the use of flags on stylistic grounds. In summary, I don't really see a need to change it – given how long this has been part of the infoboxes and how long the guideline has existed, I would have thought it would have been removed by now if it was really an issue. Number 57 15:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

> Wikidata, not really. From what I can see, country is unused in the rest of the template, which no tool from Wikidata would scrape as a result. Which, on that point, the field is optional, so comments like "it would have been removed" don't really make sense. In many cases, no one probably knows you can display a flag this way....

MOSFLAG is still guideline. If you have a general guideline objection on the point, you should bring it up at WT:MOS or elsewhere rather than here. --Izno (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I am interested in removing this per the guideline in question, but I identified that there is no other use of the country parameter (except in the specific case of US Senators). Should the template have a country field of any sort? --Izno (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't mind a country field. We just shouldn't have a template configured to automatically show a flag against the manual of style, and you wouldn't even realise it was going to do that. Bondegezou (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Impru20: centralised discussion here. I really don't see any ambiguity in MOS:INFOBOXFLAG in this situation. The exceptions it has clearly do not apply. Bondegezou (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Certainly not. As an example, the change from the previous "[demonym] [election], [year]" to the current "[year] [demonym] [election]" format was nominally much clearer under WP:NCE and WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, yet it took years and a massive RfC (which, btw, had to be re-opened after an initial close despite overwhelming consensus because it was perceived that it had not received enough input) in order to perform the change. Given the massive number of articles that would be affected by this proposed change, as well as the amount of time this situation has been consolidated without any major controversy until now, I think it is wise to reach a clear, irreversible consensus for such a change, and not for it to come as a result of a sudden rush from some users at Talk:United Kingdom general election.

Here we have a MOS which starts saying that "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many." Here you state that "that's our starting point: not to use one", but this already assumes the MOS forcibly requires for flag icons to not be used, despite it being clearly worded as "generally" (as opposed to particular situations) and "should" (which is not a command, but rather, a recommendation). The starting point, thus, would be that they shouldn't but... not that they mustn't.

Then, the MOS says "Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text." I've always assumed the flag icons in election infoboxes were meant to help differentiating between various countries and, most particularly, between different political regimes or itinerations of the same country. We have 2005 German federal election under the current political regime, and 1912 German federal election and 1936 German parliamentary election and referendum under previous ones (same can be said about 1796 British general election and current UK elections, 1921 Irish elections and current elections, 1830 French legislative election, 1861 Italian general election, and so on). Further, when you say here that "The text of the infobox, the article name and the opening sentence of the article all already say "United Kingdom", so the flag icon is not conveying any additional information", I believe you are not interpreting the MOS correctly. Under MOS:INFOBOX, infoboxes are meant to summarize content already present elsewhere in the page: infoboxes, by essence, do not convey any additional information, be it in text or in image. Obviously, what MOS:INFOBOXFLAG means is that flag icons should serve a purpose, and that they should not be there merely for decorative purposes (note WP:ICONDECORATION here as well). Being in an infobox, a flag should serve the purpose of summarizing information. Here, if you can convey that much information (country/location, political regime, the election's territorial scope, etc) with a simple flag, then that is obviously fulfilling a very good purpose.

Finally, when the MOS makes mention further ahead about "military conflicts" and "international competitions", it clearly states that this is an open list of examples, not a numerus clausus list. Elections could be one of such example if a purpose may be given to such use of flags.

Indeed, we are expected to follow MOS, and we should follow MOS. But what we shouldn't do is using MOS in a way they are not intended for, through its restrictive interpretation, then generic application, to the larger community, just because there was a specific incident in one page which did not even start out because of the flag issue (indeed, the removal of the flag from election infobox has seemingly come as a result of the discussion at Talk:Next United Kingdom general election, as a way of cutting it down in order for either avoiding it being removed and/or re-structuring it altogether. I don't think this is what MOS:INFOBOXFLAG intends). Impru20^talk 13:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Seeing it pop up on my watchlist, the country parameter should not be removed whilst this discussion is ongoing. Number 57 14:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The concern about flags in election infoboxes did not start with the debate at Talk:Next United Kingdom general election. I've been going on about it for years. This is a separate debate and I see no need to mix them.

Yes, MOS:INFOBOXFLAG says "generally" and "should", as most of the Manual of Style does. That should not be used an excuse to ignore MOS because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons. We are meant to try to follow Manual of Style unless we have very good reasons not to. You should take to heart what the opening sentence of MOS:INFOBOXFLAG says: "they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many." That is a real disbenefit to flag icons and you don't address it.

The allowed examples in MOS:INFOBOXFLAG are generally situations where multiple countries are involved, e.g. FIFA World Cup. The disallowed examples are about things just in one country. Elections (excluding, I suppose, the European Parliament ones) are events in one country. The spirit of MOS:INFOBOXFLAG is apparent that you do not decorate infoboxes with flags just because a thing or event is in one country.

You say, "I've always assumed the flag icons in election infoboxes were meant to help differentiating between various countries and, most particularly, between different political regimes or itinerations of the same country. We have 2005 German federal election under the current political regime, and 1912 German federal election and 1936 German parliamentary election and referendum under previous ones". The former, "differentiating between various countries", is not consistent with MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. You could make that argument about most possible uses of flag icons in infoboxes (films, people, football biographies), but MOS:INFOBOXFLAG rules them all out.

Moreover, I find it difficult to imagine that the average reader is so confused what election article they're reading that they need a flag icon for differentiation.

I find your latter suggestion, that flag icons help differentiate "between different political regimes or itinerations of the same country", to be very odd. That argument relies on a good correspondence between "different political regimes" and flags when no such thing exists. Many countries have undergone profound political changes with the same flag left unchanged (e.g. France). Other countries have changed flag without any particular constitutional upheaval (e.g. Spain's flag change in 1945). More importantly, it is highly unlikely that the average reader has sufficient knowledge of different flags to be able to see a particular variation of, say, the German flag and immediately know that this dates an election to a particular period. If there is an important point to be made about an election's historical context, that should be explained in MOS:PROSE in the lead section. A flag icon is not a solution. Bondegezou (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I've only seen the active removal of flag icons from election infoboxes (particularly for UK general elections, though it was attempted in two German federal elections as well) in the last couple of days.

It is not an excuse. It is a fact evidencing that the MOS recommends for flag icons to not be used, but does not forbid them as you are presenting them. I think I've explained my position very throughly so that you reduce it to a mere WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which btw is an argument which could be used the other way around. On regards to that sentence you advise me to take "to the heart", I would advice you to actually not take it that much to the heart: nowhere in the talk that resulted in the inclusion of the section containing it did it get discussed or consensuated. It is surely the result of excessive overwriting from its author, and precisely because of this I wouldn't take it too heavily so as to ignore what both MOS:INFOBOXFLAG and MOS:ICON as a whole state.

Instead of discussing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, the main issue here is not so much about what the MOS does literally say, but on what its application would be to election infoboxes. From the current MOS text and past RFCs that helped conceive it, it comes clear that election infoboxes would fall under the "certain areas" clause, as they are not among either the included or excluded categories discussed. So, it all falls down to whether the flags actually meet a purpose in the infoboxes or serve merely as decoration, which is what the MOS tries to avoid.

Granted that you could use the "differentiating between various countries"-argument about most possible uses of flag icons in infoboxes. The difference is that elections are an intrinsic part of a given country's administration and government formation procedures. In contrast, for films, people, football biographies etc, the country is (typically) not an essential bit of information to the subject. Thus, the need for differentiation is not the same in both situations.

"Regime changes" are particularly relevant for elections because they typically result in changes in parliamentary functionability, PM election, electoral laws, etc, all of which are very relevant aspects in election articles. I've not argued that flag change always equals to regime change, however (even at this, a political regime using two flags at various point would still be identifiable by both flags, so this is going off the discussion's main point I think). Nonetheless, using your own example, the political regimes in Spain at 1936 and 1977, date in which the next election was held, were radically different. Indeed, this would prove that flag icons in election infoboxes can be very useful for easy identification, as otherwise some people could think at first glance that both elections were held under the same legal system ("Spanish general election" being, in itself, insufficient to correctly separate the two time periods). All of this is something that is useful to summarize in the infobox, and using a flag is much simpler and straightforward than having to explain it through text in the infobox.

Finally, I think you are mixing concepts. MOS:PROSE refers to the use of prose in articles as opposed to lists/tables/etc, and would not be appliable here unless you do consider that infoboxes are not summaries but separate lists/tables containing information not provided elsewhere in the article (which shouldn't, as per MOS:INFOBOX). What INFOBOXFLAG forbids is the use of flags for purely decorative purposes, but not when they may serve additional purposes. Explaining the regime/country in the article while concurrently using a flag in the infobox to serve as a summary of exactly that would perfectly fit both INFOBOX and INFOBOXFLAG. Impru20^talk 15:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Impru20. I can't really see why it is a problem to have the flags there. Impru20 have given good arguments for why the flag is helpful, and to remove it seems like having a narrow focus on enforcing rules, rather than what is most helpful for our readers. With respect to MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, both interpretations are reasonable, and this is clearly not just an easy application of that guideline in either direction. ― Heb the best (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

My 2 cents on the matter. First, MOS:FLAG says that "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality". Elections unambiguously represent a country (or some other administrative division, but in the present case, mostly countries so don't try splitting hairs in two...), and as such, use of flags is prima facie acceptable. Furthermore, as stated by Impru20, they serve a simple purpose in identifying the country, and while this might already be told textually, visual confirmation is never a bad idea. In fact, use of visual aids for identification is something that is encouraged (not frowned upon), per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE ("They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding."). One must admit that the crux of the current dispute seems to be MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. The suggestion that "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field" also adds that this applies because "they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many." However, this is only "generally" and there are good reasons why one could interpret the current situation as not being one of these cases. After all, one flag at the top of the infobox to identify the country is not "undue prominence" (rather, it is probably, as stated previously, a very effective way to convey such information); and I fail to see how it is "unnecessarily distracting" - if anything, again, it is a representative visual aid, not some form of animated GIF... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see the MOS:FLAG limitations as being applicable in this case, nor does a flag seem distracting or otherwise unhelpful in the infobox. Carter (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, note that if certain editors do find the flag annoying, the much simpler way to remove it (compared to manually removing the country field from every template and getting into perpetual edit wars over it) is to change personal settings, as described in WP:WORDPRECEDENCE: "User choice: Registered users can add a .flagicon {display:none;} CSS rule to their user-specific stylesheet to hide content with the flagicon class (which is used by most flag templates)." 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• The flag icons don't add any clarity to the articles. In a national election, they appear directly below the name of the country, which doesn't really help readers at all. The country field is often inappropriately used for unrecognisable county icons in UK council elections or for non-free political party logos in leadership elections. I'd be happy to see the country field removed from this template. Ralbegen (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

So a clear visual symbol does not add clarity? Many people understand better through the use of graphics or other visual symbols (of which flags are a part of). Also, infoboxes are supposed to be a quick summary of, in this case, the results of elections. Just seeing the flag quickly confirms to the reader in which country the election happened in much less time than having to read the whole title. What you should remove is the title, since too often it is just a repeat of the article title... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The title is required by MOS:INFOBOX. MOS:INFOBOXFLAG only encourages the use of flags in infoboxes where they distinguish between things in the infobox, which they very much don't here. MOS:ICONDECORATION tells us not to use icons unless they add something. I don't think sparing people from reading (in the case of the UK) a number and a couple of words in favour of a flag they might recognise is a strong case at all. Ralbegen (talk) 09:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, it has been explained what do these add and why, and it's clear that they are not added for decoration purposes. That you in particular may not find them useful does not turn them into useless in general, and this may well fall into WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory.

Besides, I don't think sparing people from reading (in the case of the UK) a number and a couple of words in favour of a flag they might recognise is a strong case at all is really not an argument, because as per it you could also argue than infoboxes are not needed at all, as you can just go and read the whole thing instead. The essence of infoboxes is to summarize a number of things, and here the flag does serve the purpose of summarizing. That some people may consider that they personally don't need some things to get summarized is a whole different issue at all, but that is not the point of INFOBOXFLAG. Impru20^talk 12:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Concerns that MOS:INFOBOXFLAG doesn't explicitly outlaw something, that it says "generally" &c. come across to me as WP:WIKILAWYERING. The intent of the guidance is clear, and easy to follow, so let's follow it.

Impru20 suggests that, "The essence of infoboxes is to summarize a number of things, and here the flag does serve the purpose of summarizing." I do not understand this argument. The text summarises what the infobox is about. No-one is suggesting removing the text. The flag icon is in addition to the text. Ergo, it is expanding what one sees, which is the opposite of summarising.

Where I think Impru20 does have a point is that "elections are an intrinsic part of a given country's administration and government formation procedures. In contrast, for films, people, football biographies etc, the country is (typically) not an essential bit of information to the subject." I accept that elections are more closely tied to the notion of the nation than, say, films. So I had a look at other articles that are similarly tied to a country and its government formation processes &c.. I note that articles like Prime Minister of the United Kingdom or President of the United States don't have national flags in their infoboxes (although they do have other symbols). Likewise, House of Commons of the United Kingdom, Senate of Spain &c. don't. Nor does 2015–16 Spanish government formation, or Second May ministry, or Premiership of Theresa May. Ergo, if other articles that "are an intrinsic part of a given country's administration and government formation procedures" do not require flag icons, I remain unconvinced that election articles need them.

I also remain unmoved by this argument that flag icons aid "differentiation". I do not understand what the use case is where an individual is going to be confused what article they are on. The idea that the flag icon will alert them to significant historical changes is dubious unless we can presume readers are expert vexillologists. We can't use imagery and presume readers will understand its significance. We use words and explain what the reader needs to know.

'OK, Bondegezou,' you might be thinking, 'but why are you so keen to see flag icons go? They're not doing any harm.' That's where, I think, some editors may be mistaken. The Manual of Style does explain itself here. "[O]ne reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction" (MOS:ICONDECORATION). "[T]hey are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many" (MOS:INFOBOXFLAG). The Manual of Style is a well thought out text and there are good design reasons to avoid a jumble of icons and decoration.

But more than that, particularly in this context, note that "Some flags are (sometimes or always) political statements and can associate a person with their political significance, sometimes misleadingly" (MOS:FLAG). Consider 2019 Northern Ireland local elections: this doesn't currently have a flag icon, and thank heavens it doesn't because the Union Jack is associated with certain parties and not others. 2017 Catalan regional election uses a Catalan flag, but that has clear political overtones and may contravene MOS:SOVEREIGNFLAG. OK, those are areas of particular political tensions, but even with, say, Next United Kingdom general election, the flag imagery is associated with some parties more than others, with some political viewpoints more than others. Most national elections have a more nationalist, flag-waving party and a less nationalist one. We need to be WP:NPOV: why complicate things by adding politically-loaded icons that the Manual of Style is already pushing us to avoid? Bondegezou (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

What WIKILAWYERING comprises is:

1. Using formal legal terms in an inappropriate way when discussing Wikipedia policy (spurious legalisms)
2. Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles (gaming the system)
3. Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express
4. Willfully misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions

Precisely, what some of us defend is that you are interpreting WP:INFOBOXFLAG so strictly that such interpretation goes against the spirit of the rest of the guideline and even against any practical consideration of using flags or other icons. So, it would be you the one wikilawyering, though I agree with the linked essay that it is a pejorative term. I had hoped to avoid its use in this discussion, rather focusing on actual content arguments.

The flag icon is "in addition to the text" only in the sense that it visually summarizes information that should be present in the article but that, otherwise, would be very difficult to properly summarize in the infobox through prose text. It's in addition to the text in the infobox (which is where INFOBOXFLAG applies), not to the text in the article. So yes, even under this the use of flags would abide to INFOBOXFLAG.

So I had a look at other articles that are similarly tied to a country and its government formation processes &c.. I note that articles like (...) don't have national flags in their infoboxes (although they do have other symbols). Likewise, (...). don't. Nor does (...). Excuse me, but most of the articles you linked do have some sort of image in their infoboxes. Obviously, when you can use a full-fledged image file, you don't need to use other kinds of icons. Further, I don't know how your starting argument that flags should be removed as per INFOBOXFLAG because "they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many" can cope with the examples you just gave. So, is it that flags are unnecessarily distracting and can lead to continuous stumbling from editors, but image files and other icons (which are visually larger) would somehow resist such circumstance? This could result in the perfectly non-sensical situation where we could resort to replace flag icons by flag images in infoboxes, as that would circumvent your interpretation of INFOBOXFLAG and abide to the other examples you brought here. This is not the spirit of INFOBOXFLAG. This said, let us also skip out this attempt of WP:OSE-ing the discussion, reminding everyone that we are discussing election infoboxes here. Different situations typically merit different approaches. As obvious.

Persistently insisting in not understanding or liking something is not an argument, actually. Wikipedia is not about you, nor about me. That you may find an infobox feature as spurious or distracting does not mean by itself that such a feature is distracting. Plenty of reasons have been given so as to why flags can be useful and encyclopedic in election infoboxes, and none of them revolve on how beautiful or decorative they are. WP:ICONDECORATION is very clear: "They should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation". This is exactly the current situation. Further, you keep trying to assert your technical interpretation of the letter of INFOBOXFLAG, even after I showed you that the line you keep paraphrasing was not consensuated, not even discussed or suggested in the discussion that led to the edit through which it was introduced.

I'm not even directly addressing your last point because, with all due respect, it comes to the point of absurdity: should we remove the Union jack from United Kingdom or the senyera from Catalonia just because they may be given some political meaning and hurt some people's sensibilities? Sorry, but this, aside from going off-topic, may enter into WP:NPOV territory. Wikipedia doesn't exist to right great wrongs, and if some people are sensible enough that they can't stand that the United Kingdom or Catalonia official flags at some point of time are the ones they were, to the point that their own opinions must overrule the encyclopedic value of the flags, then maybe the ones having a problem must be them, not Wikipedia.

Nonetheless, on that issue, some interesting appreciations can be done. Sincerely, I've not seen any dispute over the use of a specific flag in infoboxes of election articles out of political motives (indeed, such disputes have been very common at Catalonia, for example, but not for Catalan regional elections). This brings us to the premise you based this discussion on in the first place: "that editors constantly stumble into inserting a flag where there shouldn't be one". This is untrue and tries to imply that there is a conflict where there is none: for many years these flags have been used in infoboxes, and only in a very limited number of times has this caused any issue at all. And, contrarily to your statement, it hasn't been because of a large number of editors trying to insert the flags, but because of a very few number of editors who are seemingly keen on removing them because of their own, personal tastes. I'm very concerned that, just because a handful people would prefer to see the flags out, we have to oblige the whole Wikipedia, under a very restrictive and selective interpretation of the MOS, to suffer from the absence of the benefits their presence do bring. If the reason is that some individuals see the flags distracting, the Manual of Style does provide for a solution to it at WP:WORDPRECEDENCE by proposing the addition of a .flagicon {display:none;} CSS rule to their user-specific stylesheet to hide content with the flagicon class. Impru20^talk 16:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Adding to the above: NI is obviously a special case, when we compare with firmly established sovereign states such us Germany, France, et alia. The Catalan flag is the official flag of the Autonomous Community of Catalonia, which, in addition to being a special case, is an issue which should be taken to editors there, since the choice of which flag to use in that particular case has little to do with the larger topic of whether there is one at all (at best, by comparing apples and oranges, you have shown there are potential exceptions - which is what we all already know per WP:5P5: "sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions.").
Concerning the use of the Union Jack (which is, and has been, the flag of the United Kingdom (in its present form, earlier variants have been in use since 1606) since 1801)- it is just the emblem of the state, nothing inherently "nationalist" about it there. Same with using, say, Nazi flags in a purely historical context - yeah, of course they are political, but even German law allows for their use in "art or science, research or teaching, reporting about current historical events or similar purposes." [emphasis mine]. As for WP:NPOV, what it actually states is that WP must report POVs as in reliable sources, not that WP must be entirely neutral - RS have no problem with associating the Union Jack with UK, in a wide variety of contexts. Same probably goes for all other countries.
107.190.33.254 (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not mean "wikilawyering" in a pejorative sense and have great respect for your input to Wikipedia, Impru20. What I mean is, "Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles". That is, the spirit of MOS:FLAG is clear. The insistence of reminding the reader that the text says "generally" etc., I find over the top. We have clear guidance from the Manual of Style: the onus is on those wanting flag icons to provide a strong argument why we should go against the spirit of MOS:FLAG. You call this "a very restrictive and selective interpretation of the MOS", but I struggle to see how the spirit of MOS:FLAG is not very obvious: "Avoid flag icons in infoboxes". My argument that we should avoid flag icons in this infobox is not "a very restrictive and selective interpretation" of the recommendation to "Avoid flag icons in infoboxes". No, it's a very straightforward and literal interpretation.

My comment earlier about "editors constantly stumble into inserting a flag" was not well explained, but what I meant was that it is not clear to the naive user that when you fill in that part of the template, the result will be a flag icon appearing. Whether we have flag icons or not, the template's behaviour should be clearer so that users know what will happen if they make a certain edit.

However, on the more general point, there has been concern about the use of flags precisely because of their particular political connotations previously. That's why their use is very rare on Northern Ireland elections, as per consensus resulting from discussions around issues like WP:NPOV. If Catalan election articles have avoided such disputes, I am surprised, but glad. The point still stands.

The suggestion that individual users use a user-specific stylesheet is not a workable solution. We do not write Wikipedia only for those individuals who know how to edit their own user-specific stylesheet.

Your argument that the MOS line most in question was not appropriately added is weak. We're talking about a position that has been there for eight and a half years. If there was a problem with it, it wouldn't still be there.

Your central argument remains that flag icons are "useful and encyclopedic". Other articles about events/things in a single country, even when closely related to the nation, do fine without them. The spirit and letter of MOS:FLAG is clear and longstanding. The use case where an individual is going to work out what article they're looking at because of a flag icon makes little sense. Bondegezou (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure you get the difference between letter ("Avoid flags in infoboxes") and spirit (which is something like "Don't overuse them")? 107.190.33.254 (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: The issue is that you are interpreting the Manual of Style's spirit as a general ban on the use of flags, an assumption which can't be extracted neither from its actual writing nor from the discussion process that led to its shaping, refining and/or confirmation. This is, that flags shouldn't be overused, in a context where this was sought to be limited because people added them randomly throughout articles merely because they looked nice or whatever other decoration reason, but no more than that. I don't think anyone has rejected the idea that WP:INFOBOXFLAG discourages the overuse of flags, but it has been indeed explained why and how it provides for exceptions and how this situation fits into it, and this has not even been addressed yet - aside from the reiteration that the MOS just forbides it, IDLI-reasonings or other extraneous arguments about political motivations and the such.

Firstly, should the MOS be so clear about the avoiding of flags in infoboxes, it would be of a much simpler writing, as you won't need so many tips, exceptions, maybes and shoulds if the intention is to forbid them.

I don't know what the exact situation is with Northern Ireland elections, but it is obvious that if such an issue really exists with them, they would be the exception under WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, not the rule. Further, there's a principle in Wikipedia that states that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. This is not the first time that, just because some issue does not work well among some UK-related articles, some people try to make it exportable to all of Wikipedia as a whole as if it was broken in all of it, when that's not the case. Indeed, many of the problems which are being raised here do not concern a vast majority of articles or even the MOS itself (where this issue of flags in election infoboxes has not been ever raised in the talk page) but only a handful ones and in particular circumstances. Possibly, the proper way of action would be to address these problems at their origin, rather than trying to impose a particular interpretation of a MOS to all of Wikipedia just to make a point in those articles.

The suggestion that individual users use a user-specific stylesheet is not a workable solution. We do not write Wikipedia only for those individuals who know how to edit their own user-specific stylesheet. The suggestion is not mine, but the MOS's. If you are taking this MOS so seriously so as to consider it limits the use of flags in infoboxes so severely, you should also take it equally serious when it recommends users to use a user-specific stylesheet if they wish to avoid being distracted by flag icons. The MOS itself explains how to do it, so the argument that it only serves "for those individuals who know how to edit their own user-specific stylesheet" does not work.

And I think I can't say anything else that I haven't said already, lest I risk bludgeoning or text-walling, so I'll try to respond only to those issues that I have not already replied from now on. Impru20^talk 17:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I'm seeing that the bit about Northern Ireland applies to the whole set of articles about Northern Ireland, including the Northern Ireland article itself (which shows no flag at all). This is indeed a local consensus with a very long background and much discussion at Talk:Northern Ireland. As per this, it is misleading that there is some issue with flags in election infoboxes for Northern Ireland when 1) such an issue does not come as a result of the presence of flags in infoboxes but on the flag's nature, which affects the whole set of articles on Northern Ireland, and 2) disputes on Northern Ireland election articles themselves have still been minimal, without requiring any discussion at all, and all related to the issue of the flag at use, not that their use in the infobox was found to be distracting nor anything of the sort. I find it reasonable that, should any specific flag cause issues because of there being actual conflicts on the determination of which flag would be the most correct to use, then that's one thing. However, I think bringing this as an example of why flags shouldn't be used in election infoboxes is way off and has nothing to do with the topic at discussion here. Especially because this is the perfect example of how this aims at fixing a broken thing representing 1% of the total by extrapolating it to the remaining 99% unbroken situations as well. Impru20^talk 19:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I was going to possibly make an RfC as suggested by somebody else but given that there have been no comments objecting to this for the past 6 days (either a case of finally getting it or a case of filibustering), I think it won't be needed. Would anybody object if I add {{archive top}} (and the corresponding bottom) to close this this with a simple statement about the absence of consensus for removing flags from this infobox? 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I was going to make an RfC, but hadn't got around to it yet. So, no, please don't archive yet. Bondegezou (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Assuming the header is appropriately titled, the flag is entirely redundant. Pointless decoration, with occasional disruptive potential and zero added value. This is not a primary school project that needs slabs of bright colours to retain engagement of users. Kevin McE (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree entirely with Bondegezou and Kevin McE. Flagcruft adds nothing to an infobox. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone. Thanks to Bastun for reminding me of the lack of resolution here. On review, most of the above is me and Impru20 debating, but overall against flag icons we have 5 editors (me, Izno, Ralbegen, Bastun, Kevin McE) and for, we have 5 editors (Impru20, Number 57, Heb the best, Carter and an IP editor). This is a healthy debate with lots of people expressing views, which is a good thing! But it's also complete stalemate. There's also a question about the design of the template so it's clear what it's doing, separate to whatever people want it to do. The template could be clearer that the field in question adds a flag icon.

We could move to an RfC. I'd suggest three options: (a) no flag icons, (b) flag icons encouraged (with exceptions where necessary, e.g. Northern Ireland), (c) deliberate neutrality (flag icons to be a decision on an article by article basis).

I'd rather like to delay tackling the issue until after the UK general election, which is taking up a lot of election-interested editors' time. Bondegezou (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree that an RFC is the way. Good if you would set it in motion. As I was involved in the discussion, I would like to state that I never had any strong opinions about this, and frankly don't really give a shit at this point. ― Hebsen_{(previously Heb the best)} (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm getting to this discussion quite late and apologies for that. I suspect that the younger me, the fresh-faced eager Wiki editor who couldn't tear himself away from the edit button, would have passionately argued in favour of retaining the flag as a quick and easy go-to icon which married together all the international elections with one easy to use image. These days, I am not quite so idealistic. Using one single flag icon on the top of an infobox which sits on aside a paragraph explaining exactly where the election taking place just seems to be adding a bauble to an already decorated tree. If you need further input I'll try my best. My gut feeling is the flags can be omitted without causing any material damage to the overall article. So no flags for me. doktorb _words^deeds 22:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Mobile display issue

The above screenshot, on mobile, shows an apparent bug, where one image is much larger than the others, apparently due to the length of the party name. The page viewed is an old version of 2020 London mayoral election (probably [1] or similar).

Clearly, this runs the risk of being perceived as political bias. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

It might be to do with that version using deprecated code for image sizing. Adding the code "| image_size = 150x150px" at the top and deleting the sizes for each image may resolve it. Number 57 19:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I have also noticed this and is quite annoying.  Nixinova  T  C  04:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

That page was in Category:Pages using deprecated image syntax, which currently contains more than 90,000 articles, so I thought that might be the cause (spoiler: it was not). To test that, I copied the infobox into my sandbox and removed the image size specifications. I then created three sections: one with the infobox, one with the infobox code expanded via Special:ExpandTemplates, and one with a simplified table from inside the expanded infobox code. This is the result. In all cases, the table row that displays the images has the exact same code.

In the mobile view, the middle image is still much larger when the infobox or the expanded infobox code is used, but the simple table shows the images at equal heights. So what part of the code on that page is telling the images to be different sizes when they are inside an infobox in mobile view, but not in a regular table? We may need somebody smarter than us to figure out this one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

From a very initial check, I'm pretty sure it has to do with the file themselves. Open them and notice that the two images are the same size, while the middle one here, is much smaller. --Gonnym (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC) After looking into this more, it seems that isn't the case. --Gonnym (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Playing around in Jonesey95's sandbox using all the same values for the images, candidate names, and party names - everything was the same. When I made the party name bigger, it causes issues, even moving the 3rd image off screen. I was going to fix {{Infobox election/row}} but that template is just a mess of code to read through. I'd suggest to whoever wants to fix it, to replace that code with {{Infobox3cols}} as less manual boilerplate code, the easier the code is read and fix. --Gonnym (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I see that you crossed out your hunch, but I suspect that the size of the images is related to the problem in a counter-intuitive way. Something like this pseudocode may be happening: "if the original image is above a certain size, downsize it, but if it is below a certain size, show it as is." But only in mobile.

As for using {{Infobox3cols}}, there are sometimes only two candidates, and I suspect that this problem is larger than just the code in {{Infobox election/row}}. That's why I expanded the code in my sandbox to show that the table row code is the same, but that it is treated differently in mobile depending on how it is wrapped. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Here is a simplified example, just a table, that shows (me) that there is a fundamental difference in image rendering between desktop and mobile. This table looks fine to me in desktop view, but in mobile view, the middle image looks much larger. What I take from this example is that this is not an infobox problem. What is the right venue for this question? – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

You might be right that it isn't limited to the infobox. Look at User:Gonnym/sandbox/tests3 and compare to the mobile version. Notice how the issue has nothing to do with the specific image, but about the text. --Gonnym (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Adding "table-layout:fixed" to the table style fixed the resizing issue, but then the values for the table are off and need to be fixed. --Gonnym (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Add line for political party endorsement

I think we should add a line to allow for endorsements of political parties to be put. This can be used in situations where the election is officially nonpartisan but the candidates are pretty much partisan. For example, in the 2019 San Antonio mayoral election Ron Nirenberg was endorsed by Democrats and Greg Brockhouse was endorsed by Republicans. I think this will be able to create a way for a reader to understand the political leaning of nonpartisan candidates. - Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Can't you do this using the empty data fields? It seems pointless having a new parameter for uncommon situations. Or we could change the alliance parameter to make the title editable (so it could be called and changed to 'Endorsed by' or something? Number 57 13:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

New parameter for system

Please implement the version at the current sandbox. A new parameter is added for the voting system. Ythlev (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. This change is visible in a test case at Template:Infobox election/testcases#3. Personally, I don't think the new "System" label and value should be placed in its current location above the images of the candidates. I would like to see a few more examples of this parameter applied to elections in various countries and at various levels of government to understand how it would look and how it might be useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

A third option for "ongoing" for that period after voting but before final results

There should be a third option for "ongoing" for that period after voting but before final official results. For many places that can be days if not longer and in the meantime people who come to Wikipedia to learn might be confused. "Current" after voting implies that it is the new results, the results of the recent voting, and not the old, out-of-date results. Or maybe "yes" in "ongoing" should not be labeled as "current seats" but labeled as "previous election" or "seats before election". --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 08:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Political Positions

I propose we add political positions of parties and candidates in the Infobox election. It would be very helpful for the readers. They wouldn't have to go through each party to know which parties of the political spectrum performed how well (especially for countries with multiparty systems). Thank you. Manasbose (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Most infoboxes are already overloaded with information – this is definitely a step too far. Number 57 08:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

Allow for more than nine candidates to be included. SecretName101 (talk) 06:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd disapprove of this. I think more than nine candidates would make an infobox too big. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 07:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is a bad idea. It has been discussed before, there is not consensus for it. Consider using {{Infobox legislative election}} instead. I think we should like to that template in the documentation. ― Hebsen (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Beyond 9

What happens if you have more than 9 candidates? How does that get input? Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't; the maximum number is nine. The infobox is already too large once it goes beyond 3–6 candidates, so going beyond 9 is not a good idea. Number 57 08:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

As @Number 57: says, an infobox is a summary, and the layout of the article is already compromised once you get to six. In the event of a crowded field, editors should discuss how to decide a cut-off point. The UK elections tend to have a 5% cut-off for reference. doktorb _words^deeds 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Prime Minister or Prime minister in infobox?

Recently, @Surtsicna made the argument that as per MOS:JOBTITLES, the wording "Prime Minister before election" and "Elected Prime Minister " in the infoboxes should be rendered as "Prime minister" instead due to it being presented as sentence case; with a lower case "M". As such the editor made the change on the 2020 Singaporean general election page. While I have my doubts, I am willing to assist in rectifying all the pages from the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, Malaysia, Turkey.

Unfortunately, due to the example shown in the template in which the M is capitalised, I am afraid this might be a bigger project then I thought and I may have missed many countries with the Prime Minister as head of government. Would there be an easy Wiki solution to modify hundreds of infoboxes to change "Prime Minister" to "Prime minister"? Seloloving (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this change needs making. As far as I can see, use in the infobox is in line with the third point of MOS:JOBTITLES. Number 57 08:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Admittedly, the third clause of MOS:JOBTITLES is a little confusing for me to interpret. I suggest I will wait for Surtsicna to give their side of the argument and wait for more consensus before I revert it on the 2020 Singaporean general election page? Seloloving (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted it for now while we wait for Surtsicna to respond, seeing as the template specifically capitalises it. I feel any changes should be in accordance with the template being changed and not one specific article out of thousands due to a possible misinterpretation. Seloloving (talk) 03:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Use Prime Minister in the infoboxes. BTW, PM's aren't elected, they're appointed. GoodDay (talk) 04:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The "Elected" part is part of the template, I can't change it for a single article. In any case, the PM of Singapore isn't appointed, with the President of Singapore having no role in "appointing" the current prime minister. Seloloving (talk) 05:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

You can change it by using the posttitle parameter. But worth noting some Prime Ministers are indeed elected by parliament. For ones that aren't elected or appointed, you can just use "Subsequent Prime Minister" or something. Number 57 11:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

On the Canadian & British articles, we use Prime Minister before election & Prime Minister after election. GoodDay (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I have rectified the page to say exactly that with the "posttitle" parameter. Thank you both. Seloloving (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 August 2020

I'm not that well-versed in template, but this one seem to be wrong: {{{!}} cellspacing="0" ... Shouldn't it be {{!}} cellspacing="0" ...? This is below the data15 line. TrunghaiTĐN (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

My bad. Didn't realize it's a table. It's all good now. TrunghaiTĐN (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Row order for legislative elections

I find the row order of the party boxes in this template pretty confusing for legislative/parliamentary elections.

The biggest issue I find is finding a party's seat total or percentage: e.g. on 2019 United Kingdom general election, I see Boris Johnson's picture, glance down, and a few rows below it says "317 seats, 42.4%". Pretty clear... but that's actually what the party got at the previous election. The results for the election I'm looking at are below that. I've been looking at UK election-related articles on here for probably a decade and still get this wrong.

Is there any reason to not move the 'last election' row lower down? Surely on the page for a given election, the vote total and seats at the current election are more important facts?

I think there's also a case for a bigger re-ordering for legislative/parliamentary elections. The current ordering makes sense for presidential elections, but not for legislative ones. The leader's name is much less important than the party name; and I'm not sure if "Leader since" or "Leader's seat" deserve to be there at all, let alone higher than "Seats won".

I'd suggest perhaps:

• [Nominee]
• [Candidate]
• Party
• [I might concede to having Leader here, but not higher than party]
• [Home state]
• Seats won
• Seat change
• Popular vote
• Percentage
• Swing
• Last election
• Leader [Preferred location]
• (Maybe 'leader's seat' and 'leader since' if people really want them - maybe in a small tag?)

Thoughts? TSP (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

In response to a question when I alerted people to this at Talk:2019 United Kingdom general election#Row order on infobox, I did a quick survey of how some sources cover this information:

• BBC 2019 election front page: Party colour, party name, seat total, seat change.
• BBC 2019 election results page: Party colour, party name, party seat total, party logo, seat change, votes, vote share %, vote share change.
• The Guardian 2019 election results: Summary: Portrait of leader, party colour, party name, seat total, seat change. Results table: party colour, party name, seats, gains, losses, net seat change, vote share, vote share change, total votes.
• New York Times 2019 election results: party colour, party name, seats (plus map showing individual seats)
• Encylopedia Britannica on the 2015 General Election: Nothing analogous to an infobox. Narrative begins with leader name, winning party, overall majority.

I don't think I've seen any source that even includes the leader's parliamentary seat, or when they took office, let alone putting them higher up than the party's seat total. (I suspect prioritising leader name and origin is an artefact of this infobox being originally designed for US Presidential elections, not parliamentary ones.) TSP (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that "leader's seat" and "leader since" should be removed complete. I also think that "last election" should be removed completely, as it can be derived from seat change and swing. This infobox is really bloated, and needs trimming.

As for your order, It looks good in general. I would keep "leader" just below "party", and not in the very bottom. I would put "popular vote" last. I addition, I would put "percentage" just after "seat won", but I reckon not everyone would agree on that one. ― Hebsen (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with TSP. While one may want to retain "leader's seat" and "leader since" for some articles, I'd dump their use from UK general election articles. Part should come above party leader. Bondegezou (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I think I agree with Hebsen on completely removing 'last election'. As they say, it's derivable from the other details there; and if you do want to compare two elections, there's a link at the top to the previous election's article.

If other countries do for some reason value these details for their elections, we could just stop setting them for UK General Elections; but I'm inclined to think that the same arguments will apply (and if parameters exist, there is always a tendency to set them). TSP (talk) 11:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the last election row should be kept – I would prefer deleting the "seats before" row, as this leads to endless confusion and edit warring over the appropriate value for seat change. As usual, I'd also suggest we just use {{Infobox legislative election}}, which is a far more effective summary of the main points, as it only includes party, leader, vote share, seats and seat change. Number 57 11:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

This is rarest of the rare case. You can add those parties in Alliance segment maybe. Manasbose (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This discussion grew stale, but I think we should try to see if we can at least get something done, though not all at once. ― Hebsen (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I have moved my two proposals in this section to its own sections, to clarify that I do not wish to reopen this entire discussion, only those two points:

• #Put party before leader
• #Delete leader since and leader's seat

― Hebsen (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Put party before leader

See prior discussion on this issue here.

I suggest we put party before leader. For legislative elections, the party is more important than the leader, as multiple politicians from the parties are elected. For presidential elections, the parameters nominee and candidate is typically used instead, and these should still be above party. ― Hebsen (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Support I think that it does make "narrative sense", if you will, to place the party before leader. I can see how this makes the infobox more logical when read top-to-bottom. doktorb _words^deeds 21:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose obviously. The leader's location is not arbitrary, it's there because the leader's image is right above it. Moving the leader away from the image would disharmonize the equilibrium currently in place. Also, the sentence "the party is more important than the leader, as multiple politicians from the parties are elected" is not true, or not generally true. In some countries (Germany, Spain, Italy, UK) the parties do designate a single PM/chancellor candidate in parliamentary elections, who is the one leading the party into the election. The infobox already accounts both for general cases and particular cases; your proposal would just mutilate all parliamentary elections where there is a clearly-leading candidate. Consider WP:AINTBROKE. Impru20^talk 22:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

As a side note, note that one of the flagship examples of legislative elections in Wikipedia where the leader is important are US House of Representatives/Senate elections. Changes to parameters relating to legislative elections will affect those elections, of which there are dozens of articles for the US alone, which is typically one of the most contentious areas in Wikipedia when it comes to elections and which is (as of currently) stable. In my humble opinion, you don't want to open Pandora's box over there. Impru20^talk 22:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Request to show results of election before previous results

Currently, the template shows previous results first, both in percentage and number of seats. This can be confusing. See for example [2] [3]. I suggest to show first the results for that particular election before showing the previous election's results. Vpab15 (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how that is confusing. It's clearly stated what everything is in each note's row ("last election", "seats before"). Plus, the fact that swings and seat changes are shown just below make it even more straightforward. Impru20^talk 16:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the most important information in the template are the results, and they should go first. At the very least, they should go before the previous election's results. When skimming through the template, a lot of people won't notice the row name and will assume the first row with numbers is the actual election results. That is what happened to me and I don't think I am the only one. Vpab15 (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. Keep chronological order whenever possible. —GoldRingChip 17:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

A quick search online shows most (all?) media show the current election results before the ones from the previous election. As a rule, the most important information is shown before secondary information. Is there a reason not to follow that here? Vpab15 (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Most (if not all) media show election results vertically. The infobox shows them horizontally. Not sure you can make a comparison there, because design is not the same nor has to be the same, since Wikipedia's layout is not the same than that of media outlets either. To be honest: I've been in Wikipedia since 2011. The current infobox's design is even older than that. In that whole time, I've seen no instance where this was raised as an issue, and even new users and IP editors do frequently fill in the gaps in a quite straightforward way. I don't deny that this may pose a problem for you, but it's hard for me to understand how it is for everyone else (specially when compared to the issues that such a change as you propose will undoubtely cause, since many people will start raising it the other way around if the change is conducted). I'd say WP:DONTFIXIT applies here. Impru20^talk 17:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that in media sites the result are usually shown in a different way. But in all cases, when the previous results are shown, they are shown after the current ones. I'd say we should present the reader with the information they are after first (most likely the current results, not the previos ones). I understand the change might inconvenience some people already used to the current order for a short while, but I sincerely believe the change would be an improvement. Vpab15 (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

With a different layout, it's obvious they'll be shown differently. No surprises there. Since this is mostly-subjective change in design, whether it's an improvement or not will depend on each one's views (I for myself don't see it as an improvement, as it's all presented in a straightforward chronological way). But the fact that this would affect hundreds of articles, over an issue which has only been raised... once? in the past decade, and potentially causing inconvenience and confusion along the way, would be enough of a reason to not do it. Impru20^talk 17:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the issue was raised before and nobody opposed, although nobody took action either: [[4]]. Vpab15 (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

In 2010 (and from the discussion, it's clear there was not a consensus on what to do). So yes, it wasn't one time in the last decade. It was two (counting this one), and by a very small margin. Impru20^talk 18:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

It was discussed in December to give the ordering an overhaul and also trim it, but nothing came of it. I think we should try to do that again. I will open that discussion again, to see if we can pick some of the low-hanging fruits there (not any related to this proposal.)

On this proposal, I support in principle, but regretfully oppose at the moment. I see some issues that will make any implementation awkward. The thing is, while swing is always compared to the last election, seats changed is sometimes compared to last election (see April 2019 Spanish general election), and sometimes compared to seats before, i.e. taking party changes and by-elections since last election into account (see 2019 Canadian federal election). I think it will be weird to move down last election while keeping seats before on the top, but I also think it will be confusing to move seats before down and away from seats won and seats changed, as it then will not be very clear what seats changed refer to. ― Hebsen (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I see. On the part of the seats before row, indeed it's not the first time I see a discussion on its actual usefulness for elections that have been already held (outside Canada, the UK and some other country, it's typically left unused once the election is held). However, a complete overhaul is way different than what is being suggested here. If there's already concerns on the viability of changing just one row from place, think about the endless possibilities of attempting to agree on 12/13. For such a large-scale proposal, maybe proposing a brand new template would be better instead. Impru20^talk 21:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

So it seems this issue was raised multiple times. Could we just move the current seats and percentage to the top? I think that would be more clear to most people compared to how it is currently. Vpab15 (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually not this issue, and the discussion that has been re-opened above has been done so under an entirely different issue, taking advantage of your comment here. There was not even any initial agreement for that user to do so. What a mess. Impru20^talk 22:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

User TSP said "The biggest issue I find is finding a party's seat total or percentage". This is the same issue I raised here. I think it makes sense to change that first if there is consensus. I think it is clear by now that many readers find the current order for the seats confusing. Vpab15 (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

He has just asked whether to "put party before leader" and whether to "delete leader since and leader's seat". Nothing to do with your complaint, to which he courteously replied with an oppose. Your complaint has literally been used to revive a nine month-dead discussion on a full infobox overhaul which no one here has asked for. This is just so wonderful. Impru20^talk 22:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I understand your criticism, but it was not my intention to reopen the entire discussion, only those two points. I have therefore moved them out to their own sections so other people will not be confused about this again. ― Hebsen (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

My concerns came mostly because of this edit where you literally acknowledge having taken the opportunity to "try to see if we can at least get something done, though not all at once". It's not that you did anything bad by itself: it's ok for you to bring an issue for consideration here. But it didn't feel right to use an unrelated issue to revive a discussion which had already died out on its own and for which there was no apparent support beforehand. Impru20^talk 23:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it was not very elegant execution, I'll acknowledge that. I still believe there are some issues with the current ordering (hence my support in principle), but it is way to complicated to go at, better leave it as it is. I did not see this discussion as an opportunity, it was just what reminded me of the discussion. I thought there were some merits in it that was worth bringing up again. ― Hebsen (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify on the point above about seat change. It is always meant to be compared to the previous election, as is stated in the template documentation. Unfortunately some editors fail to follow this (as has happened on the Canadian article) – I suspect because the seats_before parameter creates confusion over the correct comparison (hence my previous suggestion above that it be removed). Number 57 15:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Delete leader since and leader's seat

See prior discussion on this issue here.

I think we should delete leader since and leader's seat from the infobox. I fail to see how these are important enough to be included in an already very bloated infobox. They appear to only be used in legislative elections. For presidential elections in federal states (e.g. Russia), home state is typically used instead of leader's seat, but I think we should keep that. ― Hebsen (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Partial support I think leader since could well go. This information is often found elsewhere, sometimes in the article, and as this does not have any direct relationship to the actual election being held, deletion would not be damaging. I would however keep leader's seat. This is often being fought at the election and has some direct link to the overall results. When looking at an infobox, it makes sense to see that Mr X represents Fooshire and the main opponent represents Foo-on-Sea, as this brings some context to the election overall. doktorb _words^deeds 21:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose They're at use right now. I don't see the usefulness in removing rows which are being very widely-used, and the fact that these appear to "only be used in legislative elections" is a poor excuse (the infobox is intended to cover different election types. Some rows are specific to presidential elections, some others to parliamentary ones, others are just common to both of them), specially when you are defending we should be giving more importance to those rows depending on the election type (removing leaders' seat but keeping home state. Don't you defend removing that "because it only appear to be used in presidential elections"?). Also, I'm sure it won't be you the one volunteering to amend the hundreds of election articles using these rows. WP:AINTBROKE. Impru20^talk 22:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

My comment about legislative elections/presidential elections were not an argument, but rather intended to be neutral information about where it is used. The change can be implemented by simply ignoring the parameters "leader_sinceN" and "leaders_seatN", which would not require any changes to pages using it. ― Hebsen (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

And leaving easter eggs worth of usable information out there just to cause more confusion to passer-by editors? I still don't understand what's the usefulness of this proposal. No one requires you to use the leader since and leader's seat fields if you don't want to, but you'll be forcing everyone else to not use those even where useful (while allowing the home state one in presidential elections, though) if your proposal goes ahead. Cannot see the logic of it.

IMHO, something at the level you suggest should probably be better handled with a different infobox, considering the scope of the changes initially proposed in December 2019. At least if that's the ultimate goal of these proposals. Otherwise, mutilating this one will only cause major havok in a lot of articles already using these fields (and pretending that they can just be left over by ignoring the parameters is not really an argument). Impru20^talk 22:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I understand the parameters are optional, and that one should be wary of changing a central template used on many pages. But I also believe that these specific parameters are mostly used not because the editors find them useful, but just because they are there. That editors simply fill out all the relevant fields in the template, or copy from another election, and then keep them for consistency. ― Hebsen (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's possible, but I think that it should pertain to each country/region/etc. to check whether the use of those parameters is appropiate or not. Factually, it's already done for some of the parameters already in there (the polls ones, which are there but no one really cares about them). However, many countries already use them correctly when appropiate, so depriving editors from using them just to prevent a misuse of them would both 1) damage the articles that use them correctly; and 2) represent a bad precedent for infoboxes in general, with us giving the impression than, rather than instructing people on how to use some parameters the proper way, we ought to cancel them to bar its use by anyone. And as I noted in the section below for US legislative elections (which do extensively use these), this will only lead to the opening of Pandora's box over there. Impru20^talk 23:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Tentative support. I support removing superfluous information like leader since and leader's seat . However, we will need a wider consensus before removing a field already in use. Vpab15 (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Partial support I agree with doktorb. --MisterElection2001 (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Tentative support I don't think I've seen an article where these contribute to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Are either of these ever the key facts about an election? Are they ever useful to a reader without the broader context that prose can give? The circumstances under which Jacinda Ardern became NZ Labour leader ahead of the 2017 New Zealand general election are interesting, as is the effect she had on that election an important and noteworthy thing, but you need prose to convey that. The date she became leader isn't so important and tells the reader very little. I'm afraid I don't know much about the practicalities of implementation so bow to others' expressed caution, but I don't see what the appropriate use of these parameters could be and would be happy to see the template lose them. Ralbegen (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Use of colors for turnout bar

Hello. As mentioned here on the Jamaican general election, the use of green and red for the turnout bar can be misleading, as those are also colors used by parties in many countries. Could it be possible to switch back to a turnout bar in grey, as I recall it being before? With the currently green part showing the turnout in a darker shade of grey, and the remaining part showing 100 % in a lighter one. I believe this to be more neutral, and just as effective at showing the turnout effectively. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with the infobox. Someone (an editor with an obsession with eyewatering coloured stuff) has used {{Percentile}} in the turnout field and has specified those colours. It should just be removed and replaced with the percentage figure as usual. Number 57 19:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

It's quite ugly indeed. Can't see any particular usefulness for it. You can remove it manually by editing it out from the turnout row. Impru20^talk 20:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I thought it was something more complicated. Thanks for your help!--Aréat (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

last_election1 or seats_before1?

When should I use last_election1 vs. seats_before1? They seem to be pretty randomly chosen. DemonDays64 (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

They are for different things. last_election is for how many seats a party won at the last election. seats_before is how many seats a party had just before an election (this can change due to defections, by-elections etc). The seat change should always be compared to the last election. Unfortunately the seats_before function seems to confuse people and personally I would be in favour of scrapping it. Number 57 10:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree these are somewhat chaotic, because normally election results are compared (and, in my opinion, should be compared) to previous election results. I personally only use "seats_before" for "next election" articles, to show the current parliamentary distribution in the infobox, but I tend to scrap it once the election is held and we have actual results. Some Westminster-system countries do use these beyond that (I can think of 2019 Canadian federal election and 2017 New Zealand general election at this time), but I think it brings more confusion than any actual help. Impru20^talk 10:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)